Late June MQT answers

Tube noise [1]

Question No: 2018/1541

Andrew Dismore

Before the concrete sleepers and new track profile began to be installed on all lines, what research, work or other consideration was given to the likely increase in noise generated by these changes, compared to the traditional wooden sleepers and rail profile?

Written response from the Mayor

London Underground has been operating since 1863, and keeping this system moving is a unique challenge. Although there are no legal limits on the amount of noise or vibration that can be emitted from trains operating on existing railways, Transport for London (TfL) is still required to use reasonable endeavours to minimise disturbance and to keep noise and vibration to a minimum, while undertaking their statutory duties.

Where new railways are proposed, noise and vibration are considered as part of the planning process, and mitigation will likely be incorporated into the design to control noise and vibration.

TfL’s understanding of noise and vibration, at the time this type of track renewal started in the mid 2000s, was not as sophisticated as it is now, and the impact on noise and vibration would not have been considered in detail.

The ‘new’ Flat Bottom rail profile, installed on concrete sleepers, is an industry standard, and was initially designed in the 1930s. Compared to the Bullhead rail profile on timber sleepers, the Flat Bottom rail profile delivers a significant increase in safety performance. This is largely as a result of the significant reduction in the risk of rail breaks.

Noise and vibration reduction have been important factors in the development of a new trackform, which has been introduced since 2015. TfL do now consider the impact on noise and vibration prior to carrying out this type of work.

 

More broadly, TfL understand the importance of minimising noise levels for their neighbours, and is determined to do more to achieve this. I continue to press TfL to carry on actively working with suppliers and academics to innovate and develop new technology to improve noise levels across the network.

 

 

Tube noise [2]

Question No: 2018/1542

Andrew Dismore

Before train automation went live what research, work or other consideration was given to the likely increase in noise generated by these changes, compared to the traditional driver controlled braking?

Written response from the Mayor

Transport for London’s (TfL’s) understanding of noise and vibration at the time train automation was introduced was not as sophisticated as it is now, and assessing impacts on noise and vibration was not the priority it currently is.

The implementation of automatic train control does not in itself lead to increased noise and vibration, and rail corrugation still occurs where automatic train control is not in place. Automatic train control increases average trains speeds, allowing more trains per hour on the London Underground network, increasing capacity and benefiting customers.

Automatic train control does result in trains consistently braking and accelerating at the same point, which can lead to track deterioration occurring more quickly at these points. Additional trains can also lead to further track deterioration which, if not addressed, could lead to increased noise and vibration over time.

Track condition is addressed by TfL’s regular maintenance programme, which ensures that track is replaced or repaired as appropriate.

 

 

Tube noise [3]

Question No: 2018/1543

Andrew Dismore

By each line, how many complaints have there been about tube generated noise in the year to date and each of the last 3 years?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Below figures show the number of noise and vibration complaints, from nearby properties, which relate to the day-to-day running of the Tube network.  The 2018 data is current up to 11 June 2018.

 

2016

Bakerloo  – 13

Central – 79

District – 38

Hammersmith & City – 11

Jubilee – 26

Metropolitan – 17

Northern – 86
Piccadilly – 24
Victoria – 80
Waterloo & City – 1
Total – 375

 

2017

Bakerloo  – 7

Central – 52

District – 28

Hammersmith & City – 16

Jubilee – 17

Metropolitan – 8

Northern – 90
Piccadilly – 19
Victoria – 77
Waterloo & City – 0
Total – 314

 

2018

Bakerloo  – 1

Central – 20

District – 6

Hammersmith & City – 5

Jubilee – 6

Metropolitan – 0

Northern – 22
Piccadilly – 4
Victoria – 28
Waterloo & City – 0
Total – 92

 

 

Tube noise [4]

Question No: 2018/1544

Andrew Dismore

What progress has there been in obtaining a rail grinding machine that can work in the Northern Line tunnels?

Written response from the Mayor

Transport for London (TfL) has rail grinding machines that operate on the Northern line. However, due to ventilation issues, there are sections of the Tube, on both the Northern line and other parts of the network, where grinding cannot be carried out.

TfL understand the importance of minimising noise levels for their neighbours, and is determined to do more to achieve this. TfL is exploring the possibility of purchasing an electric-powered rail grinder for use across the Tube network, although there would still be areas where ventilation issues would mean grinding cannot be carried out.

Rail grinding is not an effective long-term method for reducing noise and vibration. Grinding is predominantly used to maximise rail life and reduce the risk of rail defects.

 

 

Tube noise [5]

Question No: 2018/1545

Andrew Dismore

Over the bank holiday weekend, TfL replaced 800 tonnes of old track bed with new granite ballast, installed longer life concrete sleepers and new rail at Finchley Central. What assessment was given to the risks of an increase in tube noise as a result of these works creating a noise nuisance for those living near the line?

Written response from the Mayor

The work at Finchley Central to replace older track has delivered improved safety, a smoother ride for customers and has removed a number of rail joints.

In tunnelled sections of track, wear and tear of the rails can lead to increased vibration, which can then be transmitted further into the ground through concrete sleepers. These issues are not replicated on above ground sections such as at Finchley Central as the vibrational energy is dispersed into the air and not into the surrounding ground.

The work carried out at Finchley Central over the Bank Holiday weekend has resulted in a number of impulsive noise sources being removed and should result in the resolution of some complaints in the area. Transport for London (TfL) is following up with all the individual residents affected to assess whether there has been a reduction in noise.

In tunnelled sections, TfL has applied its knowledge of noise and vibration issues so that all track renewals involving concrete sleepers or bases incorporate resilient elements to reduce the impact of vibration, with no increase to the noise generated within the tunnel.

 

I’ve asked TfL to arrange for you to view some of this work in action with one of its track teams. Officers will be in touch with you to arrange this.

 

 

Question tile: Tube noise [6]

Question No: 2018/1546

Andrew Dismore

What consultation with residents was there before the bank holiday works at Finchley Central, about the issue of tube noise as a consequence of the works?

Written response from the Mayor

Transport for London (TfL) is required to use reasonable endeavours to minimise disturbance and to keep noise and vibration to a minimum, while undertaking their statutory duties.

Although TfL is not required to consult residents when upgrading track, permission was sought from the local authority to undertake this work. TfL also informed local residents of the potential for disruption, as is normal. As part of this process, over 3500 letters were delivered to residents advising them of the work and how to contact TfL should they have a query.

 

 

Tube noise [7]

Question No: 2018/1547

Andrew Dismore

What advice will you give to long standing residents who face relatively recently generated increases in significant tube noise above 40Db after Transport for London have done such mitigation works as they can, and will not do anymore?

Written response from the Mayor

There are many sites across the Underground network where, due to the age of the track infrastructure and current technology, it is not always possible to reduce the noise levels to the standards that residents would like.

Transport for London (TfL) will continue to do all it possibly can to minimise noise and limit disruption to residents living above or close to the Tube.

In areas where noise cannot currently be reduced to standards expected by residents, TfL continue to work alongside industry and academia to further understand noise and vibration and to trial new products and innovative ways to find solutions.

 

 

Tube noise [8]

Question No: 2018/1548

Andrew Dismore

My constituent Razana Yoosuf of Mornington Crescent first raised her problems with Tube noise on 1 Nov 2016 and, after 19 months, she is still waiting for her complaint to be satisfactorily resolved with many readings exceeding 40DB after mitigation measures were implemented. Do you consider this to be satisfactory; and, if not, what are you going to do about it?

Written response from the Mayor

Transport for London (TfL) has been working closely with Razana Yoosuf in dealing with the noise complaints she has raised.  We have undertaken noise monitoring at her property and have installed 400m of rail damping equipment across three of the four lines at Mornington Crescent.  This has resulted in a reduction of up to 13dB for train movements heard within the property.  TfL has put in place various measures to mitigate noise in this area, and hope in the future to have the technology and equipment to further reduce noise and vibration. Unfortunately, at present, there is little more that can be done to further reduce Tube noise. TfL continues to work alongside industry and academia to further understand noise and vibration and to trial new products and solutions.

 

Tube noise [9]

Question No: 2018/1549

Andrew Dismore

To what extent was noise pollution considered in the design and commissioning of the recent investment in new tube trains?

Written response from the Mayor

I continue to press TfL to carry on actively working with suppliers to innovate and develop new technology to improve noise levels across the network. For the next generation of Deep Tube trains (for use on the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines), Transport for London has included requirements for improved suspensions systems. This, along with track quality improvements, will optimise performance at the wheel-rail interface by ensuring the trains will be better suited to the infrastructure and operating environment of each line. This interface is the key determinant of noise and vibration on the Tube network.

 

 

Tube noise [10]

Question No: 2018/1550

Andrew Dismore

I have been trying for several months to arrange a site visit with Transport for London (TfL) engineers to places along the Northern Line that are suffering excessive noise; at the London Assembly Plenary meeting on your Environmental Strategy, you agreed that the new Deputy Mayor for Transport would also visit these locations with me. Will you now instruct TfL to stop prevaricating and arrange these visits?

Written response from the Mayor
I understand that Transport for London (TfL) officers have met with you and residents on a number of occasions to discuss noise issues from the Northern line.

The new Deputy Mayor for Transport is meeting with you this month to discuss the issue of Tube Noise, and TfL officers are in touch with your office regarding a further visit with residents around Kentish Town and Mornington Crescent.

 

 

 

 

EU funding (1)

Question No: 2018/1585

Andrew Dismore

Reports suggest that the UK is set to be offered less generous access to EU funding than countries with associate status in the current programme, known as Horizon 2020, including Israel, Turkey, Albania and Ukraine. What would the impact be on London?

Written response from the Mayor

London organisations – largely  science and higher education institutions – have been awarded just over €1bn out of €4.5bn for the UK as a whole through the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme so far.  London partners received €1.3bn from its 2007-13 predecessor programme; and TfL and the GLA co-ordinate or participate in these projects.

 

Research, government and business across London and the UK will obviously be very adversely affected if existing or similar access is not maintained.

 

I therefore continue to urge the Government to agree maximum access to the 2021-27 Horizon Europe programme, as part of Brexit negotiations.

 

 

EU funding (2)

Question No: 2018/1586

Andrew Dismore

Do you have a backup plan for London if the UK does not receive or receives a less generous EU funding package?

Written response from the Mayor

The Commission 2021-2027 EU budget includes €100 billion for research and innovation as part of the Horizon Europe programme, also available for associate countries.

 

The UK Government has already stated its desire to continue to participate in such programmes; and the onus is on the Government to bring its negotiations with the EU to access these funds in future to a successful conclusion. I will continue to push them to do so.

 

I also continue to push for devolved, domestic replacement funds for the  £1billion+ European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund programmes currently managed by City Hall.

 

 

Victims of crime and immigration enforcement

Question No: 2018/1558

Andrew Dismore

There are worrying reports that more than half of UK police forces are handing over victims of crime to the Home Office for immigration enforcement, creating fears that this approach is stopping vulnerable people – including rape victims – reporting crimes, and playing into the hands of traffickers. What is the Met’s approach to this; and what advice would you give to victims of crime who may be undocumented migrants as to reporting the crime?

Written response from the Mayor

I am committed to ensuring the needs of victims at the heart of everything the criminal justice service does. Of foremost importance to us all is that victims feel able to come forward to report crime; I have and will continue challenge any actions taken by partners that may deter victims from coming forward in future.

 

In respect of the immigration status of some victims, the Police are required by law to share information they become aware of with the Home Office. The National Police Chief Council has provided some additional guidance to police forces explaining the extent of their discretion in carrying out an arrest in these circumstances. Sharing of information by the MPS with the Home Office is assessed on a case by case basis and will only occur where Police have a genuine concern that an individual is here illegally. When and how Police arrest someone is dependent on a number of factors, including their vulnerability and risk to public, this assessment is carried out on a case by case basis. The police primary focus is always the needs of the victim above other considerations.  When someone reports a crime, police role is to investigate that matter and bring any offenders to justice.

 

I am aware there have been arrests made to victims of crime and the Victims Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, is leading the way on this issue and has convened a second roundtable with Deputy Mayor Sophie Linden recently on safe routes to reporting crime.   Statutory partners and partners who directly support migrant groups and specialist women organisations came together to address these very problems and there was agreement from partners to tackle and resolve these very issues so we can ensure that victims have the confidence that when they report they will be safe and treated with dignity.  I look forward to supporting the Victims Commissioner in taking forward the action and learning from that roundtable.

 

 

 

Post Grenfell Tower fire [4]

Question No: 2018/1578

Andrew Dismore

What is your view of the Hackitt report and its recommendations?

Written response from the Mayor

Dame Judith has provided a framework for change but Government urgently need to outline a detailed response and plans for implementation.

 

I was pleased to see that Dame Judith recognised the important role that the planning system can play in ensuring developments are safe at the earliest possible stage. This is exactly what my draft London Plan seeks to achieve with the fire safety policy.

 

Some of the recommendations however fell short of the wholesale reform of building regulations that is needed.  It was particularly disappointing that the report failed to recommend a ban on combustible cladding in high-rise blocks. I will continue to press Government to ensure that this does not become a missed opportunity to radically improve the safety of residential buildings across the country.

 

 

 

FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare