Duration:10.45 13.30 (Sitting 2Hrs 34 Minutes)

Event:IDAG

Date:Monday, 15 June 2015

Duration:10.45 – 13.30 (sitting 2hrs 34 minutes)

Speakers:Alice MaynardChair

Peter WrightPW

Matt YatesMY

Elaine SeagriffES

Marie PyeMP

Laily ThompsonLT

Olav ErnstzenOE

Roger HewittRH

Kamran MallickKM

Salli BoothSB

Agenda:The Chair’s Introduction

The work and scope of TfL

Major Projects

An IDAG wish list

10.45am

Those present introduced themselves and the Chair noted that while it was appropriate for ever4ybody to know who was present and in what capacity, only IDAG members and TfL officers would engage with the agenda. She then went to her thoughts about the way IDAG would operate in the coming year, in particular how IDAG might generate greater ‘pull’ from the business. They would meet with the E&I leadership groups, the surface, rail and underground steering groups and the overall TfL leadership team, subject to diarising and availability, hopefully within the next 6 months. They would also identify those key groups within TfL that IDAG members might observe or even participate in to ensure ongoing and consistent input from IDAG into TfL. IDAG members would then prepare formal reports of such meetings to be included in the documentation at plenary IDAG meetings to inform discussion and enhance their ties to the business. A prototype format for such reports would be issued and open to amendment. Fundamental to their activity was their focus on the Single Equality Scheme, although not to the exclusion of other issues of importance, presently in the process of being re-crafted. In conclusion, the Chair advised members that she would, in future, be starting meetings ‘on time’.

OE observed that it was sometimes very difficult to make any contribution when one went to certain group meetings where there was little understanding of IDAG’s role. There needed to be some form of campaign agenda. Further, notwithstanding the 6 months it might take to set up the interactions with ‘people of influence’, they needed to keep ‘prodding’ at those areas within TfL that were not following their advice. The Chair said the timeline would be dictated by people’s availability and it was important for leadership teams to recognise and take note of IDAG and their role at these meetings. Basing a model on random attendance by whoever might be available would not have the effect they now needed to have in these forums. PW noted that Michele Dix, MD responsible for E&I in TfL had welcomed and encouraged IDAG’s involvement in the leadership group. The Chair said that initially they wanted to introduce the IDAG team to these groups before then sending individual members. MP concurred, observing that these groups needed to appreciate the ‘weight’ carried by IDAG as a team, noting nonetheless the pressures on them in the run-up to the new SES. OE added that IDAG needed to be involved with accessibility issues at the pre-design stage before projects and initiatives went to consultation. The Chair agreed and stressed the importance of IDAG members being seen as proactive as opposed to reactive in their consultative role.

PW then presented on the work of TfL encompassing corporate services including HR, legal and communications; borough engagement and planning; buses – the routes contracted out to private companies – Victoria Coach station, but not National Express; Dial-a-Ride; the Docklands Light Railway; London Overground – London Rail becoming Crossrail in 2019; River Services and piers; Red Routes and Cycle Superhighways and every track and light crossing in London; taxi and private hire licencing; the East Croydon Tram Link – again, the service was contracted out and, finally, London Underground (LUL) whose staff were directly employed by TfL.

PW noted that there were 8,500 buses contracted to TfL, all low floor with A/V information systems except the old Route Masters. 80 per cent of the 19’000 bus stops were now accessible and this was expected to reach 95 per cent by 2016. The DLR was entirely step-free and 106 of the 272 LUL stations had some form of step-free access as did 40 of the 85 Overground stations and 55 LUL stations had manual boarding ramps. 22 LUL stations had had platform sections raised to provide level access. ESOC [sic] trains were now on the Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith & City lines and being introduced to the District Line, all with dropped floors and AV messaging. Cosmetic improvements to particular Overground stations and increases in carriage numbers had seen a 300 per cent increase in usage and improvements were ongoing. Guidance on the streetscape and bus stop accessibility facilitated consistency and good practice across the boroughs and cycling guidance addressed the issue of shared space and the reduction in the impact on pedestrians. Ramp rider lifts ensured safe access to river services where they could be installed. All 2,200 Black Cabs were wheelchair accessible and had induction loops and hand rails; newer ones had swivel seats to facilitate access from the pavement. Information was communicated in a variety of digital and paper formats, including ‘apps’ and call centres had a ‘type talk’ option and ‘accessibility champions’.

PW then went to the documents informing TfL’s work and development. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy theoretically ran until 2031 and subject to change as Mayors changed. The Accessibility Implementation Plan informed the strategy and together fed into the business plan that ran from 2013 to 2021 and broken down into 5 year segments. All these documents lead into the SES, the new one anticipated to run from April 2016 to April 2019. An annual update, The Accessible Transport Network, was also published. Overall, they sought to produce a 20 year plan addressing improvements in journey and access planning and the street environment. The disabled and elderly were involved in staff training and certain stations were designated ‘excellent’ where staff had been trained to a higher level in anticipation of these models being rolled out across the network. Mystery traveller and disability mystery traveller surveys monitored and reported on the travelling experience ‘first hand’.

The expected rise in London’s population from 9 to 13.4 million by 2031 required that they looked at ways of improving public transport to meet this increase. All Crossrail stations would now be ‘step-free’.

In response to questions from members, PW said he would talk to ‘buses’ about real-time visual information. DLR services were provided by contractors according to TfL requirements; DLR stations were designed to be unstaffed. MP observed that TfL was one of the biggest employers in London and a lot of staff were disabled; there was a real need, therefore, for training and advice.

There followed a short break.

(12.07pm)

Short Break

(12.18pm)

MY gave a presentation to IDAG on major projects and plans. Work on the Garden Bridge, funded by TfL, the Government, charitable organisations and private organisations, would begin shortly and would have a full transport asset. There would be seating. Tottenham Vale station would eventually serve the Stanstead Express, Crossrail 2, the Victoria Line and the West Anglia Line and planning had been permitted for an improved ticket hall and an unpaid crossing to the north of the site. It would be accessible and there would be a new, accessible, bridge and work would begin in early 2016. Crossrail 2 was a multi-billion pound scheme running north east to south west through the West End to relieve the existing underground network. Subject to funding, construction was expected to begin in 2021 and completed in 2030. An extension to the Gospel Oak to Barking line would serve the development of 11,000 new homes in Barking. TfL was contributing one third of the money and an application would be submitted in 2016 in anticipation of its opening in 2019. The Bakerloo Line extension would run ‘in tunnel’ from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham via either the Old Kent Road or Camberwell and Peckham Rye. Lewisham would then run 15 trains an hour to Bromley town centre. While there were concerns about loss of access to Cannon Street or access to Orpington, the service increases would improve connections into London. Tram Link was looking to develop services between Wimbledon and Morden and the boroughs of Sutton and Merton were keen to contribute to the scheme. Additional schemes included a highway extension east of the Blackwall Tunnel and the Silver Town [sic] tunnel that would involve a user charge for both. It was hoped this would open in 2022. Under PFI, this would be design, build and maintain, although TfL would operate and apply the charge. They were looking at the area around Victoria once the station upgrade had been completed, at Waterloo and White Hart Lane as well as interchange zones to bring improvements to the environment and travel.

In response to questions, MY said that while they were presently concentrating on infrastructure, they would in due course need to look at staffing issues to ensure that it worked. While they had not previously invested in roads, there were opportunities to put roads underground and free-up surface space for development. MP suggested that IDAG be represented in the consultation process. As to driverless cars, MY said their traffic modelling had not yet taken this into account.

As head of transport policy, ES was responsible for accessibility and equality policy development within TfL and ensuring that IDAG was able to be heard and influence the strategic direction within the organisation. ES then invited each member to introduce themselves and suggest ways in which travel in London might be changed.

SB from Haringey said that with her construction background, she was interested in the influence IDAG might exercise at the point the design brief was published. As to step-free access, they needed to concentrate on strategic locations to ensure easier and speedier access to network hubs. SI said she was currently involved with Haringey disability first consortium and were looking for new funding to keep the group going. She had also been a Building Surveyor with Hackney Council.

MP had previously consulted on workforce and employment issues and was a local authority councillor. She was also on the professional conduct committee for the public bar standards board and did freelance work as an equality consultant having been head of the public sector equality team. Her chosen issues were staff, particularly bus driver training; step-free access and a more opportunistic approach from TfL to optimise its roll-out; priority seating on buses and the underground and London’s air quality.

KM, formally CEO of Action on Disability in Fulham and worked for the charity Aspire (spinal injuries) managing their training and IT programme across 11 spinal units. Her interest was in developing soft skills training in various sectors as well as human rights and diversity training. Her concern was the difference between perception and reality in terms of accessibility on public transport and the belief among her constituents that public transport remained inaccessible. She was involved in training people to use the networks in order to enhance their independence. They ran an employment programme supporting people into internships and changing the perception of public transport was an important part of this. Members pointed out to KM the various programmes aimed at facilitating travel among the disabled – bus driver training, travel days and mentoring initiatives.

RH said he had been in PR in one of the world’s largest chemical companies and since retirement had worked in various parts of the disability sector including grant allocations to deaf organisations from the Department of Health, DPTAC as well as voluntary work. He was general secretary for the British Society for Mental Health and Deafness and worked with a further 8 organisations. The issues he raised were the need for proper interchanges between transport modes in London and real-time visual and audible information.

OE said his background was in both the theatre and in law. He was Chair of his local health watch and involved with a national charity for the visually impaired and a member of DPTAC. The issues he raised were a disability transport grid, accessibility to as well as within the transport network (e.g. DLR) and accessibility by design and real-time information, particularly real-time audible, and providing a technically accessible journey planner

The Chair reiterated her wish that the business was encouraged to pull IDAG in rather than IUDAG trying to push itself in from outside. She said they needed to ‘move in conjunction with the hearts and minds of the business’, for the business to open its heart and mind to them. Her background was in IT, disability equality and transport and general equality. She had worked for Rail Track as it became Network Rail and had since run her own business, her academic interest focusing on the benefits of providing access. She raised the issue of technology and the need for more functional and usable solutions that disabled people could have confidence in. She was keen to promote greater use by disabled people of the transport system and wanted drivers of every description to drive properly.

ES said they would prepare a statement based on the items raised representing their position and would need to prepare a work programme for the group so that everybody was contributing. Their focus would be not simply on who they could get to address the group, but which groups of people IDAG could actively have access to.

The Chair closed the meeting at 1.30pm.

(1.30pm)