London Borough of Hackney response to draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy

Summary

The draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy contains a number of positive proposals that Hackney supports such as encouraging cycling, improving the public realm and improving orbital interchanges. However most of these proposals have been previously publicised and overall we feel that the strategy is not ambitious enough and offers few innovative or forward thinking proposals.

The document states that unless additional demand management measures such as road user charging are implemented London will not meet the objectives of the strategy, specifically the target of 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025 and reducing traffic congestion. The document states that without additional road user charging traffic congestion traffic will increase by 15% to 2031. However the Mayor has already publicly announced that he will not implement road user charging while he is in power.

These outcomes are disappointing considering the scale of the congestion and air pollution problems in London and the vulnerability of the city to climate change and rising sea levels. The fact that the majority of population and employment growth in London between now and 2031 will occur in inner East London areas mean that Hackney will be disproportionately affected by additional traffic congestion, public transport overcrowding and poor air quality and this document is not ambitious enough to counter these problems.

We also consider that the MTS2 consultation document fails to fully embrace the commitments towards the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy in the East London, as set out in the Five host Borough Strategic Regeneration Framework. The vision of the Strategy states that within 20 years the residents who will host the world’s biggest event will enjoy the same social and economic chances as their neighbours across London.

Some of the strategic transport issues across London will be discussed on a sub-regional level. There are five of these, all of which have what is called ‘fuzzy boundaries’, in recognition that transport issues not end at a defined boundary. Unfortunately, Hackney is at the border of three sub regional partnerships: East, North and Central. Being actively involved in two or three partnerships in London is difficult within current resources, and this need to be given some consideration.

Main issues for the London Borough of Hackney
·  The proposals throughout the MTS do not provide certainty that the transport infrastructure will be delivered to support these areas as growth nodes.
·  LBH oppose the Mayor intentions to continue to increase bus fares and reduce total kms of the bus fleet/network (as per TfL Business Plan 2009/10 – 2017/18).
·  LBH are concerned that the measures outlined in the MTS fail to achieve the Mayor’s own CO2 reduction and congestion targets for London.
·  LBH are concerned that the MTS does not provide confidence that mode shift from private motor vehicle use to sustainable modes of transport is a priority.
·  LBH are disappointed by the removal of reference to hierarchy of users.
·  The inclusion of the commitment to Chelsea Hackney Line (CHL) is positive however LBH strongly believe that the timescale needs to be brought forward and the strategic review of the route be completed as early as possible.
·  If CHL cannot be delivered within the lifetime of the strategy then interim public transport enhancement projects need to be considered for the north east London radial corridors.
·  LBH opposes allowing motorcycles to use the bus lanes, and on the A10 conflicts with the objectives of the cycle superhighway scheme which is due to be implemented on this corridor.
·  LBH feels that the 5% mode share target for cycling by 2026 is not challenging enough and not targeted enough. LBH believes that there needs to be separate targets for inner and outer London.
·  LBH is very supportive of time-distance cameras to enforce speed limits and improve road safety and we would like to see the introduction of 20 mph zones on the TLRN where they pass through our town centres.
·  LBH is of the view that at this stage when the time limits for achieving air quality objectives have been missed the emphasis should be more on fiscal and compulsory measures that will achieve the objectives by the extended timescale.
·  LBH supports the electric vehicle delivery plan proposals however we firmly believe that pedestrians and cyclists should be prioritised over private vehicles. Although electric vehicles can assist with air quality improvements it cannot resolve congestion on London’s roads and as such we do not wish to see promote electric vehicles over walking, cycling and public transport.
·  LBH is concerned that the language regarding fares and pricing in the document seems to be focused on maximising the profit and income of public transport rather than pricing fares at levels that incentivise the uptake of public transport over private car use.
·  The removal of the Western Extension is a concern to LBH because of the potential impacts on bus journey times and the increased traffic generation/congestion which will likely result in poorer air quality for London as a whole. This action contradicts the Mayor’s proposals to improve air quality, reduce CO2 emissions and the need to generate income to fund transport improvements in London.

MTS Proposals to manage and enhance the transport system

National Rail, Crossrail, Thameslink, Overground, DLR, Thameslink

Proposal 3 - Support the development of National Rail routes that relieve London of freight without an origin and destination in the Capital.
Proposal 5 - Seek to ensure that Crossrail is delivered by 2017 and that it is fully integrated with the rest of London’s public transport system.
Proposal 6 - Consider future extensions of Crossrail that reduce congestion and improve connectivity on London commuter routes.
Proposal 7 - Deliver the committed improvements to the rail network and services in London as set out by the DfT’s High Level Output Specification for the period 2009-2014.
Proposal 8 - Seek further capacity across London’s rail network, beyond those schemes already committed.
Proposal 9 - TfL will undertake a review of the safeguarded alignment for the Chelsea Hackney line to ensure it is providing the maximum benefits and value for money.
Proposal 11 - Seek to deliver capacity enhancements at some of London’s most congested stations.
Proposal 14 - Investigate the feasibility of providing extra capacity to assist orbital movement on the Overground network and review potential benefits of extensions to the network of services.
Proposal 15 & 16 - Investigate the feasibility of further capacity and network expansion of the DLR and of providing extra capacity on Tramlink.

·  We are pleased by the inclusion of the commitment to Chelsea Hackney Line (CHL) and the commitment to improve orbital routes such as London Overground particularly the fact that Hackney Central/Downs Stations are classified as a strategic orbital interchange. We strongly believe that the Strategic Review for CHL is brought forward and completed in a shorter timescale than the 5 years suggested by the DfT and it should be along the currently safeguarded route. The post 2018 timescale for CHL should also be brought forward.

·  We support Crossrail but oppose use of Planning Contributions from developments in Hackney to fund the scheme.

·  The document includes reference to London Overground and West Anglia routes as being the highest priorities for capacity increases beyond committed funds which should have a positive impact upon Hackney.

·  The scale of growth in London during the lifetime of the strategy, particularly in inner East London requires continued investment in public transport post 2018 as demand will continue to outstrip capacity particularly in the radial corridors in north east London so there need to be further aspirational public transport schemes outlined in the MTS. If CHL cannot be delivered within the lifetime of the strategy then interim public transport enhancement projects need to be considered for the north east London radial corridors.

London Underground

Proposal 17 - Seek to deliver upgrades to all Tube lines in a phased programme to provide a significant increase in network capacity.
Proposal 19 - Develop and implement a prioritised programme to deliver station capacity and accessibility enhancements at London’s most congested Underground stations.
Proposal 22 - Seek longer-term enhancements and extensions to the Underground network.

·  We support the upgrades to interchanges such as Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington which are both used by Hackney residents to access the Underground network.

London’s bus network

Proposal 23 - Keep the development of the bus network under regular review.
Proposal 24 - Improve bus passengers’ journeys by measures including bus priority at critical locations and implementing the Countdown 2 project.
Proposal 25 - Appoint bus manufacturers as part of the New Bus for London project by the end of 2009.

·  The proposals only offer vague and non-specific commitments about developing the bus network to match growth and demand. However TfL’s updated 2009-2018 Business Plan reveals that bus subsidy and bus route kilometres are being decreased and bus fares will rise at the Retail Price Index plus 2%, this is against a background of increased population growth which can only result in increased overcrowding. People’s choice to use the bus network is heavily influenced by the frequency, reliability, and cost of the service; any reduction in frequency, and reliability, or increase in cost is likely to lead to a significant decrease in bus use and potentially corresponding increase in car use.

·  There is no mention of how the Mayor and TfL will cover the cost of replacing the articulated buses with the new Routemaster bus and how it may impact on road congestion due to the need to increase number of vehicles operating on these routes because capacity per vehicle is lower.

·  There is a commitment to improving bus passenger experience, however the proposal only mentions introducing bus priority at critical locations rather than the whole route corridor approach.

·  The previous reference to undertaking a fundamental review of the London bus network in the Statement of Intent (SOI) seems to have been removed. We feel that this is still necessary due to the large number of huge redevelopment and regeneration projects of such as Stratford, King’s Cross and Woodberry Down which will have a massive impact on trip patterns.

Taxis and community transport

Proposal 26 - Support improvements to the taxi service through measures including continued access to bus lanes and the provision of ranks and facilities at interchanges.
Proposal 29 - Encourage and support the community transport sector’s contribution to the development and provision of transport services in London.

·  The document commits to continuing support for Dial-a-Ride however there is no similar commitment to the Taxicard scheme.

Managing the road network

Proposal 30 - Introduce measures to smooth traffic flows by, for example, investing in intelligent traffic control systems, allowing motorcycles and scooters to use TLRN bus lanes for a trial period and implementing a targeted programme of road network improvements.
Proposal 31 - Seek to minimise the impact of planned interventions on the road network by for example, developing a new roadworks permit system and developing the concept of ‘lane rental’ charges for utilities.
Proposal 34 - Take a criteria-based approach to road schemes which would allow them to go ahead if there is an overall net benefit.
Proposal 35 - Work in collaboration with the boroughs and other stakeholders to cost-effectively maintain London’s road network assets in a good state of repair.

·  Smoothing traffic flows is welcomed as long as it does not generate additional traffic growth. Hackney believes that the proposal needs to be undertaken alongside travel demand management measures to ensure that freeing up traffic movement on roads does not attract additional car journeys.

·  Hackney does not support two powered wheelers in bus lanes and allowing motorcycles to use the bus lanes on the A10 conflicts with the objectives of the cycle superhighway scheme which is due to be implemented on this corridor. The Mayor needs to review the conflict between the Cycle Superhighways and allowing motorcycles in bus lanes on these routes.

·  We would strongly support the pedestrian countdown proposals and the streetworks permitting scheme which we have been working on with TfL.

·  We would support new road network improvement schemes as long as they do not result in any additional traffic generation (even if they result in reduced congestion in the vicinity of the scheme).

·  With regards to the commitment to good repair of road network – we support this proposal as there is a definite need to reverse the trend of last few years on TLRN, sections of which is currently in a poor condition.

River crossings

Proposal 39 - Progress a package of river crossings in East London, including a new fixed link at Silvertown, local links to improve connections for pedestrians and cyclists and support for maximising the impact of new rail links.

·  We support new river crossings as long as they do not increase traffic congestion on the wider east London road network and where they promote and improve sustainable transport options and support the regeneration of East London.