DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Response to the Mayor of London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Response to the Mayor of London (APPENDIX TO KEY DECISION REPORT - ‘THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR OF LONDON’S DRAFT AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY’) [Final text to be transferred onto Councillor Moylan’s letterhead] Ken Livingstone Esq Mayor of London (Ambient Noise Strategy Consultation) Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 LONDON SE1 2BR [First date after implementation period to be inserted] Dear Mr Livingstone The Royal Borough’s response to the draft London Ambient Noise Strategy Background noise caused by road traffic, trains, or low flying aircraft is part of daily life in central London, but in some parts of the Royal Borough, where noise levels are unduly high, it is a source of considerable annoyance to residents. In fact there are few parts of the Borough that do not suffer a certain amount of disturbance from busy roads, although in an overall sense this reflects vibrant activity, the ‘buzz’ that you yourself refer to. This Council welcomes a comprehensive approach to controlling background noise, whether from transport sources, or industrial and commercial operations. An action- orientated noise strategy for London, which prepares the way for the National Ambient Noise Strategy expected in 2007, should put London in a stronger position to influence the controls, such as noise limit values, eventually imposed by Government. We are very much in favour of proactive measures to reduce ambient noise levels that can be achieved without disproportionate costs, and that target the worst affected areas. The Royal Borough together with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth, successfully negotiated a substantial noise mitigation scheme to offset the railway noise impact on line-side residents of Channel Tunnel trains using the West London Line. With regard to traffic noise, and in particular to reducing road/wheel noise, we have already re-surfaced more than two miles (3 kilometres) of the Borough’s main roads with porous asphalt. Together with you and others, the Council has contributed financially to the Human Rights case about sleep disturbance caused by night flights. We will continue to voice our objections, which include concerns over increased noise disturbance, to the option to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. To improve noise awareness, we are exploring different ways of introducing noise awareness to schoolchildren through initiatives like the successful junior citizens week held annually in the Borough. Your three key issues and initial priorities in the main coincide with the Council’s view of what needs to be tackled, although in the absence of a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which may include a recommendation for a night- flight ban, which will then be in the hands of the Government, we would like to see 1 more focused restrictions rather than a total ban. We would also like to see railway noise and vibration featured more prominently by including them in the key issues section. We do not agree with the way you embrace neighbourhood noise and noise nuisance issues within your strategy, these are outside your remit and should be dealt with by the boroughs, and your most effective contribution should be in providing more police resources to support borough enforcement activity as reflected in policy 82. We have looked at the detail of the draft strategy in terms of its significance for the Borough’s noise policies and in relation to cross-borough initiatives, but we have not commented on every item. I set out below our responses to a number of your specific proposals collected together under noise source headings. Our comments are referenced to the numbered policies and proposals. Roads and road traffic noise (1) NIGHT TIME ROAD WORKS [paragraph 4A.21 and proposal 5] The Royal Borough supports stringent controls on the hours when road-works may be undertaken. A recent survey of Kensington and Chelsea’s residents shows that construction noise including road-works bothers 32% of the respondents, compared with only 2% of respondents to a national survey. We are very concerned about the possibility of more night-time working, and we are looking to you to resist the Government’s intention to increase night-time road-works with its associated disturbance. You have control over TfL’s work programme and therefore have a specific opportunity to prevent this in London. Evening and Saturday works would be preferable, to ensure that peak capacity on the affected roads is maintained. The Council would support proposals to increase the powers of highway authorities to control public utility works. (2) QUIET SURFACES [proposal 7] Your aim to replace noisy carriageway surfaces with quieter surfacing is welcomed. The Royal Borough already specifies ‘UL-M’ noise-reducing surfacing on our major/principal roads, and we have very high standards of maintenance and renewal, which minimises potholes and other imperfections that can create noise disturbance when cars pass over them. Locations where many buses and cyclists are turning are considered less suitable for quiet surfacing, for road safety reasons. TfL should improve maintenance and specify UL-M, or similar, for its roads as soon as possible. We are disappointed that you have been unable to attach a specific timescale to Proposal 7. (3) TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES [proposal 9] The Royal Borough is in favour of a review of traffic calming measures to ensure that the most effective and appropriately designed measures are installed. This would need to include a review of road humps, speed tables and speed cushions and any unnecessary interventions removed, and of any alternative measures that might be 2 used to achieve noise, air quality and road safety aims, consistent with our streetscape policies. (4) REVIEW OF NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS FOR ROADS [policy 11] The Council feels that changing the scope of the Noise Insulation Regulations for roads may result in a large number of applications for mitigation for relatively little gain; where there are numerous road improvements of a modest scale in a densely built-up urban area, this could simply result in an unwelcome increase in bureaucracy. (5) POWERED VEHICLE NOISE GENERALLY [proposal 12, policy 13, paragraph 4A.48] You have mentioned some practical measures (technological fixes) to reduce noise impacts of vehicles, for example ‘smart’ reversing alarms, quieter cross-over material, footways and other servicing surfaces (particularly in regard to “trolleying” noise). We consider it crucial that Boroughs are consulted on new materials and designs in order that a high quality and visually cohesive streetscape is maintained, or enhanced. It is equally important that your Strategy should be coupled with action, for example TfL could make significant strides in reducing noise problems through tougher controls/policing with regard to quieter vehicle technology, across the whole of the Greater London area. (6) PUBLIC SPACE - NOISE ENVIRONMENT IMPROVMENTS [proposal 27 and policy 12] We support the ‘100 Public Spaces’ initiative and the traffic noise-reduction benefits it could bring to residents through careful design, and look forward to seeing this concept being developed further, with full funding support, noting that Sloane Square and Exhibition Way feature in the list of the first of the spaces to be developed. (7) LORRY BAN [proposal 13] The London Lorry Ban is currently under review and it is our understanding that you are looking for greater flexibility. As you already know from our recent meeting, the Council strongly objects to the disturbance that would result from increased HGV traffic through densely built-up areas if the current Ban is relaxed in any way. In the Strategy you state that the review will take account of the noise implications, along with the wider strategic transport and environmental concerns. We note that you are putting considerable emphasis on ‘many heavy goods vehicles (having) become quieter’, this may be the case over the long term, but we do not believe the noise reduction has been so significant in recent years. In the current situation both average noise levels and the number of lorry movements are sensitive issues and an increase in movements would lead to more noise events. In addition, if road surfaces continue to be noisy owing to potholes or noisy surfacing, then these problems need to be remedied before contemplating relaxing aspects of the Lorry Ban. Residents’ amenity, i.e. protection from noise, should be safeguarded through a strategy that tackles issues in the right order. 3 (8) BUSES AND COACHES [proposal 14] The proposal to liaise with bus operators to secure practicable and cost-effective noise control, is welcome. We would suggest that the best way to ensure good practice at bus termini is to accommodate dedicated route controllers to supervise stand use and driver behaviour (including switching off engines) as this is often a problem in winter months. Driver training should then be backed up with regular monitoring. This should be specified in TfL’s tender documentation. (9) THE ROLE OF THE LONDON COACH FORUM [proposal 15] We feel that the London Coach Forum should play a key role in bringing together interested parties including TfL in improving coach parking, facilities and terminals with due regard to noise issues. This is a useful albeit limited body, but it is in danger of being a “talking shop”. The body requires dedicated funding and active support, particularly from TfL and the GLA, to achieve the aims outlined in the proposal. (10) MOTOR CYCLES AND SCOOTERS [proposal 17] We support your proposal to explore the ways that motor cycle and scooter users can be encouraged to maintain the noise specification of their machines, and to drive more slowly and carefully. In addition to liaising with the London Motorcycle Working Group, you should consider a public awareness-raising campaign for powered two- wheeled vehicles used by residents and commuters to/through London.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Basics of Concession Contracts
    Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty by MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Tara Naomi Chin Blakey OF TECHNOLOGY B.S., Civil Engineering (2004) ARE62009 University of Florida LIBRARIES Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2006 ©2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author............ ... Civil and Environmental Engineering May 26, 2006 Certified by.......................... ............ Prof Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor of Civil aid Environmental Engineering - The1 is Supervisor Accepted by.............................................. And? 4. Whittle Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies 1 BARKER Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty By Tara Naomi Chin Blakey Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering On May 25, 2006 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation ABSTRACT This thesis proposes a performance regime structure for public transit concession contracts, designed so incentives to the concessionaire can be effective given significant uncertainty about the future operating conditions. This is intended to aid agencies in designing regimes that will encourage continually improving performance through the use of relevant and adaptive incentives. The proposed incentives are adjusted annually based on actual circumstances. An adaptive regime can also allow the incentives to be more cost and resource efficient and is especially well-suited to so-called "gross-cost" contracts when the public agency retains the fare revenue and absorbs the revenue risk for the services. The motivation for this research is the anticipated transfer of the oversight responsibilities for the Silverlink Metro regional rail services, in outer London, from the UK Department for Transport to Transport for London.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal
    Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal: Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context This submission constitutes the London Borough of Hounslow’s response to an invitation to provide initial comments on the Crossrail project’s proposal for a new corridor for Crossrail 1: Corridor 6 – Norbiton, via Old Oak Common, Acton, Chiswick, Richmond and Kingston. The submission considers the proposal in terms of service and amenity for the borough’s residents and businesses, and within the context of the Council’s published policies. In addition to the two options that constitute the Corridor 6 proposals, this submission provides two further options for Crossrail’s consideration. While the Council must record its disappointment that an effective period of less than two weeks was offered for preparation of this submission, the Council also wishes to record its appreciation for the assistance given by the Crossrail consultation team during the preparation of the submission. 1.2 Council Policies The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan’s objectives relating to transport and land use development are summarised below: • To promote sustainable transport modes (walking, cycling, public and waterborne transport) which improves access for all members of the community and enhances public transport provision in London as a whole, while reducing car traffic and the demand for road space. • To encourage a pattern of land use, and provision of transport which minimises harm to the environment and reduces the need to travel, especially by car, whilst maximising development opportunities in the Borough.
    [Show full text]
  • LTS Modelling to Inform Work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy
    LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Prepared for Transport for London November 2001 Document Control Project Title: LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy MVA Project Number: C3895022 WP Reference: cmp\tm Directory & File Name: l:\london\lts\c8950.22\summary\mtsnote.doc Document Approval Primary Author: Richard Stanley Other Author(s): Reviewer(s): Paul Hanson (MVA) Henry Abraham (GLA) Issue Date Distribution Comments 1 16/11/01 THu, HAb, PHa First Draft for Review 2 23/11/01 THu, HAb Second Draft 3 26/11/01 HAb Published Version Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Structure of this Note 1 2 Modelling Approach 3 2.1 Background to the LTS Model 3 2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles 5 2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability 5 2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors 5 2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry 6 2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model 7 3 Planning Data Assumptions 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data 8 4 Transport Network Assumptions 14 4.1 Scenarios 14 4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package 16 4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements 16 4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements 18 4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements 19 4.10 2011
    [Show full text]
  • STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL AGENDA and Papers
    Transport for London STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL Meeting No. 2 to be held on Monday 14 May 2007 Windsor House, 14th Floor Boardroom at 2pm AGENDA A Meeting of the Panel will be held to deal with the following business: 1. Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 16 January 2007 3. Matters Arising and Outstanding Items Business Items Sponsor 4. SPAP Work Plan 2007/2008 Peter Hendy, Commissioner 5. Mayor’s Transport Strategy - Steve Allen, Interim MD Finance Progress Update (Barry Broe) 6. Olympic Transport Projects Steve Allen, Interim MD Finance (Richard Browning) 7. Travel Demand Management - Ben Plowden, Programme Director, TDM Emerging Priorities 8. Any Other Business Date of next meeting (Combined): Wednesday 3 October 2007 Page 1 of 1 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY PANEL MINUTES of the Panel meeting held in the Boardroom, 14th Floor Windsor House, at 10.00am on Tuesday 16 January 2007 Present: Peter Hendy (Chair) Dave Wetzel Honor Chapman Stephen Glaister Sir Mike Hodgkinson Ben Plowden Jay Walder In attendance: Steve Allen Director of Corporate Finance Barry Broe Director of Group Transport Planning & Policy Richard Browning Dir. of Group Business Planning & Performance Howard Carter General Counsel Gareth John Director of Legal & Compliance Jeff Pipe Corporate Governance Adviser Elaine Seagriff Head of Policy & Strategy Shashi Verma Director of Oyster Card Secretary: Horatio Chishimba 01/01/07 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from Lynn Sloman and Eva Lindholm. 02/01/07 Declaration of Interests None declared. 03/01/07 SPAP Terms of Reference The Panel noted the content of the SPAP Terms of Reference as agreed by the Board on 25 October 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5: LIP Proposals
    Chapter 5: LIP Proposals Contents Page Number Introduction 121 Part One – Addressing the Policies and Proposals in the 123 Mayor’s Transport Strategy Road Maintenance 123 Principal Roads Maintenance 123 Non-Principal Roads Maintenance 124 Bridge Assessment and Strengthening 124 Local Safety Schemes 125 20 MPH Zones 126 Education, Training and Publicity Schemes 127 Walking 127 Cycling 130 London Cycle Network (LCN) + 132 Non-LCN + Network 132 Cycle Parking and Cyclist Training 132 Traffic Signals 133 Buses 133 Bus Stop Accessibility 133 Bus Priority 134 Enforcement and Management of Bus Routes 135 London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) 135 ‘A’ Roads and Busy Bus Routes and Parallel Initiatives 136 Bus Network 137 Operation of Bus Services in the Borough 137 Bus Network Development 138 Area Based Schemes 140 Chapter 5: LIP Proposals 117 Town Centres 140 Streets for People 142 Station Access 143 School Travel Plans – Safe Routes to School 146 Workplace Travel Plans 146 Travel Awareness 147 Freight 149 Regeneration Area Schemes 150 Environment 151 Air Quality Improvement 152 Ambient Noise reduction 152 Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) 152 Accessibility 153 Community Transport, Door-to-Door Transport Services, 154 Taxis, Private Hire Vehicles Monitoring 155 A13 Route Management Study 156 Airports 156 Biodiversity 156 Car Clubs 157 Consultation 157 East London Transit 157 Freight Interchange and Distribution 157 Land-Use Policies and Planning 158 London Traffic Control Centre 158 Chapter 5: LIP Proposals 118 2012 Olympic Games and Other Events 158
    [Show full text]
  • LTS Modelling to Inform Work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy
    LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Prepared for Transport for London November 2001 Document Control Project Title: LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy MVA Project Number: C3895022 WP Reference: cmp\tm Directory & File Name: l:\london\lts\c8950.22\summary\mtsnote.doc Document Approval Primary Author: Richard Stanley Other Author(s): Reviewer(s): Paul Hanson (MVA) Henry Abraham (GLA) Issue Date Distribution Comments 1 16/11/01 THu, HAb, PHa First Draft for Review 2 23/11/01 THu, HAb Second Draft 3 26/11/01 HAb Published Version Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Structure of this Note 1 2 Modelling Approach 3 2.1 Background to the LTS Model 3 2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles 5 2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability 5 2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors 5 2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry 6 2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model 7 3 Planning Data Assumptions 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data 8 4 Transport Network Assumptions 14 4.1 Scenarios 14 4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package 16 4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements 16 4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements 18 4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements 19 4.10 2011
    [Show full text]
  • West London Economic Development Strategy December 2004
    West London Economic Development Strategy December 2004 This report was commissioned by West London Partnership and undertaken by Robert Huggins Associates and Rubicon Regeneration. The views expressed in the Strategy are those of West London Partnership and do not necessarily reflect those of the London Development Agency or the Greater London Authority Group. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the contents of the report are accurate, neither the London Development Agency or the Greater London Authority Group accept responsibility for any inaccuracies in the data Prepared for West London Partnership in collaboration with the LDA, WLA and WLB by: West London | Economic Development Strategy 2 Contents 5 BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS 73 5.1 Background 73 INTRODUCTION 5 5.2 Strategic Context 73 5.3 Key Issues 96 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 5.4 Objectives and Rationale 100 2 VISION 25 6 LAND AND PROPERTY 102 6.1 Background 103 3 WEST LONDON CONTEXT 28 6.2 Strategic Context 104 3.1 Overview of West London 32 6.3 Key Issues 110 3.2 International Setting 36 6.4 Objectives and Rationale 116 3.3 West London and its Surrounding Regions 40 3.4 Drivers 47 7 HOUSING 119 7.1 Background 119 4 SKILLS FOR GROWTH 56 7.2 Strategic Context 121 4.1 Background 56 7.3 Key Issues 124 4.2 Strategic Context 56 7.4 Objectives and Rationale 133 4.3 Key Issues 58 4.4 Objectives and Rationale 71 West London | Economic Development Strategy 3 8 TRANSPORT 136 11 APPENDIX 186 8.1 Background 136 Appendix A: Summary of Transport Data for West 8.2 Strategic Context 138
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Mayor's Transport Strategy Tfl's REPORT to the MAYOR on CONSULTATION
    Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy Statutory consultation with the public and stakeholders TfL’S REPORT TO THE MAYOR ON CONSULTATION April 2010 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 2. The Consultation Process .................................................................................. 18 3. Analysis of Response by Theme ....................................................................... 30 4. Other Issues of relevance to the development of the draft MTS ...................... 207 5. Next Steps ....................................................................................................... 214 Appendices: Appendix 1 List of stakeholders consulted Appendix 2 List of stakeholders who responded to the consultation Appendix 3 List of meetings relevant to the development of the MTS Annexes: Annex A Report on the analysis of responses from the public, businesses and other organisations (prepared by Accent Marketing Research) Annex B Summary for each stakeholder response received Annex C TfL‟s consideration of late responses received Please note, Annex A is at the end of this document, preceded by Appendices 1,2 and 3, and Annexes B and C. Report to the Mayor, April 2010 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview and purpose of this Report 1.1.1 The Mayor of London decided to produce a new, revised Mayor‟s Transport Strategy (MTS), to replace the one approved in 2001. The MTS is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor and TfL
    [Show full text]
  • Transport for London, London Rail London Overground East London
    Transport for London, London Rail London Overground East London Railway & Stations Improvements Public Meeting: Naborhood Centre, Sydenham Road 14th March 2007 Introducing ‘London Overground’ Dalston Curve NLR and ELR Connection; the Orbirail Network Overground - the regeneration railway Dalston Curve Brockley Honor Oak Park ELL Phase 2 Forest Hill (Uncommitted) Sydenham Station challenges Example: Sydenham, 2006 Poor waiting facilities and accommodations Difficult station access and poor signage Poor interior station layout (difficult access to ticket office) 4 Overground stations • November 2007: TfL takes over existing North London stations • Four stage approach: ° Enabling works/Oyster/Gating ° Blitz clean ° Refurbishment: includes upgraded information, help points and CCTV ° Rebuild some stations • Lewisham stations served by London Overground: ° Sydenham; Honor Oak Park; Brockley; Forest Hill; New Cross Gate; New Cross ° Network Rail via the DfT funding under Access for All will introduce step free access • Improvement package for refurbished stations: better waiting facilities, better lighting, CCTV, help points, provision of Oyster validators and ticket vending machines 5 New trains on London Overground • Contract awarded to Bombardier • £223M contract to deliver: – 20 x 4 car units (ELR) December 09 – 24 x 3 car units (NLR) December 08 • Constructed in Derby & maintained at New Cross Gate • Key features include: wider seats, wheelchair provision, CCTV, audio and visual real time information, wider gangway, better hand rail, air
    [Show full text]
  • The Barking & Gospel Oak Line Committee
    BARKI NG – GOSPEL OAK LINE USER GROUP Chairman: Alderman Frederick Jones, Barking & Dagenham Council Secretary: Richard H Pout B.Sc. Econ. MILT, (020) 8348 5064 Assistant Secretary: Glenn Wallis, (020) 8529 2361, 07789 791224 www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk info@barking -gospleoak.org.uk BARKING – GOSPEL OAK LINE USER GROUP eBULLETIN 7th APRIL 2012 § EASTER RAIL SERVICES & ENGINEERING WORKS § LONDON MAYORAL AND ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS & HLOS2 Next edition: § LOROL PASSENGER GROUP MEETING § RAIL REPLACEMENT BUSES SERVICES § STATION NEWS § RAILTOUR PHOTO APPEAL Apologies, due to ill health and “events, dear boy, events”, this e-bulletin is two weeks later than originally intended and has pushed the planned Winter 2011/12 ‘proper’ newsletter back yet again, still now that photographs are being included the e-bulletins looks a bit better. If anyone is unhappy with this and would prefer a text only e-bulletin, please let me know. EASTER RAIL SERVICES & ENGINEERING WORKS LONDON OVERGROUND Thanks to yet another ‘inaccuracy’ on the TfL 1 website, exactly what service was being was being provided by London Overground over Easter where engineering work allowed was shrouded in confusion for a while. Happily LOROL2 were able to confirm that as usual on public holidays, a Saturday service would be provided. The only engineering block affects the Barking – Gospel Oak Line and the North London Line, this is understood to be due to more work on the SSI 3 and signallers’ displays, this time at Upminster Signalling Centre although to get maximum value from this block Network Rail will probably be carrying out other work too. • Saturday 7 th April From 20:00 the Barking – Gospel Oak Line service will terminate/start at Upper Holloway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barking to Gospel Oak Line User Group
    The Barking to Gospel Oak Line User Group Evidence to the GLA Transport Scrutiny Committee - May 2010 Continuing development of the London Overground Network Barking - Gospel Oak Line User Group (BGOLUG) is pleased to be invited to discuss the developments of the Overground Network promoted by Transport for London (TfL). London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL) became the service provider from 11th November 2007. Transport Scrutiny Committee members have supported the Overground proposals, promoted in the 2001 Mayor's Transport Plan as Orbirail. Both Mayors, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson have recognised the importance of 'overground' trains; the problem was that while promoting Network South East as a coherent, cohesive operation, integration might have been achieved rather more quickly. The machinations of ill conceived rail privatisation and a widely intransigent railway management, entrenched in their own methodology - 'this is the way we do it' - did not help. Both the North London Line (NLL) and Gospel Oak - Barking (GO-B) Line suffered years of neglect under British Railways' management. The routes were not a priority, limited importance being given only to facilitate cross-London freight movements. Limited investment went in during the Railtrack - Silverlink period (1997 - 2007) with some financial assistance from supportive local authorities towards basic station improvements. Services were basic, the NLL with its 20 minute interval service, finally improved to quarter-hourly in the late 1990s, but at a cost, losing the Watford - Liverpool Street service from September 1992. The GO-B Line operated just a half hourly 2-coach service for over 20 years, until TfL funded additional peak services from December 2005, during the latter period of the Silverlink franchise.
    [Show full text]
  • Board Meeting – Open Session to Be Held on 20 September 2006 at 1000 Hours in the Chamber City Hall, the Queen’S Walk, London Se1 2Aa
    TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BOARD MEETING – OPEN SESSION TO BE HELD ON 20 SEPTEMBER 2006 AT 1000 HOURS IN THE CHAMBER CITY HALL, THE QUEEN’S WALK, LONDON SE1 2AA AGENDA A Meeting of the Board will be held to deal with the following business: 1. Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 28 June 2006 3. Any Matters Arising from the Minutes Business Items Sponsor 4. The Commissioner’s Report Peter Hendy, Commissioner 5. Operational and Investment Financial Report Jay Walder, Managing Director Finance and Planning 6. Revenue Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy Jeroen Weimar, Director of Transport Policing & Enforcement 7. Standing Orders Revision Howard Carter, General Counsel 8. TTL Appointments Howard Carter, General Counsel Items for Noting 9. Chair's Action re: ELL Contracts Howard Carter, General Counsel 10. Directions and Delegations Howard Carter, General Counsel 11. Report from the Finance Committee Sir Mike Hodgkinson, Chair of the (oral) Committee 12. Report from Safety, Health and Environment Dave Wetzel, Chair of the Committee Committee 13. Any Other Business Page 1 of 1 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD – OPEN SESSION MINUTES of the Board Meeting held in the Chamber, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA at 10.00 am on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 Present: Dave Wetzel (Chair) Stephen Glaister Kirsten Hearn Paul Moore Sir Gulam Noon Patrick O’Keeffe John Ormerod Tony West In attendance: Lord Toby Harris Bryan Heiser Murziline Parchment Lynn Sloman Barry Broe Director of Group Transport Planning
    [Show full text]