Transport written questions, March 17
Mill Hill East
Question No: 2017/1797
Andrew Dismore
Will you restore the through trains at Mill Hill East throughout the day as it is now a much busier station since this service was cut back?
Written response from the Mayor
Mill Hill East remains the quietest station on the Northern line. The shuttle service ensures that services are timetabled to meet the demands of the greatest number of customers. I am afraid that reintroducing through trains would have a negative impact on journey time and reliability for customers travelling to High Barnet, Totteridge & Whetstone, Woodside Park or West Finchley.
The shuttle service runs approximately every 12 minutes during the peak, which is sufficient for the demand at the station. TfL is unable to increase the frequency of the shuttle service due to the single track layout. This means that only one train at a time can enter, allow passengers to alight, board and exit. The Northern line timetable schedules the departure of the Mill Hill East shuttle shortly after a train arrives into Finchley Central station to ensure that customers can easily and quickly continue their journey.
Stirling Corner
Question No: 2017/1798
Andrew Dismore
Will you give an update on the improvement to pedestrian crossing and cycling facilities at Stirling Corner?
Written response from the Mayor
TfL is making good progress designing improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at Stirling Corner – including looking at the feasibility of installing a new signalised toucan (cyclist and pedestrian) crossing on the southern side of the roundabout. Public consultation on the proposals is expected by this autumn.
Euston and Kings Cross overcrowding 1
Question No: 2017/1799
Andrew Dismore
On how many occasions were a) Euston and b) Kings Cross underground stations closed fully or partially due to overcrowding in the last 3 months?
Written response from the Mayor
Crowding is more often a consequence rather than a cause of delays. London’s success means the city’s population is growing, which is why TfL is delivering one of the biggest modernisation programmes in the world, to meet London’s growing demand.
TfL staff carefully manage the flows of customers at stations to ensure a safe travel environment and minimum inconvenience for customers. Sometimes this requires stations to be closed, for a short time, in order to relieve congestion.
Below is the data you requested. The data is taken from the number of gateline closures. Gateline closures can, however, be caused by other factors such as gates losing power, staff unavailability, critical asset failures or security issues. It is therefore likely that not all these closures were caused by congestion.
King’s Cross St Pancras
Main ticket hall – 14 occasions for an average of 13 minutes
North ticket hall – 11 occasions for an average of 12 minutes
Metropolitan ticket hall – 10 occasions for an average of 15 minutes
Euston
Ticket hall – 12 occasions for an average of four minutes
Please see the attached table for further information.
TfL continues to keep the situation at all busy stations under review, including looking at what further measures may be required in the future to manage rising demand for Tube services.
Euston and Kings Cross overcrowding 2
Question No: 2017/1800
Andrew Dismore
On how many occasions were a) Euston and b) Kings Cross underground stations’ entrance barriers reduced to limit overcrowding in the last 3 months?
Written response from the Mayor
To help prevent crowding, station staff use a range of measures to control the number of customers entering platforms which may include the closure or partial closure of ticket gatelines.
TfL does not record or hold data of instances where gatelines were reduced or partially closed. Information on full station entrance closures at Euston and King’s Cross St. Pancras can be found in answer MQ 2017/1799 and its appendix.
384 bus
Question No: 2017/1794
Andrew Dismore
The 384 bus route is a popular route in the north of Barnet, serving residents of Cockfosters, East Barnet, New Barnet and High Barnet, many of whom live a long way from other bus routes. It forms an important transport link to Barnet Hospital, JCOSS and High Barnet station. Yet TfL plan on reducing the frequency of the service in weekdays from 15 minutes to 20 minutes, and remove the extra bus serving the JCOSS School run. Will you reverse this decision and ensure all Londoners have access to regular bus services?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly
Tube Noise Complaints in London
Question No: 2017/1812
Andrew Dismore
Further to Question No: 2017/0559:
‘Can you please give the numbers of tube noise complaints TfL have received for the past 5 years – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016 – and their location on the tube map?’
Your response being:
‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’.
Will you now provide a substantive reply?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Buses on Oxford Street
Question No: 2017/0560
Andrew Dismore
Further to Question No: 2016/4844:
“If the Elizabeth Line, when open, is being used as an excuse to cut bus routes that use Oxford St, will bus passengers be able to travel on the Elizabeth Line for free for the length of Oxford St, to pick up another bus at the other end of Oxford Street?”
Your response being:
“The opening of the Elizabeth line will be the most significant transformation to transport in central London for a generation and we predict there will be a reduction in bus use along Oxford Street when it comes into operation in two years’ time. It is entirely appropriate for wider transport networks to be re-examined as part of this huge project.
We plan to consult on a scheme to transform Oxford Street next year.”
By how many and what percentage do you predict that bus use along Oxford St will reduce as a result of the Elizabeth Line; will you now answer the original substantive question,
namely ‘will bus passengers be able to travel on the Elizabeth Line for free for the length of Oxford St, to pick up another bus at the other end of Oxford Street?'; and in due course when you have cut Oxford St buses, will you provide a ‘mobility shuttle’ for disabled people?
Written response from the Mayor
The current situation of crowding, casualties and congestion on Oxford Street needs to be addressed and the opening of the Elizabeth line provides the opportunity to radically improve transport in the West End. If nothing is done, there would be a serious risk of over-crowding, worsening traffic congestion and further reduced air quality in the future. This is why I am absolutely committed to the transformation of Oxford Street. TfL and Westminster City Council are working on proposals to transform the district, by significantly reducing traffic volumes.
These proposals will improve the public realm, create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, support business growth, create jobs, improve air quality and deliver improved neighbourhoods for residents.
The levels of street clutter and crowding currently experienced on Oxford Street are significant deterrents to visiting the street for those with reduced mobility. The new, accessible Elizabeth line stations at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road will improve access, however, I agree that access for those who arrive by bus or taxi or who require Blue Badge parking must key considerations of the transformation plan.
Considering the needs of all London’s residents and visitors, including those with reduced mobility, is essential. An Equalities Impact Assessment will be commissioned to assist with the development of the proposals and TfL and Westminster City Council are engaging with accessibility organisations. It is too early to say whether or not a mobility shuttle will be the best way to ensure the full accessibility of Oxford Street, but I encourage you to participate in the consultation process for this transformative scheme.
There are no proposals to provide free or reduced rate travel on the Elizabeth line beyond the existing wide range of schemes such as the Freedom Pass, Travelcards and daily capping.
Crossrail 2
Question No: 2017/1814
Andrew Dismore
Do you agree that without Crossrail 2, London will face daily closures due to overcrowding at key stations?
Written response from the Mayor
Yes. TfL’s modelling demonstrates serious crowding and regular station closures at 17 central London stations including Euston, Victoria, Clapham Junction and Waterloo without Crossrail 2. The project is vital to prevent London’s transport network from grinding to a halt.
HS2 [1]
Question No: 2017/1815
Andrew Dismore
Do you agree that without Crossrail 2 any passenger time savings from HS2 will be lost as a result of onward delays and tube station closures at Euston; and that pending Crossrail 2, the best solution to avoid such an impact on both HS2 and existing passengers at Euston is for a temporary terminus for HS2 at Old Oak Common?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
HS2 [2]
Question No: 2017/1816
Andrew Dismore
Do you agree that there are many reasons why Old Oak Common should be designated as a temporary terminus for HS2 but high among them are that by delaying High Speed Rail services into Euston until Crossrail 2 services commence this also offers the dual benefits of (a) allowing agencies to work together to integrate the different construction schemes to help mitigate some of the disruption and; (b) helping to significantly reduce crowding particularly on the already overstretched Northern and Victoria line services during peak periods, which will make transiting through Euston that much easier for passengers. Will you make further representations to the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure the Government hears this message loud and clear?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
HS2 [3]
Question No: 2017/1817
Andrew Dismore
Will you seek urgent clarification from the Government about their plans to move the HS2 tunnel portals in Camden from the top of Parkway to a location south of Mornington Street Bridge – several hundred metres nearer to the station – and which would have the potential to greatly reduce the levels of damage and disruption to residents of Camden in and around the approaches to the station?
Written response from the Mayor
The plans you refer to relate to a requirement by the Secretary of State for High Speed 2 (HS2) Ltd to mitigate impacts on residents, businesses, and the public by retaining the existing bridges at Hampstead Road, Granby Terrace, and Mornington Street.
TfL understands that the design currently being developed by HS2 Ltd proposes relocation of the tunnel portal to south of Mornington Street Bridge, meaning that the three bridges can be retained. HS2 Ltd has my support to develop this option further, with the aim of reducing any impact on the local community as much as possible.
Barking-to-Gospel Oak line
Question No: 2017/1818
Andrew Dismore
The 14-mile Barking-to-Gospel Oak line has reopened after a nine-month £130million upgrade, but is soon to close again because of a catalogue of errors by Network Rail. Why did this occur; for how long will it close; and what compensation to regular passengers and to the GLA will be made by Network Rail?
Written response from the Mayor
As Mike Brown, TfL Commissioner, told the London Assembly Transport Committee on Thursday 2 March, TfL has expressed concerns on behalf of its customers at the highest level in Network Rail and has stressed the importance of a robust plan to complete the remaining work.
A comprehensive review into why Network Rail was unable to complete the project within the original timeframe is underway and they will share the outcome as soon as possible. Network Rail has publicly apologised and has stated that an updated programme is imminent. Once that plan has been confirmed, TfL will provide detailed guidance to customers and others who are affected.
TfL is seeking to recover its losses from Network Rail. Funds recovered will be used to provide replacement buses and customer information.
TfL earnings
Question No: 2017/1819
Andrew Dismore
In the year 2015/16, how many TfL staff received more than £100,000 in remuneration including, but not limited to, overtime, bonuses, and other salary supplements; and how many are expected to earn over £100, 000 in the current financial year to the end of March 2017?
Written response from the Mayor
The number of TfL staff receiving remuneration of £100,000 or more in 2015/16 was 402 as detailed on page 179 of its annual report (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2015-16.pdf).
The 2016/17 statutory accounts will be published in draft in June.
Golders Green Station
Question No: 2017/1820
Andrew Dismore
The rear entrance to Golders Green Station at Finchley Road immediately adjacent to the 102 and H2 bus stop was closed several years ago, meaning bus users on these routes have to waste approximately 5 minutes in order to reach the front entrance to the station. Will you ask TFL to reopen this rear entrance and if not, why?
Written response from the Mayor
TfL has to prioritise its spending and, at the current time, the money that would be needed to re-open the rear entrance at Golders Green could be better used to make improvements elsewhere, to the benefit of a greater number of customers.
Re-opening this entrance after 20 years of disuse would require significant cost to demolish the offices that have been constructed, install and staff the gateline, install a secure staffing area, and modernise the CCTV and lighting.
TfL will however continue to keep this under review to ensure that it is making the best use of its assets and maximising value for customers.
Congestion charge [1]
Question No: 2017/1821
Andrew Dismore
Do any embassies and high commissions recognise the congestion charge, and pay it regularly; and if so which ones?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Congestion charge [2]
Question No: 2017/1822
Andrew Dismore
Which embassies and high commissions refuse to pay the congestion charge?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Congestion charge [3]
Question No: 2017/1823
Andrew Dismore
What is the total debt owed to London for the congestion charge by embassies, high commissions and their staff?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Congestion charge [4]
Question No: 2017/1824
Andrew Dismore
What progress is being made by the Foreign Secretary in instituting proceedings at the International Court of Justice to clarify the law regarding diplomatic immunity in order to force recalcitrant governments to pay the congestion charge?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Parking and traffic tickets (1)
Question No: 2017/1825
Andrew Dismore
Do any embassies and high commissions pay TfL parking and traffic tickets regularly; and if so which ones?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Parking and traffic tickets (2)
Question No: 2017/1826
Andrew Dismore
Which embassies and high commissions refuse to pay TfL parking and traffic tickets?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
TfL parking and traffic tickets (3)
Question No: 2017/1827
Andrew Dismore
What is the total debt owed to London for TfL parking and traffic tickets by embassies, high commissions and their staff?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
T charge
Question No: 2017/1828
Andrew Dismore
Have Embassies and High Commissions a) been notified of the forthcoming T charge ; and b) agreed that they and their diplomatic staff should pay the T charge when introduced; c) if not why not; and d) if any have indicated they will not pay, which are they?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Pedestrian crossing in Wood Street High Barnet
Question No: 2017/0563
Andrew Dismore
What public consultation did TfL undertake with High Barnet local residents, pensioner organisations, and with any users of the crossing, particularly the parents of the numerous small children who use the playground which is just inside the Old Court House Recreation Ground, about the changes to the crossing?
Written response from the Mayor
This is a much-improved pedestrian crossing which now complies with Department for Transport regulations and is safer than the crossing it replaced. The works at this location were part of TfL’s annual modernisation programme.
TfL consulted with London Borough of Barnet officers about the changes and the borough supported the proposals.
TfL will continue to monitor this location to ensure the crossing is operating both safely and correctly.
A5 bus routes
Question No: 2017/1830
Andrew Dismore
TfL has decided to cut/shorten various of our bus routes especially on the A5 in spite of overwhelming opposition to all parts of their proposals and as the curtailment of the 189 leaves no step-free access to Oxford Street east of Selfridges for passengers from there thus denying access to Oxford Street to the less mobile, and with no bus going east of the main A5 from Cricklewood/Kilburn, what reassurances can you give to passengers so inconvenienced?
Written response from the Mayor
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Camden Street
Question No: 2017/1831
Andrew Dismore
Further to Question No: 2017/0253:
‘The lack of pedestrian crossing on the east side of the Camden St/Camden Rd junction is proving very difficult for the school commute for children and their families from Hawley and St Martin’s Primary Schools. Will you ensure that officers from TfL actively propose improvements to pedestrian crossings as part of their ongoing review of traffic flow in the area?’
Your response being:
‘Transport for London has undertaken design work on a scheme to reduce road danger on Camden Road. Options for improved pedestrian facilities at the junction of Camden Street and Camden Road will be considered as part of future refinement of this design, and I have asked TfL to do all it can to prioritise pedestrians as part of this scheme. Funding for the construction of the Camden Road scheme has been included in TfL’s five year business plan’.
When do you envisage this work being done as part of the 5 year plan; and when do you envisage construction work on the scheme to be done?
Written response from the Mayor
TfL is working now on developing a set of proposals for improved pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Camden Street and Camden Road.
While the timetable for construction is yet to be confirmed, and depends on further design and approvals, delivery is currently planned to coordinate with other planned works in the Camden area in 2020.
TfL will however look at opportunities to bring this forward, if at all possible.
Archway traffic scheme bus and motorcycle collision
Question No: 2017/1832
Andrew Dismore
Are you aware that on 15 February 2017 in your new Archway traffic scheme, very recently introduced despite huge public opposition, there was a collision between a motorcyclist and a bus resulting in serious injury to the motorcyclist. In light of this crash, will you now urgently review this traffic scheme?
Written response from the Mayor
I was very sorry to hear of this collision. While it is difficult to comment on individual incidents, particularly when investigations are continuing, the Archway scheme and the new road layout has been subject to a robust road safety audit of the highest standard throughout its design and construction.
TfL is closely monitoring the new highway layout and is working with the Police to understand the specific circumstances of this incident. Any recommendations resulting from the investigation will of course be treated with the utmost urgency.
PCN mitigation
Question No: 2017/1833
Andrew Dismore
Further to Question No: 2017/0561
‘In a recent case involving one of my constituents, it transpires that local authorities, who do not accept PCN appeal representations solely based on mitigating factors, are not making clear to those appealing in their rejection letters that the London Tribunal does not accept mitigating factors as a ground to cancel a PCN. Residents are thus erroneously led to make a further appeal to the Tribunal when they have zero chance of success, and so end up having to pay the full penalty fare instead of the discounted early pay rate. Will you undertake to write to all Councils in London to advise them that they should make clear in their appeal rejection letters that appeals solely based on mitigating factors are not accepted by London Tribunals as a ground for cancelling a PCN, which will save Londoners money?’
Your response being:
‘All London enforcing authorities, including TfL, have a duty to inform customers of their statutory rights in relation to the process for appealing a PCN. The decision to exercise those rights remains entirely with the PCN recipient. The information contained in the Notice of Rejection letters from enforcing authorities is a matter for the individual boroughs, authorities and London Councils.
In February, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) published a report on its investigation into ensuring good practice in the management of parking and traffic penalties. One of the report’s findings was that Councils should do more to inform motorists of their rights when issuing parking and traffic penalties, including providing clear and transparent information to improve trust between motorists and authorities and to save motorists from paying unnecessary charges. I support the LGO’s findings and, as the Joint Committee for London with respect to parking and traffic enforcement, I urge London Councils to note these findings.
London enforcing authorities must also sign up to London Councils’ Code of Practice as a condition of enforcement.’
Does this London Councils’ Code of Practice advise Councils in London that they should make clear in their appeal rejection letters that appeals solely based on mitigating factors are not accepted by London Tribunals as a ground for cancelling a PCN; and do you agree that if it doesn’t, it should; and if Councils do not do this, do you agree that they are not giving motorists a fair crack of the whip by effectively preventing them paying the discounted ticket price in the false hope that mitigating factors will be taken into account on appeal, when they won’t?
Written response from the Mayor
London Councils publishes its Codes of Practice on its website:
However, as I said in my response to MQ 2017/0561, the content of their Notice of Rejection is a matter for individual boroughs. The London Tribunals appeal form that authorities are obliged to enclose with a Notice of Rejection clearly advises Appellants that the Adjudicator can only allow an appeal on specific grounds.
