The Mayor's Transport Strategy, 2010
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The London Congestion Charge
Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 4—Fall 2006—Pages 157–176 The London Congestion Charge Jonathan Leape y the 1990s, the average speed of trips across London was below that at the beginning of the twentieth century—before the car was introduced (New- B bery, 1990, p. 35). Traffic speeds in central London had fallen more than 20 percent since the 1960s, from an average 12.7 mph for the morning peak period in 1968 (and a high of 14.2 mph in 1975) to 10 mph in 1998. Even in the larger area of inner London, drivers in 1998 spent almost 30 percent of their time stationary during peak periods and more than half their time traveling at speeds of less than 10 mph (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998). By 2002, the all-day average travel speed in central London was just 8.6 mph (14.3 km/hour), compared to an uncongested (night-time or “free flow”) average speed of around 20 mph (32 km/hour). Congestion, measured in terms of minutes of delay per mile compared to uncongested conditions, averaged 3.7 minutes/mile (2.3 min/km) (Transport for London, 2003a, p. 11). With more than one million people entering central London between 7:00 and 10:00 a.m. on an average workday, and more than one-quarter of those by road, the cost of congestion was clearly considerable. Public concern over levels of traffic congestion was high. An independent survey in 1999 identified public transport and congestion as the two most “impor- tant problems requiring action”—selected by 46 and 33 percent of London resi- dents, respectively, compared to 20 percent for crime or law and order. -
Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010
Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals January 2010 London Borough of Newham CONTENTS PART 1: CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..2 The Planning Context……………………………………………………………….....4 Summary of Special Interest……………………………………………………….....6 Location and Context……………………………………………………………….....7 Topography and Landscape Setting… …………………………………………......7 Geology……………………………………...……………………………………........7 Historical Development…………………………………………………...................8 Townscape Analysis………………………………………………………………….12 Analysis of Key Buildings and Spaces………….………………………………….16 Negative Features and Issues………………………………………………………25 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...…..26 PART 2: CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN A Vision for Sugar House Lane……………………..……….………………………27 Future Development…………………………………………………………………..28 Planning Controls……………………………………………………………………..29 Council Functions………………………………………..……………………………29 Enhancement and Funding…………………………………………………………..30 Community Engagement…………………………………………………………… 30 Public Realm……………………………………………………………….……….....30 Boundary Review……………………………………………………………………...31 Public Consultation and Monitoring…………………………………………….…...31 MAPS Sugar House Lane Conservation Area Boundary…………………………………..3 John Roque 1745………………………………………………………………………8 Ordnance Survey 1867………………………………………………………………..9 Ordnance Survey 1894…....................................................................................10 Views to and from Sugar House Lane………………………………………………13 Analysis -
Discover London
Discover London Page 1 London Welcome to your free “Discover London” city guide. We have put together a quick and easy guide to some of the best sites in London, a guide to going out and shopping as well as transport information. Don’t miss our local guide to London on page 31. Enjoy your visit to London. Visitor information...........................................................................................................Page 3 Tate Modern....................................................................................................................Page 9 London Eye.....................................................................................................................Page 11 The Houses of Parliament...............................................................................................Page 13 Westminster Abbey........................................................................................................Page 15 The Churchill War Rooms...............................................................................................Page 17 Tower of London............................................................................................................Page 19 Tower Bridge..................................................................................................................Page 21 Trafalgar Square.............................................................................................................Page 23 Buckingham Palace.........................................................................................................Page -
Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge
Economics Working Paper Series 2014/015 Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge Colin P. Green, John. S. Heywood and Maria Navarro The Department of Economics Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX UK © Authors All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full acknowledgement is given. LUMS home page: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/ Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge Colin P. Green1, John. S. Heywood2,1 and Maria Navarro1 1Lancaster University 2 University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Abstract In a rare effort to internalize congestion costs, London recently instituted charges for traveling by car to the central city during peak hours. Although the theoretical influence on the number and severity of traffic accidents is ambiguous, we show that the policy generated a substantial reduction in both accidents and fatalities in the charged area and hours. At the same time, the spatial, temporal and vehicle specific nature of the charge may cause unintended substitutions as traffic and accidents shift to other proximate areas, times and to uncharged vehicles. We demonstrate that, to the contrary, the congestion charge reduced accidents and fatalities in adjacent areas, times and for uncharged vehicles. These results are consistent with the government's objective to use the congestion charge to more broadly promote public transport and change driving habits. JEL Codes: I18, R48, H27 Keywords: Traffic Congestion; Pricing; Vehicle Accidents The authors thank the Melvin Lurie Memorial Fund at UWM which allowed Heywood and Navarro to work together in the fall of 2013. -
Understanding and Managing Congestion
Understanding and Managing Congestion For Transport for London On behalf of Greater London Authority Final Version 1-0 November 2017 Understanding and Managing Congestion Final Version 1-0 November 2017 Produced by: For: Transport for London On behalf of: Greater London Authority Contact: Jim Bradley Integrated Transport Planning Ltd. 6 Hay’s Lane London Bridge London SE1 2HB UNITED KINGDOM 0203 300 1810 [email protected] www.itpworld.net Understanding and Managing Congestion Project Information Sheet Client TfL Project Code 2398 Project Name Understanding and Managing Congestion Project Director Jim Bradley Project Manager Robin Kaenzig Quality Manager Jim Bradley Additional Team Members Jon Harris, Juan Sanclemente, Matt Cottam, Ruby Stringer, Georgia Corr, David Hicks File Location F:\2300-2399\2398 TfL Understanding and Managing Congestion\Technical\Final Report Document Control Sheet Ver. File Name Description Prep. Rev. App. Date V1-0 F:\ Understanding and Final Report RK JB JB 14/11/2017 Managing Congestion Final Report 141117 v1-0 Notice This report has been prepared for TfL and GLA in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Integrated Transport Planning Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. Understanding and Managing Congestion Acknowledgements An independent panel of experts was invited to provide advice and expertise to inform this study. The panel met four times over the course of the study’s development and comprised: • Dr Rachel Aldred; • Mr Terence Bendixson; • Dr Adrian Davis; and • Dr Lynn Sloman. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all the panel members for their time and expertise. -
Impact of London's Low Emission Zone on Air Quality and Children's Respiratory Health: a Sequential Annual Cross-Sectional Study
King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30202-0 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Mudway, I. S., Dundas, I., Wood, H. E., Marlin, N., Jamaludin, J. B., Bremner, S. A., Cross, L., Grieve, A., Nanzer, A., Barratt, B. M., Beevers, S., Dajnak, D., Fuller, G. W., Font, A., Colligan, G., Sheikh, A., Walton, R., Grigg, J., Kelly, F. J., ... Griffiths, C. J. (2019). Impact of London's low emission zone on air quality and children's respiratory health: a sequential annual cross-sectional study. The Lancet Public Health, 4(1), e28-e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30202-0 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. -
Railways: Thameslink Infrastructure Project
Railways: Thameslink infrastructure project Standard Note: SN1537 Last updated: 26 January 2012 Author: Louise Butcher Section Business and Transport This note describes the Thameslink infrastructure project, including information on how the scheme got off the ground, construction issues and the policy of successive government towards the project. It does not deal with the controversial Thameslink rolling project to purchase new trains to run on the route. This is covered in HC Library note SN3146. The re- let of the Thameslink passenger franchise is covered in SN1343, both available on the Railways topical page of the Parliament website. The Thameslink project involves electrification, signalling and new track works. This will increase capacity, reduce journey times and generally expand the current Thameslink route through central London and across the South East of England. On completion in 2018, up to 24 trains per hour will operate through central London, reducing the need for interchange onto London Underground services. The project dates back to the Conservative Government in the mid-1990s. It underwent a lengthy public inquiry process under the Labour Government and has been continued by the Coalition Government. However, the scheme will not be complete until 2018 – 14 years later than its supporters had hoped when the scheme was initially proposed. Contents 1 Where things stand: Thameslink in 2012 2 2 Scheme generation and development, 1995-2007 3 2.1 Transport and Works Act (TWA) Order application, 1997 5 2.2 Revised TWA Order application, 1999 6 2.3 Public Inquiry, 2000-2006 6 2.4 New Thameslink station at St Pancras 7 This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. -
SP4 - 11/12 Drawings of Some Special Assemblies Designed and Built for the Blackfriars Project in 2012
New Blackfriars Station Blackfriars Station is a complex, Network Rail and London Underground (LUL) station interchange in the heart of London, which has recently undergone extensive redevelopment. Its Network Rail platforms have been extended and span the River Thames a short distance from Blackfriars Bridge. The north bank entrance is on Queen Victoria Street and a new entrance on the south bank was opened in December 2011. At the same time, the Underground station was closed for nearly three years (from March 2009 until February 2012) to enable major engineering works to be carried out, allowing the Network Rail and LUL lines to share the same ticket hall and other services. Not only did Balfour Beatty (the Main Contractor) have to meet the many technical and logistical challenges associated with carrying out a fast track, major construction project in central London, they also had to meet the many electrical challenges arising from an installation involving Network Rail “Third Rail” traction supplies and London Underground’s Section 12 requirements for underground stations. Fortunately, Blakley Electrics were on hand to assist! Third Rail Locations In areas within 30 metres of the Third Rail, Network Rail specify that RCDs are classified “DC Immune”, as made by Blakley Electrics. Unlike standard RCDs, DC Immune RCDs are not desensitised by the presence of relatively small DC leakage currents, which saturate the magnetic circuit of standard RCDs and prevents them from tripping. DC Immune RCDs normally protect single ring main circuits. However, due to the high number of circuits to be protected and the tight space constraints, multi-way, DP, DC Immune RCD assemblies were supplied. -
The Ultra Low Emission Capital
London: The Ultra Low Emission Capital Go Ultra Low City Scheme Bid 1 Copyright Greater London Authority October 2015 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 3 Contents London’s Go Ultra Low City Scheme Bid 6 Part 2: DELIVERING THE BID Part 1: LONDON’S BID Delivery milestones 74 1.0 Why London? Unlocking the UK’s potential by investing in the capital 11 How London fulfils OLEV’s criteria 76 1.1 Changing infrastructure in residential areas 23 Costs 78 1.2 Changing infrastructure for car clubs 33 Bid partners 84 1.3 Charging infrastructure for commercial fleets 41 State aid 86 1.4 Neighbourhoods of the Future 55 Conclusion 88 PART ONE 5 OVERVIEW 2050. In doing so, we will deliver air quality benefits and will be able to track In July, London set out its vision to progress through our comprehensive become an ultra low emission vehicle emissions monitoring networks and capital. London is bidding for £20 data reporting. million in funding from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) Go Ultra Low London’s bid will overcome the most City Scheme to make this vision a reality. profound barrier to ULEV uptake; the availability of charging infrastructure. This bid builds on the progress made The new delivery partnership for by London’s innovative policies such residential charging addresses barriers as the Congestion Charge and Low for private users, primarily the lack Emission Zone and local councils’ work of off-street parking and related to incentivise cleaner vehicles through complexity of charging. -
Carplus Annual Survey of Car Clubs 2016/17: London
Carplus annual survey of car clubs 2016/17 London Prepared for Carplus by Steer Davies Gleave Carplus Carplus Annual Survey of Car Clubs 2016/17 Report Our ref: 22862602 April 2017 Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave Carplus 67 Albion Street Kings House Leeds LS1 5AA King Street Leeds +44 113 389 6400 LS1 2HH www.steerdaviesgleave.com Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work for Carplus. This work may only be used within the context and scope of work for which Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this work without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this work using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ii 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Round-trip Member Survey ............................................................................................... -
Travel in London, Report 3 I
Transport for London Transport for London for Transport Travel in London Report 3 Travel in London Report 3 MAYOR OF LONDON Transport for London ©Transport for London 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted for research, private study and internal circulation within an organisation. Extracts may be reproduced provided the source is acknowledged. Disclaimer This publication is intended to provide accurate information. However, TfL and the authors accept no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any damage or loss arising from use of the information provided. Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 27 1.1 Travel in London report 3 ............................................................................ 27 1.2 The Mayor of London’s transport strategy .................................................. 27 1.3 The monitoring regime for the Mayor’s Transport Strategy ......................... 28 1.4 The MTS Strategic Outcome Indicators ....................................................... 28 1.5 Treatment of MTS Strategic Outcome Indicators in this report ................... 31 1.6 Relationship to other Transport for London (TfL) and Greater London Authority (GLA) Group publications ............................................................ 32 1.7 Contents of this report .............................................................................. -
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM to the BOARD [Redactions Below Relate to Commercially Confidential Information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010
INFORMATION & DECISION REPORT BWB 3392 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO THE BOARD [Redactions below relate to commercially confidential information] REGENERATION REPORT – JANUARY 2010 Report by Director of Regeneration 1. PURPOSE: 1.1 To update the Board on key regeneration activities across England and Wales 1.2 To seek Board approval to increase expenditure on Three Mills Lock project to £ [ ] (£ [ ] previously noted), to cover risk of additional costs being awarded against BW following Adjudication process. 2.0 NEW REGENERATION DIRECTORATE: 2.1 The new Regeneration Directorate is now fully operational. The transition of regeneration/external funding functions from the former Business Units into the four geographical teams has been a smooth process with project continuity and the need to maintain key external relationships being uppermost in our minds. 3.0 REGENERATION SECTOR COMMENTARY: 3.1 Regional Development Agencies: The future of the RDA’s continues to be debated with the Conservative’s seemingly backtracking on previous pledges to scrap them, in favour of a more flexible approach dependent on whether respective local authorities valued them or not. It is suggested that where LA’s might opt to remove a RDA, the agency would be replaced by a partnership of Councils around real economic regions. These Local Enterprise Partnerships would closely resemble the ‘Leeds City Region’ model although with a smaller number of councils – maybe seven to eight. The Labour Party has however reiterated its support for RDA’s stating recently that they would remain central to Govt plans for economic recovery. 3.2 Conservative Party Policy on Regeneration: The Tory green paper, which was expected to be published in the New Year, has been deferred.