CHAPTER 10 CONSULTATION RESULTS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

10.1.1 The consultation period on the Local Implementation Plan and accompanying Environmental Report was from the 31st May to the 8th August 2005. The LIP document and accompanying Environmental Report were made available on the Council’s website (www..gov.uk) during the consultation period. Hard copies and copies of the documents on CD-Rom were also made available from the Transportation and Policy and Projects Team.

10.1.2 Reference copies were made available at all borough libraries, Hayes One Stop Shop and the Planning and Transportation Group reception at the Civic Centre, .

10.1.3 Under section 145 of the GLA Act, boroughs were required to consult on their draft LIP with:

• The relevant Commissioners (Metropolitan Police Service and City Police) • Transport for • Such organisations representative of disabled people • Each other London Borough whose area is likely to be affected by the plan. • Councils were also recommended to consult: • London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and London Ambulance Service representatives • The Highway Agency • and the SRA, where appropriate • Local Mobility Forum • Representatives of business, local environment, transport and community groups • Neighbouring Local Authorities

10.1.4 Hillingdon Council consulted all the above and also many interested members of the public including Residents Associations. 31 public responses were received, during the consultation process, from members of the public, resident associations and other transport stakeholders. Overall, there were many objections to lowering South Railway Bridge. There were also concerns raised about how the borough’s roads would cope with new infrastructure and associated traffic growth.

10.1.5 As part of the consultation process a presentation was given at the Hillingdon Motorist’s Forum meeting in May 2005 to inform members of what the LIP contained. A presentation on the LIP was also given to the Hillingdon Learning Disabilities Forum in August 2005.

10.2 COMMENTS 10.2.1 In TfL’s response to the draft LIP it was considered that 46 of the 82 relevant, separate ‘must’ requirements complied with LIP guidance and 28 of the 49 similar ‘encouraged’ requirements comply. Overall, TfL assessed the LIP as, likely to meet the requirements of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy with a few additions and/or adjustments.

10.2.2 Careful consideration has been given to TfL comments received. Revised information for the final document included: • More detailed financial information in line with the 2006/07 BSP funding allocation

273 • Performance measures and how we are going to meet the specified Mayor’s Transport Strategy’s targets. • Further detail of transport programmes including timeframes. • Linkages to the emerging Local Development Framework.

10.2.4 A meeting was held with TfL in February to address any outstanding issues before the report was finalised through Cabinet. The LIP must comply with all ‘must’ requirements before the Mayor can approve it.

274 10.3 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Response Unique Summary of comment Officer Response received referencing From: number London No specific comments No action required Ambulance Service LAS001 HSRA001 The use of 20mph zones in through roads increases noise, retains Safety is the main priority for site selection. and vehicles in roads for longer and increases pollution. Pollution as a result of slowed vehicles has been Residents recognised. Association HSRA002 There are no Home Zones/Streets for People schemes proposed for the Sites for the programme have not yet been HSRA002 Harmondsworth and Sipson area identified. HSRA003 The Safety Camera Programme should clearly indicate where cameras All speed sites (core, exceptional and roadworks) are and what motorists are being asked to do must comply with the safety camera programme signing rules and all traffic signs must fully comply with the statutory requirements of the current Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) or be specifically authorised by DFT. Signing is required so that drivers can be fully aware of the existence of a camera safety site. More information on signing, visibility and conspicuity rules can be found at www.dft.gov.uk .

A map of where safety cameras are located is now included in the appendices of the LIP. HSRA004 Bus lanes should be limited in number and targeted to areas where they Bus lanes are targeted to areas where they are are most needed. Bus lanes help bus movements but can cause most needed. The Council meets on a quarterly considerable congestion and resentment from other road users when basis with traffic stakeholders to discuss bus they can be empty for a large proportion of the time, especially out of priority. From this both short and long term bus rush hour priority improvements are developed and refined.

275 HSRA005 The Harmondsworth and Sipson area does not have sufficient air quality This issue should be addressed through the monitors. The aviation industry should pay for additional monitors as Project for Sustainable Development of traffic numbers are directly related to the increase in airport business. . Pollution is also caused by aircrafts. HSRA006 Developers should provide 100% of the parking needed for their Parking provision of developers is covered in the activities. This should help avoid the major problems of parking in draft Local Development Framework – policy local roads. CP35. HSRA007 Controlled parking zones in the Harmondsworth and Sipson area should This issue should be addressed through the be completely free to all residents, however many vehicles there are, Project for Sustainable Development of and paid for by the aviation industry and any other developers who do Heathrow. not provide adequate parking on site. HSRA008 To reduce traffic in local roads, no firms should be allowed to run Parking provision of developers is covered in the parking businesses on Green Belt/farming land and rigorous draft Local Development Framework – policy enforcement action should be taken against those who breach planning CP35. law HSRA009 Accessibility and Social Inclusion – In support of provisions in the LIP Form 32 has been amended to include those that for mobility impaired. However, should include those that are are temporarily immobile. temporarily immobile. HSRA010 Support Crime and Disorder Programme. More police on the streets, As part of the Safer Travel at Night Proposal the especially on foot patrol, would be the best means of deterring crime. Council will work with the Metropolitan Police to make travel safer in the borough. HSRA011 Emphasise safety as being important for all walkers of all ages. This Pedestrian footpaths, footways and lighting includes keeping footways and footpaths being kept in good condition. programme addresses street lighting and Street lighting is an important feature to help people to feel safe. pedestrian safety issues. In general, however, policing issues are not dealt with in the LIP but are included in Hillingdon’s Community Safety Strategy 2005-2008. HSRA012 Pedestrian crossings need to be checked to ensure that there is adequate Form 35 has been amended to include this time given for elderly people and mothers with children to cross safely. HSRA013 Priority should be given to the elimination of vandalism in parks where Vandalism is dealt with by the Parks Patrols or footpaths run. referred to Street Cleansing. HSRA014 Concern with some of the existing cycle lanes on the main roads. Some Form number 40 has been amended to take this of the cycle lanes go nowhere; some are only a couple of meters long, into consideration. and some are not marked well. The legal position relating to the lanes is not clear to motorists. Have reservations about combining footways and cycle-ways 276 Other • Support the cycle parking and training programmes Comments • 20mph zone welcomed in Harmondsworth High Street/Moor Lane (this is a cul-de-sac where speed is an increasing Made problem • Support • Opposed to both central and local government policies on parking. • Concern over Tram proposal - do not wish to see it extended to the Harmondsworth and Sipson area? Support improvement of Uxbridge Bus Station, as it is congested and dangerous for pedestrians alighting from the bus and going to the station and to the Chimes shopping centre Liftshare.com LS015 Currently no mention of car sharing in LIP. Liftshare.com is a scheme Form number 17 has been amended to include Ltd funded initially through Transport for London for all of car sharing initiatives. including the Borough of Hillingdon. Trevor Spencer TS016 Railway Bridge – Concern over the encouragement of This concern has been noted. The proposal has HGV. This is an area that is already congested. Increasing vehicle now been changed to explore alternative routes usage in this area would lead to increased accidents. for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The funding being sought is for feasibility work of options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air quality in the Ruislip area. Karen D Ward KW017 • South Ruislip Railway Bridge – Against allowing lorries down This concern has been noted. The proposal has Station Approach. Traffic is currently congested around Sainsbury’s now been changed to explore alternative routes especially at peak times. Concern about the road not being wide for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The enough to cope with lorries. This would lead to increased funding being sought is for feasibility work of congestion. options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air • Concern about the lowering of the bridge and where the water will quality in the Ruislip area. be drained. • Concern over the disruption/congestion that construction would have. This may effect traffic movement coming off the A40 which may lead to accidents. • Suggest that the council gets an access slip coming from the A40, between Polish and Target. This would take the lorries and a lot of the traffic away from the West End Road and Station Approach (this would only help the traffic one way) • Concern that if the bridge was lowered this may lead to flooding Environment Provided checklist of issues to consider when finalising the LIP No action required Agency Brian Dazley BD018 South Ruislip Railway Bridge - Objection to lowering South Ruislip This concern has been noted. The proposal has 277 Railway Bridge. The current congestion problems should not be now been changed to explore alternative routes exacerbated by Heavy Goods Vehicles. for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The funding being sought is for feasibility work of options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air quality in the Ruislip area. Highways HA019 Chapter 3 – The Highways Agency urge the introduction of a policy This request has been forwarded on to the Policy Agency requiring that flows on to trunk roads and motorways shall not result in section of the Council for consideration to be their peak capacity being exceeded. This flows from the principle of included in the Local Development Framework. integrated demand management that was recommended by the Thames Valley Multi Modal study and endorsed be the Secretary of State. The Highways Agency will expect spatial and transport policies and proposals to adhere to this principle. Similarly, for reasons of safety, they strongly urge the introduction of a policy requiring that policies and proposals shall not result in traffic queuing on trunk roads and motorways. Trunk roads and motorways in Hillingdon are high speed and queues generate the risk of serious accidents. HA020 In the Congestion Hot Spots Programme (Form number 13) concerns Site 18 is not specifically mentioned in form are made that improvement of site 18 might result in flows on the M4 number 13. exceeding peak capacity of the motorway. (The forthcoming improvements to M4 Junction 4 required to accommodate the Stockley Park development do include measures to control the flow of traffic on to the motorway. HA021 Air Quality Improvement Programme (Form Number 14) – No mention Not considered appropriate. Many organisations is made of the work in partnership between Hillingdon’s Air Quality worked with the Council when developing the Action Plan and the Highway’s Agency. Air Quality Management Strategy. HA022 • The Agency is currently looking at the use of High Occupancy • Form 14 amended to read high occupancy Vehicle Lanes on its network. Other than plans for the M1, there are measures. no specific proposals at present, however, we are investigating the • Hillingdon Council is an objector of the feasibility of HOV lanes on the M25 between Junctions 12 and 15. Tram. Experience elsewhere would suggest that HOV lanes could be difficult to deliver without road widening. Therefore it is suggested that Package 2 (and package 4) should refer to high occupancy vehicle measures rather than lanes. • In respect of light rail/tram schemes we have commented that there is little or no scope for the M4 to take additional peak traffic that might be displaced from other corridors. Indeed pressure from 278 longer distance traffic might result in peak joining flows having to be reduced below current levels. Notwithstanding the above we do see scope to work with you on many of the issues within Package 2 and look forward to doing this. HA023 Map showing the Hillingdon Road Hierarchy map is incorrect, the This map has been amended A3113 is the responsibility of the Highways Agency as is the A40 outside the GLA boundary up to and including Denham roundabout. HA024 Suggest an addition to the map of the M25 Spur to Heathrow Terminal This map has been amended 5. This is currently under construction and forecast to come into operation towards the end of the draft Plan period. HA025 On the map showing Major Interchanges M25 Junction 14 is located This map has been amended incorrectly HA026 Figure 4.2 appears to be a picture of the M4 looking east to Junction 3, Amended to read Traffic queues on the M4 not the A40. Cllr David DS027 Need to mention that London borough of Hillingdon is a ‘strong client’ This has been added to form number 19 (West Simmonds, of the West London Tram Proposal. London Tram) Deputy Leader, Conservative Group Office DS028 It is stated that using Trams on Uxbridge Road would increase public Reduction of available road space on Uxbridge transport capacity by over 70% but by how much would this reduce Road is an area of concern for Hillingdon. The road capacity. proposals so far put forward for off route traffic dispersal/management are not convincing. This issue is one of the factors in Hillingdon Council choosing to be an objector to the Tram. DS029 The following paragraph included in the LIP is very controversial and Effective parking control will support essential what about sustainability of town centres, shopping parades business activity and improve the reliability of ‘Hillingdon aims to use parking management to maintain or increase servicing. In addition the Local Development the proportion of personal travel made by means other that the car and Framework is seeking to promote sustainable to safeguard the needs of local residents. The strategic management of modes of transport. This will help make town parking spaces is able to contribute directly to this target as the supply, centres more accessible. location, pricing and enforcement of spaces can control uninhibited growth in the use of road vehicles and can encourage more acceptable transport alternatives. The use of parking standards and controls can also regulate traffic generated by new developments. This is very controversial and what about sustainability of town centres, shopping 279 parades’ DS030 It is also not the case that PMA’s will only be considered where there is a ‘ The On-Street Parking Management Programme aims to install new strong groundswell from residents that parking is Parking Management Areas (PMAs) and review existing PMAs to a problem in their area. The Council is only contribute to effective and efficient parking management in the reactive to residents parking concerns. Borough. The Council seeks to progressively introduce PMAs to all areas of the Borough where the demand for on-street parking exceeds the available supply.’ Mia Lawrence ML031 South Ruislip Railway Bridge – Against lowering as there is already a This concern has been noted. The proposal has congestion problem in that area, especially at rush hour times and in the now been changed to explore alternative routes weekend. Would be helpful to try and ensure the free flow of traffic for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The wherever possible funding being sought is for feasibility work of options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air quality in the Ruislip area. ML032 Would like to bring to the Borough’s attention that there have been a Noted number of lanes/roundabouts being narrowed where there is already heavy traffic. Alison Ray AR033 South Ruislip Railway Bridge - Objection to the lowering of the South This concern has been noted. The proposal has Ruislip Railway Bridge Already very congested. Heavy goods vehicles now been changed to explore alternative routes will only add to congestion problem. Also there would be disruption for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The when construction is undertaken. The Council should concentrate on funding being sought is for feasibility work of reducing traffic congestion and pollution by seeing alternative modes of options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air transport. quality in the Ruislip area. Station HFS034 Endorsement of aim to improve traffic flow and safety No action required Commander – But oppose any scheme that may delay the attendance of a fire Heathrow Fire appliance Station James and JVW035 South Ruislip Railway Bridge - Objection to the lowering of the South This concern has been noted. The proposal has Victoria Wells Ruislip Railway Bridge. This is because: now been changed to explore alternative routes • Station Approach is already congested. Which leads to adverse for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The environmental impacts which impacts on human health. Air quality funding being sought is for feasibility work of around Station Approach is poor. South Ruislip should be identified options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air as an Air Quality Management Area. quality in the Ruislip area. • Additional vehicles in Station Approach would increase traffic accidents in the area, putting children at even greater risk due to additional ‘rat running’ along Edwards Avenue and all the other 280 roads connecting Station Approach/Edwards Avenue. JVW036 Request the sequencing of traffic lights at the junction of Station This request has been forwarded to the Council’s Approach and West End Road and the junction of Long Drive and Road Safety Programme Officer. Victoria Road are adjusted to discourage vehicles from using Station Approach. Andy Wright AW037 South Ruislip Railway Bridge - Objection to the lowering of the South This concern has been noted. The proposal has Ruislip Railway Bridge now been changed to explore alternative routes for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The funding being sought is for feasibility work of options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air quality in the Ruislip area. South Ruislip SRRA038 Objection to the South Ruislip Road Development Proposals This concern has been noted. The proposal has Residents • Section E2.21a South Ruislip Centre, which fully identifies and now been changed to explore alternative routes Association recognises that the South Ruislip are ‘ already suffers from severe for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The traffic congestion’ from freight and car vehicles. funding being sought is for feasibility work of • Section C 2.14g The South Ruislip Road Development Proposals. options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air The justification for this policy seems to be to reduce the mileage quality in the Ruislip area. covered by heavy vehicles requiring more than 12ft head clearance. It is not correct to state that HGVs need to take ‘a long detour’. It is a slightly round about route to reach the industrial areas in South Ruislip. • The proposed road lowering under the bridge which would have to be very substantial, and the proposed replacement of the existing access arrangements to the frontages near the bridge would be by definition be hugely expensive. • Has a full and proper survey been carried out at the junction of West End Road and Station Approach to quantify roughly how many heavy goods vehicles required more than 12ft head clearance because they are currently being forced to take a slightly round-a- bout route to reach South Ruislip’s Industrial areas? • An informed judgement as to how effective and cost effective the road lowering proposal would be needs the following information: • How many heavy vehicle miles might be saved? • A map or information showing exactly what businesses are located in the industrial areas of South Ruislip that require regular deliveries

281 of goods and materials by lorries requiring a head height greater than 12 ft. • Has any consideration been given to the fact that whilst a minimal reduction in heavy vehicle mileage might be obtained the mileage saved and hence the pollution reduction might be partially or even totally negated by the engines of heavy vehicles idling for long periods of time whilst they queued in the inevitable increase in congestion that would build up in West End Road and Station Approach? In addition to current congestion developments already in hand from the activities and staffing levels at Norholt Aerodrome with the imminent introduction of British Forces Post Office into • Station Approach/Long Drive is used by a substantial number of pedestrians, including school children. This area also already suffers from additional noise and pollution caused by aircraft using Northolt Aerodrome whose low level approach and take off flight paths are virtually a mirror image of the paths followed by Station Approach and Long Drive • Residents who live within a quarter mile radius of which includes Station Approach, Long Drive, Victoria Road, and many more smaller side roads have to suffer the additional noise pollution caused by both underground and main line trains stopping and passing through South Ruislip Station, • This scheme could result in Station Approach, Victoria Road and Long Drive though to Field End Road developing into a heavy vehicle rat run for vehicles trying to reach destinations the other side of South Ruislip. Thus introducing more noise and air pollution into what is a solely residential area, where school children are present. • Has consideration been given to large vehicles and their ability to cope with tight right angle turns from west End Road into Station Approach, and the right and left turns at the crossroads of Station Approach and Victoria Road? • Proposals to replace existing access arrangements for the frontages near the bridge could have severe implications for South Ruislip station, Days Hotel, the Arms, and various shops.

282 • It would seem that this scheme will only work to transfer the existing heavy vehicle hazard, noise and pollution from the general area where it is being dissipated more evenly and to concentrate it into clearly defined pedestrianised and residential areas with their social amenities and through routes to various schools • Concern that if the South Ruislip road-lowering proposal went ahead along with the Freight Lorry signage programmes this could work together to funnel all heavy goods vehicles down Station Approach. SRRA039 Town Centre Improvement Programme As part of form 16 – Rail Developments there is Could the maintenance railway line that already exists between South already a proposal to extend/divert the Central Ruislip and Uxbridge Stations be developed to carry passengers Line from West of Ruislip to Uxbridge. between the two centres? This would encourage people to use this link rather than using private cars. SRRA040 Station Proposal This request has been sent to the Road Safety Support proposals to improve pedestrian access into Eastcote station. Programme Officer. For safety reasons we propose that a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing should be constructed on the apex of the railway bridge opposite the station or construct a low level underground route directly into the booking office of Eastcote Station. SRRA041 Since the reconfiguration and opening up of the traffic light controlled Please see above comment. cross roads of Field End Road, Elm Avenue and North View, this crossing has become anti-pedestrian. Suggest that this cross road should be reconfigured again back to its original design reinstating the parts of the service roads that have been removed, because this arrangement was far more pedestrian friendly. SRRA042 Crossrail Proposal The current proposed route is not near Ruislip If and when the Crossrail gets constructed could consideration be given and would therefore not be considered a viable to making a connection with the Chiltern line at either end at South option. Ruislip or West Ruislip stations? The extension for the Metropolitan and Piccadilly Request that consideration is given to extending the Lines to is already included as Piccadilly/ from Uxbridge to Heathrow. a proposal under Form number 16 – Rail Developments SRRA043 In the interests of safety and traffic flow could we suggest that motorcycles should be allowed to use bus lanes? This would stop them The current regulations do not permit this, having to negotiate densely packed traffic, which could well reduce throughout London. Bus lanes are only for use 283 accidents and injury to motorcyclists. by buses, coaches, emergency service vehicles and licensed taxis. London LTUC044 Would like to see the ‘Streets for People’ as an overarching agenda. Noted Transport Users Pedestrians should be viewed with priority. This would translate to Committee wider footways, better pedestrian crossings, slower speeds, removing obstacles from footways and selective streetscape improvements. LTUC045 Associated streetscape improvements should be a part of all schemes. This is something the Council is working towards but are constrained by funding and resources. The Council therefore priorities schemes for streetscape improvement. LTUC046 Would like to see policy on the removal and ways to tackle one-way Each ‘one way’ system is site specific and systems and roads as they create problems for bus passengers, cyclists introduced after assessing the need for this and pedestrians. system and following statutory consultation. Broad-brush policy to remove one-way systems could endanger road safety and possibly introduce other traffic management issues. LTUC047 Would like to see policy on the removal of bus stop lay-bys Noted. But would keep under review for the revision of BTS LTUC048 The Committee would like to see the Parking Plan to have a mechanism Parking prices are determined by Council to ‘lock in’ or enhance the benefits of controlled parking zones by price members. and permit allocation. LTUC049 Would like to see policies recognise the issue of congestion/road user Policies regarding road user charging inside GLA charging as a necessary part of the mix of solutions to tackle traffic boundary falls within the remit of the Mayor of growth and congestion in the medium to long term across the borough London. For any changing scheme to be and wider area. implemented there has to be an overwhelming support.

LTUC050 • Would like to see ALL stations studied with a view of improving This is something the Council is working towards access but are constrained by funding and resources. • Would like to see ALL town and district centres studied with the view to improving access LTUC051 We would like to see consultation with street users including those that The Council currently does not undertake any pass through, not just the frontages, and to give due weight to the wider general consultation with street users. However, public interest and to those that do not respond to formal consultation specific projects such as Windsor Street have had extensive consultation undertaken with street users. This has helped the proposed design, and 284 remodelling, of the area. Other We would like to see more of actual schemes and projects that are to be planned and delivered. comments made Hayes Town HTC052 The LIP currently fails to mention alternative forms of transport such as The draft Local Development Framework – Core Centre Manger the Canal/Waterway Strategy encourages rail and water borne freight (Mohammad at appropriate locations. Water Borne Freight is Haniff) now mentioned in Chapter two of the LIP. HTC053 It is not clear whether the plan has addressed the redevelopment of the Traffic Assessments are undertaken for all major Hayes Goodsyard site and the Southall Gas Works site both of which trip-generating developments. A traffic will have severe transportation implications for Hayes and the Borough assessment has been undertaken for the Hayes generally Goodsyard site, and will be undertaken for the Southall Gas works. The Hayes Goodsyard site has been agreed subject to section 106 requirements. The LIP does not identify specific sites that have transport implications. HTC054 The Plan does not include any proposals to explore the ‘opening up’ of Noted. Station Road in Hayes to through traffic as was decided by members three years ago when they decided to introduce limited parking in the town centre. Slough SBC055 Air Quality should be listed as a priority area in its own right, especially Air quality has its own LIP 1 form. Air quality Borough given the importance of the issue monitoring will also be reported in the LIP Council annual monitoring report. SBC056 The plan does not currently appear to consider the wider transport and A new section has been included in the final LIP planning policy context within the South East that will impact on outer regarding regional partnerships. London Boroughs such as Hillingdon. For example the emerging South East Plan and the South East Regional Transport Strategy. SBC057 It would be useful for the plan to highlight some specific cross Hillingdon Council belongs to the West London boundary issues, and opportunities for joint work with adjoining Alliance where many transport issues such as authorities. For example air quality. Improving public transport from freight are discussed and programmes the West of Hillingdon and tackling problems associated with freight implemented. transport areas that would be jointly explored further. Other Welcome work, and the proposals outlined within your plan, to try and secure improved access to Heathrow by both bus and comments rail. made Ruislip RRA058 • Page 28 (Exec Summary) - Introduction to Table 8 refers “to The executive summary was produced for the 285 Residents’ improve cycling” – should be “to improve transport infrastructure”. draft LIP. This will be amended when used in Association • Exec Summary - Crossrail gets only a paragraph in the Executive future. summary against West London Trams two paragraphs, yet potentially could have a far greater impact RRA059 • There are many significant factors that will cause additional traffic New developments are covered in the Local congestion on Hillingdon roads such as the building of new houses, Development Framework LDF. The LIP will major shopping centre expansions, extensions to Heathrow Airport work in conjunction with the LDF. etc. However, there appears to be no combined strategy for accommodating these developments. RRA060 • The Council should be making realistic plans to accommodate the Agreed, the programmes included in the private transport needs of the estimated 4% increase in population. Relieving Traffic Congestion section of the LIP will all contribute to accommodating the expected 4% increase in traffic volumes. The Highways Agency and TfL also have a large part to play in determining how the borough will meet expected growth. RRA061 • Reducing the need to travel. – As far as shopping and leisure It is recognised that while Hillingdon aims to activities are concerned, this principle is largely irrelevant. The improve and expand the public transport continuing trend towards supermarkets and large shopping centres network, and to promote alternative modes of means that many small shops go out of business and required travel, in areas such as Hillingdon with highly services are not available locally. dispersed demand patterns, car use will continue • The Hillingdon LIP completely fails to recognise the importance of to be an important travel method into the the motorcar to all the residents of Hillingdon in both Leisure and foreseeable future. This is consistent with the Business contexts. The car provides a level of independence and acknowledgement in the Mayor’s Transport flexibility for the large majority that is far greater than the other Strategy that cars will continue to be the main forms of transport discussed. In addition, travel by car needs no mode of travel in outer London. subsidy and both the Council and National Government take significant tax revenues from the private motorist. Resources must be put into improving trains and Underground, but the road system must be maintained/improved in parallel. RRA062 • The Association is not convinced of the value of the proposed West Hillingdon Council is an objector to the Tram. London Tram, whatever the route. Any available funds could well be better spent elsewhere, e.g. linking the Piccadilly underground line to Heathrow via Uxbridge. RRA063 Requests for Clarity • Changes have been made to chapter two to

286 • Page 7/8 – Clauses 2.1/2.2 - The figures in this section regarding correct these errors. public transport usage do not add up (This is meant quite literally, rather than an expression of opinion). • Gritting of roads is proposed for road • Page 54 - Gritting is covered for buses on roads – is there similar vehicles. gritting cover available/proposed for passengers getting on and alighting from buses, i.e. adjacent to bus stops? • Page 92: Funding has to be procured first • Page 92 - Town Centres – Ruislip – are any details of proposals in order to develop plans. available?

RRA064 Parking Parking Standards are included in the LDF. In • Parking Controls. It is important that the Council policy of more general the Council has reduced the cost of attractive and cheaper car parks adjacent to railway/tube stations parking in the borough. The cost and supply of continues. parking needs to be balanced with other needs • Parking & Loading – It is also important that more short-term free such as making sure parked vehicles do not lead parking is provided. Having a place to park is an essential part of to traffic congestion. The parking and any road journey. Car parks must be well maintained, safe to use Enforcement Plan – Chapter 7 of the LIP gives and viewed as a service to the community. Very few family details of parking in the borough. shopping trips can be made by cycling, walking or using bus/train. RRA065 Road Safety The congestion hot spots programme (form • There is no reference to dealing with specific congestion hot spots number 13). This programme will prioritise sites and the associated Appendix 8 does not have an adequate key. from Appendix 8. Form 13 has been amended to refer to Appendix 8. RRA066 Page 32 refers to 12 Local Safety Schemes. Is a list available? Yes. Officers can make this available to Ruislip Residents Association RRA067 Page 114 - Pedestrian Crossing Programme It should be noted that all This suggestion has been passed to the Safety the pedestrian crossings adjacent to the roundabout at the north end of Programme officer. Ruislip High Street are in urgent need of upgrading for safety considerations. RRA068 Safety cameras are mentioned, but we understand that the Council is This initiative has recently been started by the introducing speed-warning devices that flash a speed limit sign when a Council, and has been included in the Safety driver is over the relevant setting. We understand that these have been Camera Programme. successful elsewhere. No mention is made of them in the LIP. RRA069 Congestion and Pollution Highway Improvements refers to all initiatives Mayors Transport Strategy-Improving Air Quality This section that reduce congestion in the sense that smoother

287 identifies that “highway improvements can lead to improved air traffic flows contribute to improved air quality. quality.” A list of proposed improvements should be included. RRA070 Reducing Traffic and Transport Noise. Are any measures to be The Council is committed to working towards the introduced to reduce noise from trains & planes? This type of noise is objectives of the Mayor’s Ambient Noise more obtrusive that traffic, because it peaks with intermittent high- Strategy. Specific measures are identified within levels. the Mayor’s Strategy. RRA071 Traffic lights operation should be reviewed on a five yearly basis to Traffic lights are operated by Traffic Technology check particularly phasing for the benefit of pedestrians and road users. Services (TTS) within Transport for London. TTS are responsible for most effective operation of the phasing. Currently Hillingdon is addressing the issue of congestion hotspots, which may lead to the need for adjustment to signal timings. RRA072 Setting Objectives & Measuring Outcomes Performance measures will be included in the Although there is a chapter on measurement of outcomes, no details Final LIP are given. RRA073 There is no evaluation of the value of the expenditure and its A combination of the Borough Transport effectiveness in achieving the objectives or indication as to how Strategy’s priorities and past BSP bids formed priorities for Hillingdon have been determined, other than by general priorities for the LIP. reference to the Mayor’s Transport strategy. For example, it is proposed to spend nearly £0.6 million each year on improving cycling facilities, which account for less than 2% of travel in the area, while only £0.2 million is to be spent on congestion hot spots (a national transport target), which affects 60% of travel. RRA074 Finances Past BSP bid information has now been included There is no comparison with historical expenditure and no allowance in the LIP. for inflation. Information on previous bids and subsequent funding would be helpful. RRA075 Page 227 - Required resources are outlined, but are these already The resources that have been identified are those available or will they be additional to those existing at present? Are that the Council currently have. any additional resources included in the costings? RRA076 Page 230 - Are totals realistic expectations of funding available for this The LIP’ must be based on realistic planning programme? The figures show approx. £25m for four years plus many assumptions and has not been used as an items yet to be assessed. aspirational bidding document. Proposals are considered practical, sustainable, fundable (so far as can currently be predicted). 288 RRA077 Rail Developments. The Association supports all the rail developments Projects such as the Tram are not funded by proposed in the LIP, but is concerned as to how the finance will be Hillingdon Council. Funding will come from raised. Transport for London.

RRA078 The LIP makes no reference of income from parking charges and fines. Information on parking revenue has now been included in the LIP.

289 Other • The Association supports attempts to increase the numbers of children waking to school as this will help reduce comments congestion. made • The Association supports the introduction of some cycle lanes, with local consultation, where the Council adheres to its policy of not removing carriageway width to provide such cycle lanes • Secure short-term cycle storage should be provided at stations and other relevant places. • The level of money spent on cycling appears to be disproportionate to benefits gained.

There are only three really innovative projects outlined in the LIP: • A new road link from the A40 to South Ruislip, avoiding the low bridge of South Ruislip • Linking the Central and Metropolitan lines at • Extending the via Uxbridge to Heathrow

• South Ruislip Development Proposals – no mention of the alternative of the A40 direct link road. • The Association object to the lowering of the South Ruislip Railway Bridge. Before there is expenditure in this area, consideration must be given to a new link road from Western Avenue. There will be a considerable increase in commercial traffic from the planned expansion of Northolt, which could be at least partially accommodated by direct access from the eastbound lane of the A40 to the airfield, possibly via the Polish War Memorial roundabout. • The traffic in this area must be considered as a whole, including freight to South Ruislip, Northolt expansion, Ruislip High Street congestion, new school in Sidmouth Drive, development of Lime Grove, Bishop Ramsey plans to combine schools. • The Association understands that the ground needed for an A40 link road may not be in the Borough of Hillingdon, but we suggest that now is the time to partner with Ealing, whose residents may well be equally affected. • The Association supports the principle of School Travel Plans • There is no mention in the LIP of strategy for managing work by utility companies, road repairs, etc. These types of operation need to be tightly controlled and the relevant payments collected.

• Like the draft Transport Strategy, the LIP is long on generalities and short on specific actions. • The Association agrees with the principle of reviewing parking schemes every 5 years. • The Association is in favour of 20mph zones in the right areas and looks forward to consultation on proposals. • Please keep the Ruislip Residents’ Association informed of plans for congestion hot spots not only in Ruislip, but also in adjacent areas which will affect Ruislip, i.e. Eastcote, and South Ruislip.

Innovative Suggestion - Bus lay-bys could be introduced where possible. These would provide bus passengers with improved safety and convenience while at the same time reducing the congestion caused by a stationary bus. Hillingdon HCTG79 • Currently the LIP fails to adequately mention Community Transport Hillingdon Community Transport is now 290 Community in Hillingdon included as part of the programme to increase Transport • HCT provides an affordable, fully accessible mini bus transport door to door services in Hillingdon. Group services to voluntary and community groups, including schools, day centres, care homes plus other statutory and not-for profit organisations, and we also have some disabled individual members. • HCT also carry out some contract work for LBH Special Needs school transport, a few local luncheon clubs, Hillingdon PCT, and various Social Services Depts., using paid drivers. • HCT receives an annual grant from LBH of £38,5000 and currently based in the Harlington Road Depot. Future plans – HCT is looking to develop a Demand Responsive Transport, (DRT) service that would complement (not compete) current transport services to the local community, e.g. , DAR. It would offer a fully accessible, affordable door-to-door service to those members of the community who find it most difficult, (including concerns about personal; safety) to access/use conventional public transport services. A list of potential users would include the elderly, disabled, ethnic minority groups, parents with young children, young people to work. The service would be membership based and not available to the general public. Robin Brown RB080 As to LIP context, I consider that the following are essential for a Many of these suggestions are already included substantial transport strategy. in the LIP. • A cycle friendly road and off road network, and cycling training for all. Form 23 – Heathrow Traffic Programme has • An appropriate network of bus priority measures been amended to include more information on the • Safe routes not only to schools, but also to recreational and leisure Travel Plan and Airport Carshare schemes. facilities • Lower speed limits to 20mph generally in residential areas and near TfL will fund many of the LIP programmes. The significant generators of pedestrian traffic, e.g. schools, hospitals, financial section in the final LIP has been shopping areas amended and updated to reflect Borough • Support for public transport, including the setting up of a forum for Spending Plan (BSP) funding for the 2006/07 non-car travellers financial year. • Streets/pavements, lanes and paths in good condition and pleasant for walking • The promotion of appropriate rail and freight

291 • Integrated transport and land based planning to ensure, for example, adequate range of accessible and convenient services, employment and other facilities, so as to reduce car dependency, • Green travel plans not only for new developments, but facilitated for existing significant traffic generators • A consistent sustained funded programme of road safety • And specifically for Heathrow, progressing mitigation measures for Heathrow, progressing mitigation measures that have immediate and medium term effect (e.g. green travel plans for the airport and associated traffic generators), and not just plans that are already agreed (e.g. capping Terminal 5 parking) or are long term (e.g. new rail lines). Measures to change the modal split of travellers/workers at Heathrow should be clearly set out and timetabled • The LIP should embody proposals to deliver measures implementing the above list. However, this list is not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive or comprehensive. • Funding for the range of LIP measures should be soundly based and not rely upon S106 windfalls RB081 Editing note: the Abbreviation BSP should be written in full to aid An abbreviation list has subsequently been added reading

Other • There has been inadequate publicity and community involvement in the consultation of the LIP. comments Concerned about the Local Development Framework and the Local Implementation Plan meshing together to the required made and promised degree. A holistic approach and outcome to transport and land use planning is not assured. Cllr Brian BC082 The statement is made in the LIP that the car will be the preferred mode Many of these priorities are already included in Crowe of travel in Hillingdon for the foreseeable future. Therefore congestion the LIP. reduction, the need for north/south orbital routes, freight distribution and parking provision should be prioritised. RB083 It should be recognised that successful road safety programmes impose Most of the road safety programmes are costs as well as benefits and schemes should be assessed in respect to prioritised by looking at the number of Killed costs and benefits and seriously injured at a specific site. RB084 Safety cameras are unpopular with many. There is a case for the use of Speed-warning devices that flash a speed limit electronic warning systems that are speed sensitive and warn motorists to sign when a driver is over the relevant setting is slow down or indicate the speed at which they are travelling. It is not an initiative that has recently been started by the included in the LIP that they could be an alternative to revenue raising Council, and has been included in the Safety

292 speed cameras. Camera Programme. Also refer to comment HSRA003. RB085 The benefits of public transport (2.8) are expressed as a range of health Sustainable forms of transport alludes to and social objectives. Given the economic costs it seems reasonable to transport that does not consume as much non- consider the economic benefits and the efficiency of the system in terms renewable energy sources – i.e. fuel and also of the return on expenditure. There is a reference to sustainable forms of does not release harmful pollutants such as transport. It would be desirable for clarity to indicate precisely what is carbon dioxide which is a major contributor to meant by sustainable in this context. climate change. The sentence has been amended to read ‘ increasing more sustainable forms of travel’ as buses still use fuel and emit pollutants but as there are more people travelling on the bus the overall effect on the environment compared to private transport (such as cars) is reduced. RB086 In the Executive Summary bus journey times are given early prominence. The Bus Journey Times chapter has been Again it is desirable to reduce these but it should be clear that any amended to include that it should be recognised measures that reduce road congestion would also contribute to reducing that any measures that reduce road congestion the problems that buses experience. My view is that bus lanes should not will also contribute to reducing the problems reduce road capacity. that buses experience. RB087 Bus build outs can contribute to congestion and bus bays are preferable Bus build outs are not preferred by London where possible with drivers trained to use them, but also with strict Buses, as they add to queue build-ups and enforcement against their misuse by other vehicles. congestion. RB088 A programme to reduce congestion on the roads is highly desirable. The Congestion is dealt with in 12 programmes identification of 30 locations represents a good start, but needs to be contained in the LIP. The congestion hot spots undertaken in a short a time scale as possible with a further rolling programme deals with localised problems. programme. Frequent complaints and experience indicate that traffic signal phasing may well play a major part in this and would repay Any reports of traffic signal phasing not being attention. accurate are referred to TTS for action. RB089 Rail development proposals deserve a much greater prominence and LBH does not have control over train routes. support. The problem of north/south communication and of Heathrow However the Council has identified routes that developments justify the extension of the Metropolitan and Piccadilly could be used to improve North-South Orbital lines to Heathrow. This will be difficult and expensive but such Routes. The Council pushes the need for improved links should be regarded as an integral part of development at increased public transport linkages from north Heathrow. Opposition to the third runway at Heathrow should not lead to south through other means such as the West us to neglect the need for this improved link. The central line extension London Transport Strategy and also Heathrow to Uxbridge should be an integral part of this and should not be difficult Area Transport Forum. 293 to achieve. I would not wish my own ward to be penalised by reduction of service to West Ruislip. This could be overcome if Chiltern Line trains stopped more frequently at both South Ruislip and West Ruislip. RB090 The development at the Station Approach Bridge at South Ruislip is quite The proposal has now been changed to explore rightly given prominence. An improvement in access to South Ruislip alternative routes for lorry movement in the industrial area is highly desirable. However, the best solution would be a Ruislip area. The funding being sought is for direct route from the Western Avenue. This option does not appear to be feasibility work of options to reduce lorry mentioned. It should be stressed as the preferred option with South mileage and improve air quality in the Ruislip Ruislip bridge as very much second best. There should be at least a area. determined attempt to provide a proper link and initially to provide comparative costing of the 2 schemes. RB091 The West London Tram should not receive automatic support. It will Hillingdon Council is an objector of the Tram. cause both short and long term disruption, will reduce road capacity, and does not represent new transport connections. Unlike some other schemes it will not be built on derelict or existing railway land but may like other schemes prove financially very problematic. RB092 Crossrail should be supported in preference to the Tram. It will provide Value judgement benefits to Hayes, and a valuable new link including Heathrow. If Britain is to host the Olympics it will better to have a link from Heathrow to Stratford rather than the Civic Centre to Shepherds Bush. RB093 The use of policies to establish low maximum levels of parking in new The Parking Standards are included in the draft developments does not meet peoples preferred methods of travel. Local Development Framework Seeking to impose judgements upon them will contribute to on street congestion and may drive social and economic activity out of the borough. Parking management areas can be desirable and successful, but should not be automatic so that consultation is genuine. RB094 Walking may be regarded as desirable but that does not mean that it Walking is promoted in the LIP as a viable should be imposed. The assessment of the cost of measures against means of transportation especially when a benefit should take account of numbers, distance and contribution to the number of car journeys are only for short economy. It appears to be being put forward as a health policy rather distances. This is consistent with the Mayor’s than transport policy. It is promoted in 2.24 as “a positive experience”. Transport Strategy. The reference to walking This is a value judgement that may be disputed when carrying heavy being ‘a positive experience’ could not be found shopping on a dark wet night in January! in the LIP. RB095 Cycling is similarly promoted. Past expenditure on this appears to have TfL and boroughs are to achieve an increase of given a limited return and I would suggest some doubt as to the return on at least 80% in cycling in London between 2001 the proposed expenditure. Reduction in road capacity for other forms of and 2011. This target is from the Mayor’s 294 road transport is not desirable and the suggestion of provision of Transport Strategy. The Council will also changing and shower facilities could equally be applied to other contribute to this target. Funding that is travellers. earmarked for cycling is received from TfL through the Borough Spending plan. RB096 The policy and its implementation requires careful consideration of the The Council has to demonstrate how it is cost of each component and its return in achieving both social and meeting the MTS targets for each of the eight economic objectives. Priorities in Hillingdon could be assessed in this MTS priority areas. However, the actual way rather than by accepting the Mayor’s views set for the whole of implementation of programmes is up to the London and not necessarily reflecting the priorities of specific boroughs Council. It is here that the Council has the and the preferences of people living and working in them. ability to reflect local priorities and react to local issues. RB097 Given that the development is a significant one I consider that pressure Noted. should be brought to bear on Transport for London to provide improved and dedicated access to the RAF base. The obvious methods would be in the vicinity of the Polish War Memorial or by works ensuring safe access to the now closed entrance to the base on the A40. Other • General comment that a greater emphasis should be placed on specific actions and solutions to problems rather than comments constantly responding to the particular areas of interest that the Mayor has chosen to require. made • It appears that there is to be a policy of limiting traffic growth. Freedom to travel is an important element for the economy and also an important freedom for the individual, widening choices and activities. The importance attached to the accessibility to travel for those with mobility difficulties reflects its importance for everybody. I am not convinced that a deliberate policy of restriction is justified, particularly as we cannot predict technical change with certainty. Transport 2000 TT098 Provided checklist for LIPs on the promotion of sustainable transport, Yes the LIP has linked environmental concerns Trust included is: including air quality and noise control. The LIP • Does the Council link its road safety objectives to wider sustainable policies have been linked to the other council transport objectives? documents including the draft Local • Do the Council’s LIP policies demonstrate strong linkages with its Development Framework development plan planning policies? documents and Air Quality Action Plan • Does the LIP contain policies that aim to make the borough more conductive to walking, through its road safety plan and other policies? Dr Mike EMRC99 Detailed comments provided suggest doing two things: The LIP has been amended to incorporate all Holland these changes EMRC Bring out the links between air quality improvement and the other actions (Review of the identified in the LIP more clearly than at present. I think this will help draft LIP from the LIP and the Air Quality Action Plan in several ways –

295 the perspective • Providing added reason to fund the proposals made in the LIP of Hillingdon’s • Identifying measures where close liaison is needed between those Air Quality with responsibilities for air quality and transport in the Council Action Plan • Improving the efficiency of implementation of the air quality action plan • Stressing the importance of taking action in the Air Quality Management Area (accepting, of course, that this is only one of several criteria that need to be considered. Restructuring Form number 14 to distinguish between those actions that are dealt with elsewhere in the plan, and those that are not. The Uxbridge UI100 Page 2, paragraph 2: In order to be consistent with the hierarchy of town This change has been made. Initiative centres in the London Plan, I suggest Uxbridge should be described as a Pavilions Major urban centre (Note, there are suggestions in the Draft Sub- Shopping Regional Plan for West London that Uxbridge should be reclassified as a Centre Metropolitan centre as it is believed to already be functioning as one). UI101 Page 2, paragraph 3: In order to be consistent with the hierarchy of town This change has been made. centres in the London Plan, I suggest the sentence begins with the words “Main District town centre are found in …” UI102 • Page 8, the section on Rail: I welcome the comments on upgrading Noted. Currently some Piccadilly services from the Ruislip link to allow Central Line services to run into Uxbridge. I Central London terminate at Rayners Lane. would add that if there is a problem with track capacity from Uxbridge to run this extra service, is there not a case for stopping the Piccadilly service at Rayners Lane, since passengers from Uxbridge could use the Metropolitan line to Rayners Lane and then change if they require Piccadilly Line services. The support for a link between Uxbridge and Heathrow is also welcomed. UI103 • Page 10, paragraph 3: Any improvement of the interchange that Noted. Development of detailed design serves the bus and underground station (and the tram in the future proposals come under the remit of the West perhaps) should be a high priority in order to lessen the frequent London Tram Team. gridlock and congestion that occurs in this area, and just as importantly to provide a modern and high quality interchange for passengers. This will need to be carefully planned and consultation with user groups should be undertaken so as to ensure the end result reflects the opinions of stakeholders as far as possible. UI104 • Page 92, para on Ruislip: I suggest the first sentence reads … Ruislip This change has been made.

296 town centre, a busy District centre. This would avoid the words major and district conflicting in planning hierarchy terms. UI105 • Page 198, the table on car park spaces: Uxbridge Civic Centre car The figure has been changed to 579. park has a capacity of 579, not 270. Hillingdon HMF106 • Page 28 (Executive Summary) – Introduction to Table 8 refers ‘to This was an executive summary of the Motorists’ improve cycling’ should be ‘to improve transport infrastructure’. Consultation Draft LIP. Error noted, however Forum this document will not be part of the final LIP document. HMF107 • In the first paragraph of Section C – Relieving Traffic Congestion The Mayor’s Transport Strategy has set goals there is a statement that Hillingdon has a target of limiting traffic for outer London Borough’s to limit car growth growth in the borough to 4%. This is not consistent with the to 4%. This does not mean that the London statement that the Council are not anti car. Borough of Hillingdon is anti car. Chapter 2 of the LIP states that ‘it is accepted that in areas such as Hillingdon with highly dispersed demand patterns, car use will continue to be an important travel method for the foreseeable future.’ HMF108 • In the Executive Summary –There seems to be more weight given to Hillingdon Council opposed the Tram. the West London Tram than Crossrail. The summary doesn’t even indicate whether Hillingdon thinks it is a project to be supported or not. HMF109 • There are many significant factors that will cause additional traffic There are many public transport schemes that volumes on the roads of Hillingdon. Such as the Government and the have been included in the LIP that will help to GLA forcing the London Boroughs to build more houses. The LIP accommodate the increase in transport in should put forward plans for accommodating these developments. specific areas. The draft Local Development Simply encouraging cycling and walking will not be sufficient. Framework also contains policy for developers on transport. Other agencies such as the Highway’s Agency also are key players in accommodating future traffic demand. Appendix 1 gives a map showing road hierarchy in Hillingdon and those agencies responsible. A paragraph has also been added to the start of chapter 2 that clarifies the Highway’s Agency’s road responsibilities. HMF110 • Equality Impact Assessment –Too politically correct This is a value judgement. The purpose of a Equality Impact Assessment is to improve the 297 LIP by making sure it does not discriminate and that, where possible, it promotes equality and fulfils our duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. HMF111 Requests for Clarity • Page 9 – The West London Tram route described mentions linking • Hillingdon Council has agreed to be an Uxbridge with Hayes. So far the Council has not supported bringing objector to the West London tram. the Tram to Uxbridge. Clarification is required. • Applications may be lodged in • Page 76 – West London Tram - Application to seek approval may be Summer/Autumn of 2006. lodged around the end of 2005’ Is this realistic (page 9 above) • Council is now an objector. • West London Tram. The Council should confirm its view on the • This has been amended WLT project. Is it still a ‘strong supporter’ • This has been amended • Page 7/8 – The % ‘s quoted in table 2.1 do not seem consistent with • This has been amended the figures quoted in section 2.2 nd • Page12.2 paragraph – What does the reference to ‘Land users…’ • This has been amended mean. th • 4 para – the reference to ‘…carer for residents...’ is unclear, needs • This has been amended clarification. • Page 13. Final para – on this page states that FQPs ‘ have yet to be • This has been amended established in London’. Page 28 state that ‘Hillingdon is a member of the WLFQP’. • Page 21 – Pedestrian Facilities – Don’t understand the reference to ‘Pedestrian access….Must be legible…’ • Page 54 – Gritting is covered for buses on roads – is there similar • Page 54: Noted. Gritting should be carried gritting cover for passengers getting on and alighting from buses, i.e. out adjacent to bus stops. adjacent to bus stops? • Page 92: Same as RRA63 • Page 92 – Town Centres – Ruislip – are any details of proposals • The Executive Summary was produced for available? the draft consultation LIP • Page 6 (Executive Summary) Para. F) – Description not clear • 20 mph speed limits and zones guidance • 20mph zones programme talks of Transport guidance, but there is no document (department for Transport reference as to what that is. Is it possible for us to have sight of that http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/ and also will the public get an opportunity to comment before such documents/pdf/dft_roads_pdf_504803.pdf zones are introduced? HMF112 Allocation of Carriageways • Where bus and cycle lanes are introduced, • Bus and cycle lanes. The forum only supports the introduction of bus sufficient carriage widths for general traffic 298 and cycle lanes where the council adheres to its policy of not have to be maintained. removing carriage width to provide such bus and cycle lanes. • Noted • The policy of not installing bus stop build outs should continue. The • Noted, Cycle routes via main roads are LIP should state these policies clearly. generally located at Toucan Crossings. • The forum suggests that cycle routes should not be accommodated via main roads. HMF113 Parking Controls It is hoped that the Council policy to make car parks The Council has decreased the price of parking adjacent to railway/tube stations more attractive and cheaper to use will near stations. Council members agree parking continue. In addition to this the Council should consider the introduction charges annually. It is therefore up to of Park and Ride Schemes. Councillors if this policy will continue. HMF114 • The forum suggests that more short-term free parking is introduced. The Council has parking standards included in The cost and availability of parking is a key attribute to the success of the draft Local Development Framework – Core town centres. Strategy. The standards effectively provide a • The Council should not limit the number of parking spaces in a new maximum for car parking in new developments. development? This is necessary to ensure that there is a • Parking enforcement by CCTV. Crime prevention is a better use of balance between competing land use demands . CCTV cameras than parking enforcement HMF115 • The Council should consult carefully with local residents before any The main purpose of a PMA is to protect the new PMA is introduced. The residents should be made aware that the parking needs of local residents from non-local introduction of a PMA would inevitably mean a reduction in the parking demands. It can also effectively number of parking spaces to them. manage on-street parking activity in an area and in doing so improve traffic movement, road safety and the general street scene. The introduction of a PMA is generally in response to residents parking problems. Extensive consultation is undertaken before a PMA is introduced. HMF116 Road Safety • Specific accident hotspots are dealt with on • There is no reference to dealing with specific accident hot spots and a case by case basis as they have site the appendix on this topic does not have an adequate key. specific problems. Priority for sites also • Page 32 – Is a list available of the 12 Local Safety Schemes changes depending on actual casualty rates. mentioned? • Page 32 has been updated to include the • Page 114 – Pedestrian Crossing Programme – please note that all the 2006/07 BSP allocation for local safety pedestrian crossings around the round about at the north end of schemes. A list of the safety schemes can Ruislip High Street are in need of upgrading for safety considerations. now be found in chapter 12 – funding

299 implications. • This request has been passed to the Council Safety Programme Officer. HMF117 • Speed cameras are unpopular – The Council should provide details of • This initiative has recently been started by the proposal to introduce mobile speed warning cameras that flash a the Council, and has been included in the sign indicating that a driver is speeding. Safety Camera Programme. • It is expected that the speed hump no longer be used as past of any • Use of traffic humps is legal. However, traffic calming measures. Could this policy be clearly stated in the Hillingdon council does not prefer speed LIP? humps. A total ban of speed humps is not seen to be prudent, as there could be instances where speed humps need to be introduced in the interest of road safety. HMF118 Congestion and Pollution Yes, the London Borough of Hillingdon hopes • There are no imaginative congestion breaking schemes. The to promote alternative modes of transport other expectation is that improving public transport will lead to a modal than the private car to bring about a modal shift but this is not quantified. change. Improving public transport is one of many tools being used which combined will encourage modal shift. From experience elsewhere this policy approach has been quantified and found to be successful. Traffic Research Limited (TrL are currently conducting survey work on behalf of the Council looking at what will encourage Hillingdon residents to a modal shift. These results will be used to ensure that the Council is taking the right policy approach. So far initial results suggest that improving public transport will encourage a modal shift. HMF119 • More detail should be included on the congestion Hot Spot Initiative Noted HMF120 • The Forum would like to see plans for a systematic review of traffic Traffic lights come under the jurisdiction of lights in Borough, in order to improve the phasing of lights that Traffic Technology Services (TTS) at TfL. cause unnecessary congestion. This request will be forwarded to TTS. HMF121 • The Forum has significant objections to West London Tram Project. Reduction of available road space on Uxbridge In its references to the project the LIP does not mention the Road is an area of concern for Hillingdon. The significant problems with the whole scheme, in particular the proposals so far put forward for off route traffic

300 escalating installation costs, the operating subsidy that will be dispersal/management are not convincing. This required and the additional road congestion that will be generated. issue is one of the factors in Hillingdon Council choosing to be an objector to the Tram. HMF122 • The pollution produced by aircraft movements at Heathrow should This issue should be addressed through the be established. Pressures should be put on the Heathrow authorities Project for Sustainable Development of to reduce the level of aircraft pollution. Heathrow. HMF123 • Speed limits must be appropriate to the road conditions. Examples Noted. of inappropriate speed limits are wide dual carriageways with no adjacent housing developments that are subject to 30mph limits. HMF124 • Mayors Transport Strategy – Improving Air Quality. This section Comment made in relation to the Mayor’s identifies that ‘highway improvements can lead to improved air Transport Strategy, not the LIP. However in quality. No highway improvements are suggested. general highway improvements will reduce congestion, which reduces vehicle pollutants. HMF125 • With reference to the possibility of a third runway. This would The Aviation White Paper sets out that there is completely over shadow any attempts to improve the air quality in the possibility of a third runway if stringent the South of the Borough. The effect of a third runway on pollution environmental conditions can be met. In levels should be mentioned in the LIP. chapter 2 of the LIP it is stated that the Council is opposed to a third runway. At this stage the actual pollution effects of a third runway have not been projected/qualified. HMF126 • What measures are to be introduced to reduce noise from trains and The Council is committed to working towards planes? This type of noise is often more obtrusive than traffic noise the objectives of the Mayor’s Ambient Noise as it is intermit peaks of high-level noise. Strategy. Specific measures can be found in this Strategy. HMF127 Cycling TfL and boroughs are to achieve an increase of It is not realistic that incentives to increase the level of cycling in the at least 80% in cycling in London between 2001 Borough will solve Hillingdon’s transport problems. and 2011. It is not envisaged or has it been implied that this incentives to increase the level of cycling on its own will solve Hillingdon’s transport problems. Cycle parking. It is suggested that kerb build outs should be used to Cycle parking is not located where sufficient provide cycle parking. This is a gross misuse of valuable carriageway carriageway width is not maintained. and would lead to greater congestion. Innovative Suggestion Noted. There are three innovative projects mentioned but they are not given great support: A new link road from the A40 to South Ruislip, avoiding 301 the low bridge at South Ruislip. This should be included with the South Ruislip Development Proposals. HMF128 • The Forum is concerned about the alternative proposal to lower the This concern has been noted. The proposal has road under the railway bridge at South Ruislip station. This would now been changed to explore alternative routes seem to be a very short term and only partial solution. The traffic in for lorry movement in the Ruislip area. The the area must be considered as a whole, including freight to South funding being sought is for feasibility work of Ruislip, Northolt expansion, Ruislip High Street congestion, new options to reduce lorry mileage and improve air school in Sidmouth Drive, development of Lime Grove and Bishop quality in the Ruislip area. Ramsey plans to combine schools. HMF129 • Extending the Metropolitan/Piccadilly lines via Uxbridge to This is an aspirational proposal. New rail Heathrow. These ideas should be expanded and more effort should schemes and other proposals that will help be put into gaining support and funding. improve north-south orbital routes have are highlighted in chapter 2 of the LIP under the rail section. HMF130 Setting Objectives and Measuring Outcomes This has now been included in the final LIP. • Although there is a chapter on measurement of outcomes, they are very general with no details of how many of the measurements will be made. • There is no evaluation of the value of the expenditure and its effectiveness in achieving the objectives. There is no indication as to how priorities for Hillingdon have been determined other than by general reference to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which covers the whole of London. HMF131 Finances Information on historical financial information • There is no comparison with historical expenditure and no allowance has now been given in the funding section of the for inflation. Information on previous bids and subsequent funding LIP. would be useful. • Page 227 – Required resources are outlined, but are these already Some of the rail development proposals are available or will they be additional to those existing at present? aspirational and are suggestions from the • Page 230 – Are totals realistic expectations of funding available for Council on how it can improve north – south this ambitious programme? orbital routes in the borough. They would not • Rail developments. The forum supports all these developments but be borough funded. questions how the finance will be raised. The LIP makes no reference to income from parking charges and fines. HMF132 The Forum wish to know if a final version of the Borough Transport The Borough Transport Strategy was agreed in

302 Strategy has been published January 2005. It will be publish early 2006. General • Much of the LIP replicates the Transport Strategy comments • The Motorist’s Forum suggests that the Council revisit its comments that were made on the Transport Strategy and made incorporate more of its comments, especially in regards to congestion. • The Council should recognise that the cost of public transport, despite the very large subsidy, is a disincentive to its use. • The trend to use supermarket type outlets and large shopping centres mean that most people need to travel further to access these services. This trend increases the need to travel. • The LIP fails to recognise the importance of the motorcar to all residents of Hillingdon in both Leisure and Business contexts. Transport Plans • As a leisure activity walking should be encouraged but it is not a serious answer to the Boroughs’ transport problems. • The comment that both Hillingdon and the Mayor accept that private cars will remain the main mode of travel in outer London for the foreseeable future is made many times. However, neither organisation put forward any realistic plans to reduce congestion and improve traffic movement on the roads of Hillingdon. • Accessibility and Social Inclusion – This section covers the town centre and station improvements. Our concern is that the plans refer all users except car users. Parking • The forum commends the principle of reviews of parking schemes every 5 years, • Parking restrictions should not be used as a mechanism to encourage a modal shift away from the car and income generation but rather a positive part of traffic management • Heathrow Traffic Programme. Limiting car parking will make it difficult for travellers • It should be recognised that reducing congestion is a factor in improving road safety. Road Developments and Regeneration Schemes • The spur road directly linking Terminal 5 with the M25 is welcomed by the Forum. • Regeneration schemes are to be welcomed but it must be realised that any economic regeneration schemes will increase the level of travel. • Eastcote Station Proposal. The forum has never found Eastcote station a threatening or insecure environment. TfL should spend the money on providing a more frequent tube service.

Travel Plans • The Forum supports the principle of School travel Plans • There is no indication of any travel plans at the Civic Centre itself.

Suggestions by the forum • As Heathrow handles such a high proportion of the UK’s freight Hillingdon should lobby for a rail freight terminus to 303 be provided. Could some of the existing passenger rail facilities be modified to handle freight? • Canals – Greater use of Canal network should be investigated • Reducing the carriageway width covered by white line hatching could increase the capacity of the existing road network. • It is possible to reduce the width of some islands in the centre of the road to increase the number of lanes that could operate without affecting road safety. • In some European cities traffic lights are turned to flashing amber during off peak hours or after a certain time. This could be tried as an experiment. • There is no need for as dedicated ‘Pedestrian Phase’ if the traffic lights are fitted with Pedestrian operated Push Buttons, more of this type of crossing should be installed. • Bus lay-bys could be introduced where possible. These would provide bus passengers with improved safety and convenience while at the same time reducing the congestion caused by a stationary bus. • A question – is the route through Ruislip recommended for heavy goods vehicles by the AA or RAC Linking the Central and Metropolitan lines at Ruislip depot. If the Central Line goes through to Uxbridge, what is the thinking for – will Central Line trains go to both West Ruislip and Uxbridge in turn? British BWL133 The draft LIP should give greater recognition of, and support to, freight This support is included in the draft Local Waterways by canal. BW looks forward to developing policies and strategies with Development Framework – Core Strategy. A London the Council to ensure that every opportunity and encouragement is sentence has been added in chapter two to this given to new and existing developments to consider freight by water. effect. BWL134 BW has a policy of supporting and wishing to encourage cycling where This is now mentioned in Chapter two under the it is safe and sustainable to do so. Cycling on towpaths is by permission title of cycling. only and requires a permit and adherence to the Cyclists Code within the Waterways Code. BW requests that the draft LIP reflects BW’s position regarding cycling on the towpaths. Other • BW welcomes the Council’s comment on page 13 that ‘Canals offer another means of taking freight off the roads’ comments BW supports the Council’s aim to create a plan that will promote Hillingdon as a place where walking is a useful, safe and made enjoyable transport option and a valued leisure activity. David Leibling DL135 • Although there is a chapter on measurement of outcomes, they are The final LIP has included specific targets and very general with no details of how many of the measurements will identifies performance indicators that will be be made. used. DL136 • There is no evaluation of the value of the expenditure and its Historical financial data has been included in the effectiveness in achieving the objectives. There is no indication as final LIP. Priorities from Hillingdon’s Transport to how priorities for Hillingdon have been determined other than by Strategy have now been included in the general reference to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which covers introduction. the whole of London. • There is no comparison with historical expenditure and no 304 allowance for inflation. DL137 Specific points raised in the comments on the draft strategy which have • The Council (Civic Centre) currently has a been carried over to the LIP are: draft travel plan which it will be finalising • There is no indication of any travel plans at the Civic Centre itself and implementing during 2006. • There is no reference to dealing with specific accident hot spots. • Local Safety Plan Programmes have been included in the BSP summary settlement for 2006/07. Other Specific points raised in the comments on the draft strategy which have been carried over to the LIP are: comments • Parking – there is still seen as a penal mechanism for modal shift and income generation rather than a positive part of made traffic management. There are only two really innovative projects but they are not given great support • A new link road from the A40 to South Ruislip, avoiding the low bridge at South Ruislip • Linking the Central and Metropolitan lines at Ruislip depot • There are no imaginative congestion breaking schemes. The expectation is that improving public transport will lead to a modal shift but this is not quantified. • The draft LIP is a long document, much of which replicated the Transport Strategy • The Draft Transport Strategy was not apparently finalised although it was due to have been agreed by the Council in January 2005. Much of the format of the plan is dictated by the Mayor’s Strategy and the policies of Transport for London, but it is disappointing to see that Hillingdon has not risen to the challenge of responding to the specific needs of the residents of Hillingdon. BAA Heathrow BAA138 Interchange The LIP contains many programmes that help • The critical issue concerning interchange is ease of onward improve transport interchanges such as Uxbridge connection by a range of modes, particularly slow modes such as station improvements. walking and cycling. BAA are keen to work with the Council and TfL to ensure connections are as easy and as frequent as practical. • Key hubs within Hillingdon include Uxbridge, and Hayes and Harlington. BAA139 Parking Controls In the Parking and Enforcement Plan – under the BAA continues to work closely with LBH on the introduction of Heathrow Airport section there is mention of the Parking Management Areas on local roads surrounding the airport, to PMA around the perimeter of the airport. mitigate the effects of airport related traffic parking in residential areas, and would have expected specific mention of this within the LIP. PMA’s will not go into new areas unless there is Ideally the LIP should give some kind of timetable (possibly indicative) a strong groundswell from residents that parking of when you expect to introduce proposed PMA schemes. is a problem in their area. The Council is only 305 reactive to residents parking concerns. It is therefore not possible to indicate a timetable of proposed PMA schemes. BAA140 Staff Travel Hillingdon Council is primarily working on Almost 7,000 Heathrow staff live within Hillingdon with by far the introducing a travel plan for the Civic Centre. It largest concentrations in Hayes (2,300). Through our changing will then work with others agencies in the Directions programme we are working with on airport employers to borough to promote travel planning. There are increase the proportion of staff using public transport and reduce the however events such as the travel planning number of staff driving to work on their own. It is important that we conference in March 2006 organised by maximise the opportunities afforded by Heathrow Connect service, but Hillingdon that will promote travel planning to we will only do this by working in partnership with LBH and others. businesses as good practice.

The 2003 Air Transport White Paper highlighted the importance of achieving modal shift in favour of public transport for both staff and passengers. Whilst the LIP document makes reference to travel planning, this is largely in context of schools and these is less emphasis on the equally important need to promote behavioural change within existing employers and employment clusters. Through the Heathrow Area Transport Forum’s Commuter Travel Group we continue to provide a forum for sharing and disseminating best practice in the field of travel planning and behavioural change. This is an important and developing area and one that we feel should feature more prominently in the LIP. BAA141 Bus Networks Under the Heathrow Traffic Programme and the Approximately 25% of the 6.5k staff who use the bus to get to work do regional working sections the importance of so from Hillingdon. The importance of maintaining and indeed working with BAA Heathrow, on the Surface improving direct bus services between the airport and key hubs cannot Access Strategy and also the Heathrow Area be overstated. For that reason we fully endorse your desire to Action Forum are highlighted. encourage TfL to investigate bus priority measures and improve bus services where these offer tangible benefits to journey times and reliability. In terms of scheme implementation, we will continue to work closely with both LBH and TfL on the detailed design to ensure schemes do not have unexpected disbenefits for other road users or the airport operation. Hillingdon HLDF142 What problems do you have when you travel? In response to issues raised by the Hillingdon Learning • Overcrowding on bus Learning Disabilities Forum a LIP1 form has 306 Disabilities • Stairwells on bus are busy and dangerous been created that seeks to make transport more Forum • Sometimes buses go past stop accessible (easier and safer to use) for people • People are sometimes impolite on bus with a learning disability. • Feel safer using minibus compared to public bus as travelling in a group and get dropped off at the doors • Doors shut on bus too quickly • When travelling late at night do not feel safe i.e. drunk people. Especially at Uxbridge • Pushing at bus stops • Feeling Claustrophobic • Bus drivers are not sensitive/patient/do not speak slowly • Children shouting on bus are disruptive • Ramps are dangerous on the bus – can fall over • Drivers take off too fast • If sitting next to the window it is hard to get off the bus when it is crowded • Sometimes people do not listen to the driver • Sometimes prams are in the way and people are reluctant to fold them up for others that need access to priority seat area. • People sometimes sit in priority seat areas and they do not move for those that are less able, such as disabled people or the elderly

What would make it easier to travel? • Travel buddies are a good idea • Get rid of graffiti • Where is the bus route that was promised for East Cote - Whitby Road? The introduction of this route would make it easier to travel • Countdown needed at all bus stops • Small signs are needed on buses and trains that say ‘please keep feet off seats’. • People need to go upstairs or to the back of the bus, if the bus is busy • Young children could have their own bus • Transport needs to be on time – especially buses

307 • Need to train general public about being considerate to others.

Do you have any problems walking and cycling? • Cyclists need to keep to cycle lanes and not ride on pavement • When cycling need to be careful of cars • Need separate cycle lanes for people with learning disabilities to cycle safely • Pavements with cracks make walking difficult • Traffic lights are slow to change at pedestrian crossings • Sometimes cars are in the bus lane, this is inconsiderate as it then makes it difficult for the bus to safely let people on and off

Other comments • Air pollution from buses • Cycling saves petrol

308