Reply to:

Closing date: 12 January 2010

To Whom It May Concern:

Response to Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

There is much in the document that we do agree with and are pleased to see included in the draft strategy. However to respond to the consultation we need to comment on the issues that still concern us the most.

Integrating Land Use Planning And Transport Planning - The principle of encouraging higher densities for new housing in highly sustainable areas with good to high public transport accessibility levels is accepted and is being replicated in Harrow's emerging LDF processes in the form of identified growth intensification areas. The Outer London commission and MTS appraisal highlightsthe need to focus on transport investment for outer London town centres in order to deliver the strategy.This philosophy is supported by Harrow.

Public Transport - Strategic thinking for West London appears to be on the light side. The lack of connective orbital rail transport routes is a given and is identified but not fully addressed by the strategy. Certainly within Harrow's development intensification growth area, a review of bus / rail service provision will be incorporated withinLDF delivery modelprocesses.

Smarter Travel Initiatives /Travel Plans - The philosophy of targeting smarter travel interventions to 'smooth traffic flows'appears robust and much is already incorporated within Harrow's processes. Increased use & power of Travel plans is encouraging given the lack of bond based penalties at present.

Climate Agenda/ Road Pricing/ 'Smoothing traffic'- This is a high priority for the borough and will be addressed via a number ofestablished mechanisms. Outer London Boroughswill have to consider the vitality and viability of town centres and lack of appropriate public transport facilities if ever considering road pricing.

Quality of life /Walking - Reducing environmental clutter ,the creation of shared public realm space with the connectivitybetween the green spaces to encourage walking & cycling is complemented bythe London Plan and LDF visions and is therefore welcomed.

Highway efficiency/Congestion Control- Investment in 'intelligent traffic control' with infrastructure supportwith localised optimisation of signals is key to helping to achieve'smoothing traffic '/climate agenda aimsand is therefore welcomed.

Better Streets - Rationalisation of design parameters for Better Streets is welcomed and in line with Harrow’s own policy or pursuing Streets for People, pedestrian friendly environments together with extensive traffic calming /accident remedial programmes etc .

Key points:

  1. The London Plan includesHarrow and Wealdstone as an Area for Intensification. The draft MTS does not show this. See Figure 9.
  1. Potential metropolitan centresand major centresshould not be considered the same as metropolitan centres. This distinction should be made clearer throughout the document. The way thisis shown in Figure 9, leads to an impression that the revised status of potential metropolitan centres is a foregone conclusion and given the current economic situation this is not the case. In addition, the impact of potential metropolitan centres and major centres on existing metropolitan centres needs further consideration, for example the impact of the Brent Cross / Cricklewood development on Harrow town centre.
  1. Outer London boroughs that are not included in the cycle superhighways are given no direction or support for any cycling improvements. In fact it is not apparent how any of the additional money provided for cycling will benefit such boroughs. This is giving a negative message to these boroughs and risks undermining the efforts that have been put into promoting cycling as a genuine alternative mode of transport.
  1. The borough continues to be concerned at the lack of recognition of the urgent need for Harrow on the Hill station to be made accessible over the lifetime of the strategy. This is particularly important when considering the increasing number of older people living in the borough and that Harrow-on-the-Hill is a Metropolitan Centre. The TfL accessibility programme details should be re-phased taking this into account. This is of particular concern in light of the failure of the Metronet contract and the estimated £25 million (Tfl quote!) it would cost to implement a passenger lift system. As Developer contributions for this case cannot be relied upon for this size contribution.
  1. Harrow and Barnet work together as neighbouring boroughs and therefore the divide between these boroughs in the sub regional groups is unfortunate.
  1. Additional funding should be made available to boroughs to implement the additional borough requirements in the MTS such as supporting the uptake of electric vehicles, developing a new streetworks’ permitting system, establishing a statutory community safety partnership for transport and travelling in London, replacing road surfaces with low-noise surfacing and planting additional trees.
  1. Funding for the roll out of Legible London into the outer London boroughs should be directly funded by TfL. If this is not done, only boroughs who receive funding for major projects will be able to implement Legible London.
  1. Proposal 35 referring to maintaining London’s road network assets to a good state of repair should be extended to include foottpaths and cycle paths.
  1. Proposal 59 refers to completing the Strategic Walking Network. Harrow has two strategic walks that pass through the borough. As far as we can tell there is as yet no definition as to what it means to complete the network. Funding for upgrading the network should therefore be ongoing.
  1. Direct connectivity to airports from London boroughs should be given greater consideration. In particular the direct route to Gatwick airport from Harrow should be reinstated. This is particularly necessary as other routes to Gatwick from Harrow suffer from significant overcrowding.
  1. We are pleased that the plan has accepted the recommendations of the Outer London Commission, particularly regarding the need for orbital links. To make these improvements, upgrading infrastructure to support orbital transport links will be required and should be better identified in the plan.
  1. Consideration for orbital transport links to Crossrail to/from Harrow should be included.

In summary the broad principles and aims are there as before with theinclusion of more realistic and deliverable mechanisms. However the biggest challenge, as has always been the case, is to apply an integrated approach in delivery terms which has not been successful in the past. This approach must be inherent to all delivery modelsso arguably the strategy once amended will bring an integrated approach that much closer.