Appendix B
Transcript of Item 6 – East London and Greenwich Waterfront Transit
Geoff Pope (Chair): We move now to the East London and Greenwich Waterfront Transit scrutiny. As you know we have had question and answer sessions with Transport for London and we have also received written evidence from a number of boroughs and we welcome you here today. I believe you are going to be kicking off to summarise in presentation form some of the issues from the boroughs on both of the schemes. We will then be asking questions to try to get complete clarity on what you think is good and what is not good and why and what could be better.
Stephen Joseph (Deputy Chief Executive: Strategy, Thames Gateway London Partnership): Thank you very much for inviting us to speak today. Before I introduce our team, I am just going to point to you on our covering slide why that covering slide. It is not a picture of a transit as one might; it is an aerial photograph of the regeneration area in progress. In fact, as you see, because this aerial photograph was taken in 1999, events have moved on. The regeneration agenda is speeding up and one has to look at this proposal as part of that process. Indeed, if you look very carefully, ExCel is not on this map and clearly it is part of the regeneration agenda. In fact, they are hosting, with the Mayor, our annual supper next week, so that regeneration bit exists. Other bits of regeneration are moving along very quickly.
The team that we have today to answer your questions and make a short presentation is Peter Morley, just sitting to my left; Dr Alan Brett, who is one of the UK’s leading consultants on rapid transits; just after that I will introduce John Allen who is not actually part of our team, but we obviously do a lot of work in collaboration and have a lot of cross-board membership and Dave Higham of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Dave Jessup of Greenwich, Richard Hawkins of Bexley and of course, Dominic West from Newham.
Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP), as many of you will be familiar; we are an organisation that makes up 11 of the East and South East London local authorities. We have very helpfully have had Dartford on our board ever since our foundation and in particular, in relation to this proposal, that link with Dartford has allowed us to look at how they are getting along with their Fastrack proposal and learn from it.
I am just going to start a brief presentation. It will take around 15 minutes. Our leading members have asked us to appear here today. We want to explain our views on the Thames Gateway Transit for two reasons, first because we are concerned that TfL’s concept of the Thames Gateway Transit does not appear to be the same as originally promoted and expected by Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP) and others and second, there does not seem to be the same open and effective partnership working that we had with TfL when promoting the Thames Gateway Bridge and the transits in the first few years after TfL was established. It appears from TfL’s evidence to your meeting on 8 June that they now consider the transit not as an intermediate mode, separate and distinct from, and in addition to, bus services, but as a frontrunner of enhanced super buses, which can be rolled out across the rest of the bus network in due course.
We have been told that there is an internal debate in TfL about what the overall concept and vision of transits should be. Only then will stakeholders, such as the boroughs, be told what it is and that that stance might be changing. We do not think that super buses will do the job and we want something akin to Thameside Fastrack with effective governance arrangements, working in equal partnership with the boroughs, TGLP, GLA regeneration representatives, government regeneration representatives and developers.
1
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B TGLP’s involvement: the Thames Gateway London Partnership is an alliance of 12 local authorities. We did have the London Development Agency – it was on our board for a while and we very much appreciated their input into our regeneration agenda, five universities, two strategic health authorities and obviously being reconfigured, the East London Learning Skills Council. Our primary aim is to promote sustainable regeneration. In the late 1990s we undertook transport studies and presented our findings to the incoming Mayor to help shape his transport strategy and TfL’s programme.
The concept for the Thames Gateway Transits: we can claim with much justification that TGLP stimulated the idea of the Transits being a wide network including East London Transport and Greenwich Waterfront Transit. We saw the proposed intermediate modes programme, with a development of new river crossings, as vital to provide the strategic network needed to underpin the regeneration of the Thames Gateway. Our publication showed that we saw the scheme as providing a step change in quality public transport and in the longer term being extended sub regionally to form an extensive Thames Gateway Transit network, crossing the Thames Gateway Bridge. We made that case to the Mayor and were pleased that he accepted it and promoted it.
TGLP expressed concerns to the Mayor later that progress was being rather fragmented. In response, he reiterated his support for our vision and instigated the Thames Gateway Transit leaflet. The slide has some excerpts from that leaflet. It was to be a new, high quality transit system for London Thames Gateway; it would have a key role to play in the regeneration of the London Thames Gateway; it would use the latest, advanced bus based technology and infrastructure improvements to ensure the services are safe, comfortable, reliable, quick and accessible to all; it would be segregated wherever possible thereby offering a reliable, high quality alternative to the use of the private car, which is something buses are not as good at doing as transits can be; also local bus services to be restructured to complement the network as it is developed. That is not necessarily replaced, but restructured.
TGLP Board member comments: TGLP concerns were increased when the East London Transit 1a (ELT1a) scheme was passed on for implementation. Our boroughs expressed fears that if the same principles were to be used in future phases, the transits would not represent the step change in quality over bus services that they expect. The details of the proposed scheme for East London Transit Scheme 1a, the choice of vehicle offered, the changes in branding, the weaknesses in explaining the proposal to the public and TfL’s temporary change in the title of the project from transit to bus lanes led TGLP and the boroughs to suspect that this is all part of a change in concept and emphasis by TfL to make the transit simply improved bus services and not the completely new and distinctive system, which could be upgraded to tram, which both TGLP and the Mayor support.
In their letter to the Mayor supporting the Thames Gateway Bridge, our leading members drew attention to the way TfL appear to be developing the Transit, and I quote from this letter signed by our Chair, ‘We have concerns though that TfL may not fully share our vision for the transits, but regard them simply as more bus services.’ Our response to TfL on the particular ELT 1a proposal said that they did not constitute a transit of the form we want for future schemes. As evidence showed, upgradeable, tram-like systems, similar to Fastrack would meet our objectives more effectively than the improved bus services that TfL seem to be promoting. We were therefore surprised at the way our views were reported to you by TfL. Our main concern now is that a launch of East London Transit 1a, as part of a future transit network, without clear commitments about future phases, will undermine the transit concept and could be counterproductive.
The Thames Gateway Bridge and Boroughs Agreement, which I am sure you are all familiar with: TGLP and the boroughs have long supported the Thames Gateway Bridge and developed with TfL a strong and effective way to work in partnership. This partnership working led to the successful achievements to date in promoting the scheme and taking it through a public enquiry. Boroughs and TGLP were concerned, however, about a possible change of heart by TfL on transits. They, therefore, instituted a 2
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B public transport clause in the Thames Gateway Bridge and Boroughs Agreement, which is now signed and sealed by TfL and the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Greenwich, Newham and Redbridge. So, there is a legal undertaking on transits as they cross the bridge and form part of that wider network. The agreement makes direct reference to the Thames Gateway Transit leaflet and it is TfL’s duty to review the public transport provision, including the transits, at defined stages. In this way the boroughs have a mechanism for reporting any concerns about the Thames Gateway Bridge and the transits directly to the TfL board annually. The boroughs were concerned; they negotiated that as part of the agreement.
Achieving an effective Thames Gateway transit network: the specifications needed. Although trams are our first preference for transits, we recognise that even the express limited stock, tram like concept cannot be introduced easily in all parts of the network, for example in Ilford Lane. Furthermore, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham takes the view that the gains from the East London Transit 1a, as currently proposed, are not sufficient to justify the disturbance caused in Barking town centre. With Greenwich Waterfront Transit though, the first stage will provide a significant extent of completely segregated lanes for the transits. The London Borough of Greenwich is very keen that the scheme should be implemented as soon as possible, leaving negotiations on upgrading till later.
The concept and sole specification wanted by TGLP and the boroughs is more like that which is fundamental to the bus rapid transits in Crawley, York, Swansea and Coventry and particularly that in the recently opened section of Kent Thameside Fastrack, which some of us visited yesterday. The Fastrack approach is to deliver an agreed, ambitious concept with flexibility and incrementally to provide a high quality bus transit system that incorporates most of the features associated with a tram system and is an improvement on buses.
This is a slide from the Kent Thameside Transit network and you can see a level platform interchange with the train in process right there; also the own vehicle type, which you have above the director of Kent Fastrack, the manager who has driven this process in a dedicated and multidisciplinary team sitting above him, representing all the various interests. The display in that bus will warn people of what next stop is coming up, etc., etc, as well as some of the other countdown stops themselves.
Dartford Fastrack was launched with two sections. They have a good section, which they are very proud of and they have a not so good section, which they try to de-emphasise. The not so good section only has a better vehicle type; it stops at every second stop, but it is not a replacement for an existing bus service. Fastrack’s marketing, branding and promotion, however, emphasises the good section; the bit that has the segregated track and runs as they want the rest of the network to run.
They emphasise the not so good section is temporary; will be replaced in due course, etc. They did this in order not to degrade the brand. You cannot launch on the not so good section and expect everybody to understand and have confidence in the brand; that was crucial, so this comes back to our problems with 1a. As a result, Dartford has managed to negotiate a developer contribution to a future phase of £25 million, but they protected the concept. If you do not protect the concept, those type of contributions, both from the private sector and other government agencies, are unlikely to be forthcoming. You have got to protect the brand.
It seems that the key feature TfL cannot agree is that the Transits should be a complete system of their own, distinctively different to and separate from conventional bus networks and operations. It is doubtful that Dartford could have negotiated that contribution if it was simply a good bus service. They did it because it was different.
The most distinctive benefits of the distinct rapid transit style system: we need a modal shift in the Gateway to support the regeneration programme. Transits must play a role in that modal shift. To do 3
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B so, they must be true, intermediate modes. As you are familiar, the targets for housing, in precisely the area where these transits are going, have recently been doubled. So, if the direction of travel is going to occur and changes in the concept, one would imagine it would be in a beefier direction, certainly not watered down, given the fact that the regeneration agenda seems to be accelerating, rather than decelerating.
Also, our consultants looking at information, which is available to yourselves as well, know that even with kit as important as Crossrail, the modal share that we are going to have in the Thames Gateway without further measures, is not sufficient in order to guarantee that traffic congestion even stays at today’s levels. It is going to get worse, even with Crossrail. To get to the modal share that we need to have just to hold traffic congestion steady means we need a modal split in the order of 60% - and we are looking at maybe getting only 53% on current plans, therefore transits have to make a contribution to that modal shift. They cannot simply be a good bus service. We have got to make that contribution.
The Transits have been promoted by London Transport in 1995 and subsequently by TGLP and the boroughs as intermediate modes, providing a new type of upgradeable tram like service, better than a bus, but not as high level as DLR. The publicity about the new systems usually includes comments like, ‘This exciting new concept in public transport delivers so much more than any bus can’ and makes TGLP’s main point. TGLP and the boroughs see Thames Gateway Transit primarily as a way of regeneration, regenerating London Thames Gateway. It is not providing existing bus passengers with a better bus service, which appears to be TfL’s main aim. We don’t believe it is possible to serve both objectives equally well with the same system.
Now, the slides you see in front of you are quotes from the Commission for Integrated Transport and they say affordable mass transit guidance … affordable mass transit guidance says that ‘the provision of mass transit services must be of sufficient quality to attract users from the private car.’ Also, the study of high quality buses in Leeds clearly showed that for a mass transit service to be effective in that way, it must be tram-like, even if it cannot be a tram.
Dr Brett, who is here in order to answer questions that you might have, who was involved in the preparation of both those documents, can explain the evidence from research elsewhere, which shows that modal shifts from the car were much higher for tram-like systems than from enhanced bus services. Worthy though they may be, improvements that are really bus enhancements tend to have much lower modal shifts, with much of the transfers being from other public transport services.
The great success that TfL have had in increasing bus patronage has been achieved partly because of the introduction of congestion charging in Central London, where the density of services makes bus use an obvious choice for local journeys. The same features do not exist in many parts of the TGLP area.
Delivery: other features of the Fastrack approach, which have led to successful delivery, are the governance arrangements and the marketing activity. Implementation is overseen by a public/private board – the Fastrack Delivery Executive with commitment at the highest level. The Chairman is Stephen Jordan, the Managing Director of London and Continental Railways and Development Director of Land Securities. There are also many other stakeholders representing a true, multidisciplinary team, both politically and technically, to look at Fastrack as a regeneration initiative, rather than simply a transport improvement.
The small Fastrack team has put large efforts into high quality and extensive marketing activities, which continuously and strongly promote the core principles for the project and the vision for its future. The Fastrack promotional video and other materials make it clear that to get people to use public transport rather than their cars, something better than exists currently is needed. Fastrack 4
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B provides a rapid transit system that feels and operates in a very different way to a conventional bus and provides a real alternative to the car. In fact, we met people using the Transit system that did say they had given up their car to make the trip.
Conclusions: Fastrack in Dartford incorporates most of the features associated with a tram system and the type of strong, effective governance arrangements we want. Outer London is more like the provincial cities in North Kent, which are trying to implement innovative and creative public transport systems. The Mayor included the transits as such on his map, showing his vision for public transport in his published ‘London Connections Map’ and we do not want transits downgraded in concept so that they only appear in local bus maps. Without full and coherent planning and promotion, the whole Thames Gateway Transit network and a new and distinctive system, TGLP and the boroughs fear it will not provide the quality step change in public transport that is needed to achieve a significant shift from car use and thereby support regeneration and a decrease in congestion.
It has been hard for Kent Thameside to deliver Fastrack. Here in London you have some levers and tools, which they did not have. They have an unregulated bus system. It is very difficult to introduce a new premium service under those circumstances. We do not have that problem in London. Development values are lower. But, in spite of those difficulties, they have achieved something along the lines of what we would see as the original concept and they have achieved a step change in quality.
The initial patronage figures are 30% higher than forecast. It is a success. People are visiting it from all over the country. They are ahead on Transits as opposed to TfL and TfL have to go some way to catch up to our neighbours just across the boundary.
We would therefore like, number one, a TfL commitment to the transits’ tram like specification that we want including express service with less frequent stops than ordinary buses and a distinctive separate system, vehicle type and livery; governance arrangements that will carry that commitment out and the will to overcome problems in creative ways; modelling to take into further account the effects of demand and congestion and demand management measures; a review of other schemes to identify lessons that can be applied to the Thames Gateway Transits; a review of current proposals and future possible network; the Thames Gateway Bridge taking into account the full specification of and lessons learned from other schemes; a study of a possible core tram scheme between Barking, Woolwich and Abbey Wood; the contributions from the private sector; a reference the Thames Gateway Transit’s leaflet with updated timetables and all future Transit’s consultation exercises, in other words promoting it as integrated network rather than as individual pieces; consideration of vehicles that look more like trams than buses, rather than articulated or double-decker buses and if necessary, more research into what is needed to persuade car drivers to switch to using transits; detailed information from TfL to support studies that the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and TGLP are planning to commission to determine separately the best concept for transits in London, Thames Gateway and the implications for the proposed network; careful consideration of phasing the transit launch in partnership with the boroughs; early, not so good sections need to be branded correctly so as not to undermine public and developer confidence for future phases.
My final slide emphasises three, key, immediate steps that one could take - first off a governance structure similar to Fastrack or indeed the Train á Grand Vitesse (TGV) arrangements that gives our boroughs and others with a regeneration focus an equal say along with TfL’s transport specialists; an immediate review of current proposals in full partnership with the boroughs’ regeneration specialists covering the future network, taking into account the full specification of and lessons learned from other schemes; also careful consideration of phasing the transit launch in partnership with the boroughs. Early, not so good sections need to be branded correctly so as not to undermine public and developer confidence for future phases. 5
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B
I am going to end there. Thank you very much for listening. We hope that between us we can answer your questions, with my colleagues, and move forward on this crucial piece of infrastructure for the Thames Gateway. Thank you.
Geoff Pope (Chair): That was very clear. Do you have any understanding of why you think that TfL have moved away from this mass transit concept to a fancy bus scheme?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I think our great fear is not that TfL are doing anything unusual. They are simply an agency that is charged with the delivery and operation of transport proposals. They are not a regeneration agency, so therefore, the way of correcting it, correcting the balance as Fastrack has done, is to make sure there is a governance arrangement that puts those regeneration voices at the front table with the transport experts, to make sure that when you have to make compromises, and you will have to make compromises, we are not saying that the perfect scheme is achievable. It is tough to put in transits that transfer existing road networks. We all know that. Fastrack had to make a lot of compromises, but to do that around the table with the regeneration representatives, which principally can be our boroughs at member and officer level, and to make sure those compromises are made in a balanced way. I think simply by having it internal to TfL and then coming up with an answer and then consulting through a regular, statutory process has actually been one of the key problems of the process.
Geoff Pope (Chair): You are feeling that the regeneration aspect has been badly let down. Can you give some examples of how - what could be done to improve the regeneration potential? You are talking about a tram like scheme. Can you give a bit more detail on that?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I am going to let Dr Alan Brett answer that question as he has experience in the UK about the modal shift one can achieve using a tram-like system, as opposed to a bus improvement.
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): I think the point here really is about presenting people with a new choice rather than an enhancement of an existing choice. It is presenting people with that new choice that encourages either people that are making new travel choices, because it is associated with new trip making to do with regeneration or existing people that have an opportunity to change jobs, etc, to make a choice about travel mode as well. Typically it has been found that enhanced bus systems produce capture from car of around about 5%, so about 5% of their patronage, when a bus system has been enhanced is taken from people that were previously using the car. Occasionally it is a bit higher than that, but that is a fairly typical figure. For tram-like systems, and obviously the experience in this country is particularly relating to Light Rapid Transit (LRT) systems themselves, that figure is nearer 20%.
Research in the States has shown that the reasons for that difference are more to do with the system- wide features rather than whether it has got rails or whether it has got rubber tyres. It has to do with the systematic development of a system, where you are treating the route, the stops, the vehicles, the information, the operating patterns, etc., as a whole, and in integrated way, as we do with light rail typically in this country and as we are starting to do with buses, as happened in Crawley and with the Fastrack in Kent.
Angie Bray (AM): I represent the opposite part of London from where this is coming from – West London, including Hammersmith and Fulham. I would be interested for your take on the extraordinary behaviour of TfL. On the one hand, you seem to be very keen to have a tram and they are disregarding your best interests and your best desires. Yet in West London, they are doing precisely the opposite and are foisting a tram, or so they claim they want to do, on a community that does not want it and feels that the bus services there are very adequate and could be improved further to take 6
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B on any extra demand there may be in the future, and again ignoring local wishes and the best interests of that community. It is ironic I would say, not to mention bizarre. I wonder what your take on that is. In both instances it seems to be TfL ignoring the local opinion.
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): It is ironic in West London, where there are some reservations about a tram, and I put it no stronger than that, and in East London where we very enthusiastically accept a tram, that it is reversed in that way. Nevertheless, we do have a very good overall working relationship with TfL and I think if we get the governance arrangements right, that partnership working can kick in and deliver, and including technical reviews to see should we upgrade this to a tram and when, and to do that properly within the Thames Gateway area.
Angie Bray (AM): Why is it, do you think, that they can see so little benefit for a tram in your part of London and yet, at the same time, they would seem to think it is the only solution in another part of London?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): It is the problem I come back to. They are a transport delivery and operation agency looking at it from that narrow point of view rather than a regeneration point of view. Dare I say it, even that public interface, which some of our boroughs obviously have been at the front line on, and you could say there are some enhanced sensitivities there, which our boroughs are very helpful in helping steer difficult projects through the process and getting those people on board in the front table, right throughout the process, is the way of avoiding that type of problem.
Angie Bray (AM): We would love to have been taken on board in that process in West London.
John Biggs (AM): My job is not defend TfL, but I have been very heavily involved in my representative role working with Barking and Dagenham Council and in my London Thames Gateway Development Corporation role and so I am aware that there have been fairly detailed discussions since Barking and Dagenham made that clear statement of opposition to the East London Transit, which may have begin to address some of the issues that they had concerns about. Perhaps we will hear about that in a minute; perhaps Mr Higham will be able to fill us in about that. My understanding is that one of the design principles of East London Transit is that it is being designed with curves and corners and specifications, which would allow it to be upgraded to a tram, if the passenger numbers justified that. Certainly my understanding is that the passenger numbers at the present would not justify the intensity of investment that a tram requires. I suppose the question would be whether, in regeneration terms, it is worth investing, as we did with the DLR to Becton, in building that ahead of the demand. I guess that is a case that has not yet been won. Is that a fair interpretation, an alternative interpretation?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I think so. We have always been keen on a tram, not because the passenger numbers were necessarily there in the immediate, although as I mentioned in my presentation, the regeneration agenda is accelerating and we have to take into account the new growth that comes in, not just what is on the table. But also, any service of the quality of a tram is part of promoting regeneration. Obviously, there has to be a regeneration funding stream that recognises when you put in a quality service early, a little ahead of demand, you are promoting regeneration of a high quality and the right modal split.
Also, what Fastrack told us yesterday, and I think it is a very important point, you go in early and grab modal share. It is very difficult to shift modal share when people have established their travel patterns. It is much easier in a new development to get a holding service in early; grab the modal share; check whether people buy a car parking space or not; how they configure themselves in that neighbourhood and go for it. That may mean you have to have some regeneration gap funding.
7
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B We thought that the gap funding that came from the government for the transits was partly to do just that. It was aimed at getting the thing to a higher quality than you normally would, looking at it strictly from a short-term bus point of view. I do not think we have achieved that yet.
David Higham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): Just going back to the history of the original concept, I think there was a cut made as to which would be taken forward as trams and which would be taken forward as bus-based systems. That was purely on then projected ridership and even then some of those projections were queried by the boroughs, because we thought they did actually underestimate the amount of modal shift that could be achieved. I used to work for Greenwich and that was a position we took there. We did feel that there was an underestimation on that, and that perhaps the question of tram or no for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit system was not quite as clear-cut as it may have appeared at the time. I think that is how the systems have progressed since.
I think one of the issues is to do with do we revisit that issue and that choice in the light of higher projections for population and housing in East London and the potential of a more joined up system, now that we have the offering of Thames Gateway Bridge and the whole question of how it then accelerates regeneration. It is not just a question of patronage, and I think that is one of the fundamental questions that we are putting.
Geoff Pope (Chair): If the Thames Gateway Bridge is given the go ahead in the next few months or so, how much of a boost to your case is that going to be? In other words, what is the difference between this project without the bridge as opposed to with the bridge?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I think it is a key difference. I am perhaps going to pass that to the two immediate boroughs, on each side of the bridge, David Jessup and Dominic.
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): I think it makes a significant difference. What it does is open up the opportunity for what is effectively two separate transit systems to link and form the basis of an initial network, which really cannot happen north/south of the river without the bridge. There are clearly opportunities south of the river for transit to expand, both towards the east and west and possibly south, but north would always be a barrier because of the river.
Dominic West (London Borough of Newham): To add to that, we obviously think the scheme stacks up at the moment with or without the Thames Gateway Bridge. Obviously the Thames Gateway Bridge makes a significant difference in terms of offering new journey patterns, but the area around Gallions Reach, around Becton, is being substantially regenerated. Our links to Barking are quite important in terms of universities, in terms of jobs, in terms of residents and we certainly feel these schemes are viable without the Thames Gateway Bridge, but it is much more viable with the Thames Gateway Bridge.
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): Of course, the Thames Gateway Bridge section of the eventual transit network will be 100% segregated, so it adds to the percentage of segregation in the whole network and greatly helps upgrade the concept when it is linked in.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I think the evidence you were given by TfL the last time, in general business case terms, was that ELT just about stands as bus improvements, whereas Greenwich Waterfront Transit actually has a good/bad business case as transits and of course Thames Gateway Bridge will help to link them together. I think in part answer to the earlier question, what is the difference in West London and East London, I think part of the difference is in forecasting demand, where there is less change in West London and therefore it is easier for them to look at 8
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B corridor flows, whereas in East London, as my colleagues have just said, boroughs have underestimated the potential demand.
Stephen (Joseph) has shown you in his slide our anticipated view of congestion in East London because of growth, which will need to be dealt with, and ‘Transport 2025’, which TfL have just released, seems to make the same point we have been making for some time - you cannot rely on huge amounts of kit, although we need lots more kit. That in itself will not deliver the circumstances that we want and the better transport conditions. Some form of demand management will be needed. As we understand it, in forecasting the demand for transits, TfL have not taken into account the likely effects of either that high increased congestion or the demand management measures that will be needed to deal with it.
We think, as we did on Thames Gateway Bridge, if you have a combination of demand measures and public transport provision, you will get a much higher ridership. It may be that, if we were able to persuade TfL to do some remodelling, we might find a more improved business case for ELT and Greenwich Waterfront Transit (GWT), even if Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB) is not built.
Peter Hulme Cross (AM): I am not quite clear. You say a tram-like system. I am not clear. How does this differ from a trolley bus or a guided bus?
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): The answer is it does not. It could be delivered by a guided bus system or a trolley bus system. Clearly, both tram systems and bus systems vary throughout their routes as to how they are delivered in terms of whether they are segregated; whether they are running with priority measures or whether they are sharing road space with other vehicles. Tramways do that and bus ways do that. I think the important thing here is getting the overall concept right and then there are different ways of delivering that. It may be bus-based. If it is bus-based, it could be it is trolley bus or it could be it is conventional bus. Whether or not guidance is necessary would rarely be down to detailed design and examination of how it would perform. Certainly in Fastrack, for example, in Kent, it was felt that guidance was not needed because of the nature of the system there.
In the research in the States, where there are actually quite a lot of systems of this type, and there is work being done by the Federal Transit Authority there, they have identified the key things that the system needs to deliver. Those are travel time savings, reliability, identity and image, the importance of being distinct from the existing transit systems, safe and secure and having adequate capacity. But then there are a whole lot of different things you need to consider in how you deliver those. There is the running track itself; the extent to which it is segregated; how it operates – whether it has guidance; there are the stops and how those are designed; again image etc.; access; the vehicles; the fare collection systems are extremely important; information systems, both for operating the system and for the passengers, are very important and how the whole service is planned an operated – the frequency, length of time it operates during the day, etc. It is down to the business case at this stage to decide the actual way of delivering it, but it is being clear about the actual concept and package that one is delivering.
Peter Hulme Cross (AM): It seems to me that south of the river there is more potential for a Fastrack type service or a trolley bus service than there is north of the river. North of the river you have got Ilford Road, which is pretty narrow and pretty constrained and it winds through all that built up area and so on. It seems quite difficult, in my mind anyway, even if the Thames Gateway Bridge was built, to have two systems linking, which were very similar, simply because north of the river the potential for developing a Fastrack type thing does not seem to be there to me.
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): Yes, the degree to which you can implement those different components will vary from area to area and perhaps it might be more appropriate for one of the colleagues here to talk about that. 9
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B
John Allen (Thames Gateway Development Corporation): I was just going to say on behalf of the Thames Gateway Development Corporation that obviously our regeneration area is entirely north of the river and we are looking at the large development in Barking riverside, obviously with Barking Council itself and also Becton potentially is a very interesting way of developing the Gallions Reach area, looking at the whole issue of how the sewage works will change and develop in the future. Look at the figures, and we have seen already in terms of the housing projections, these have doubled effectively in parts of East London, north of the river as well. It is the regeneration aspects of that, which we think are not being taken fully on board with what has been put forward so far.
Our proposal for taking that forward is to look at a joint study with TfL, the boroughs and Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP). I think we would like to see TfL being a bit more responsive on that; a bit more willing to actually concede that there are aspects of Phase 1a that can be improved and should be looked at and it is not just about looking at fringe improvements around it. We think there is potential north of the river, undoubtedly, for growth.
Peter Hulme Cross (AM): You are actually saying you would like TfL to be a bit more responsive; to listen to you a bit more and work with you a bit more. We in West London are saying the same thing. We would like TfL to listen to us, because we do not want a tram in West London, whereas, in a sense, you are saying the opposite thing, but the same thing in that you would like TfL to listen to you more.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): I think the emphasis is on a great deal more, not a little more. We have had a great deal of discussion with TfL on detailed implementation issues. What we not got is a lot of co-ordination at the concept level, which is so important, as you have heard from my colleague. The point that you made about linking north and south of the river, if Thames Gateway Bridge is built, it has separated lanes, which we have sought ever since Thames Gateway Bridge was initiated. Those lanes will be designed to take trams. ELT 2 is designed on a more segregated basis than ELT 1 and there is potential for trams to get up to Barking.
On the south side, trams could go from Thames Gateway Bridge to Abbey Wood and to Woolwich. There is clearly a core of the whole network, which could be tram, so I do not think one could argue that there is more potential in South London than in East London, as you just heard from our colleagues in the Development Corporation. What we do not appear to have is proper contribution to the internal debate that TfL currently have over what is the concept of transits. Until we get that concept bottomed out, agreed, shared with boroughs and developers, progress is going to be much slower than the progress on Fastrack, where the proper governance arrangements have been put in place.
Peter Hulme Cross (AM): That is very clear.
John Biggs (AM): I will almost have to love you and leave you, because I am meant to be somewhere else, but I have a question and I might have to leave halfway through the answer. No, I would not want to deny you the pleasure. It is quite an important question for my area of London obviously. It is where are we following the decision of Barking and Dagenham’s Executive to oppose the transit?
David Higham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): Since that decision, which was taken by the Executive in July, and I will take it as read that the Members are fully aware of that, as we did enclose a report with our submission, there have been discussions between the Leader, Chief Executive and Peter Hendy, and I understand those have focussed around the nature of the vehicle on offer and also questions of livery and this issue of distinctive branding. We are arranging a demonstration of the vehicle for early October and then, depending on Members’ views following that, then we may further report to the Executive and hopefully anticipate a positive outcome. I think
10
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B things are moving positively, but I would not wish to pre-empt what Members’ views may be in due course.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): May I just correct what may appear to people, who are reading the transcript or listening to the debate on the web. John Biggs said ‘Barking’s opposition to transits.’ There is no such thing. Barking are very supportive of the transits’ concept. Their opposition is to the current proposals for ELT 1a, because they do not constitute what transits are, in their view. Just to make it clear, as far as I am aware, Members in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham do not oppose transits of the kind we are looking for.
David Higham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): If I may supplement that it is actually more specific than that. It is a question of the routing of the transits through Barking town centre, which is currently pedestrianised and an active street market. There is a sense that the offer is not sufficient of a step change as to warrant the disruption to that pedestrianised area and the moving of the street market and the loss of some of the pitches. In a sense there has been a line drawn in the sand there. As I say, if there is movement on the vehicle type and livery and so on, then Members may be prepared to reconsider that view, but there is certainly not an opposition to the concept of transits, per se.
John Biggs (AM): I very much welcome Peter Morley’s clarification. I was uncharacteristically asking a very short question and I know that the Members, who are mostly good friends of mine, would like the transit to be built as promised. There are various opposition parties who I would not want to be seen in the same room as, of course. But, am I right in thinking then that there is progress toward some sort of deal, though it is not done yet, but as part of that, there will be assurances sought such as the ability to upgrade this to a tram; such as assurances which would allow people to justify sacrificing a pedestrianised town centre for something far better than a bus?
David Higham (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham): The focus of the discussion at the moment is very much on the nature of the vehicle and livery, but there are certainly a range of other caveats that we have put to TfL in our responses to them. Clearly, those would have to be considered and resolved as well.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): If I may add to the comment that Dave (Higham) made on behalf of Barking, Redbridge did not make a submission to you in writing and I understand and sympathise with the problems that TfL have faced in introducing the transits concept in Ilford Lane. There is quite clearly a shortage of kerbside space to satisfy all the functions required of that area. It might be, who knows, that if we could get this further deal on Barking and a proper study of the whole concept and get it agreed, it might be that there has to be a change of vehicle at the Barking town centre in the longer run.
This is the point that we learned from Fastrack, that it is very important to have an overall concept, which will guide and direct implementation in a flexible and adaptive way. You might have to have bits of route that are not so good. The question comes as to whether you introduce them on their own as transits or with some of the better bits. For example, if ELT 1a could be introduced at the same time as ELT 2, which is of the kind that runs between Greenhithe and Bluewater and then to Dartford, we would be able to do the same as they have done in Kent Thameside, namely to say this bit is temporary and not quite up to the full mark yet, but that bit is running well, judge us on that bit.
Roger Evans (Deputy Chair): I think we have maybe covered the concept a little bit in your response just then actually, but just looking at the Ilford Lane situation, which I know is a matter of concern to Redbridge Council as well, who share some of that section of road, do you think the problems faced there mean that this is going to be, even at its best, a mixed mode service or would
11
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B you foresee it perhaps being rerouted, so that you could run a tram or transit type system on easier territory?
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): We do not have anyone from Redbridge here to answer their responses to that type of question, but in Kent Thameside they face similar problems with their initial implementations, as I have said. Their intention was to get something on the ground, which demonstrated compliance with the overall concept, something different from buses. They put a huge amount of effort into marketing it as something different from buses. Their design is rather like ours, upgradeable to tram, if and when there is the demand for it.
As I said, there is a central core, if Thames Gateway Bridge is built, where a tram system could easily be introduced. Whether a tram could ever run up through Ilford Lane is another matter. It is an extremely problematic area. I think the London Borough of Havering, who are not here either, might have similar difficulties in some of their areas. So, in answer to your question, is it likely or is it possible that it might have to be a multimode beast, I think as Dick Halle said in answer to you on 8 June, it might very well have to be, but his answer and my answer are different in the sense that my answer is conditioned by whatever the choice is, it has got to be compatible and marketed as within the overall concept, not as improvements to individual buses.
Elizabeth Howlett (AM): Very briefly, I do not know your patch, because I am from South West London, but I understand what you want – something really sexy that is going to catch the public and make an immediate impact, but the Croydon tram from Croydon to Wimbledon is a great tram, because it runs along derelict line, rail. It poodles along very quietly behind people’s gardens and it is not in your face, as it were, but even yet it is not used awfully well and it has financial problems.
The one that goes right up to Wimbledon, ever since it has been established they have had financial problems. Now there was a plan to open up one from Sutton into Tooting and people thought this is a great idea, until you realised it was going to displace pedestrians; displace good established bus routes and also cars along very narrow roads. You are going to need a flexible modal system. It is not something where you could say, okay, this is all tram and the public are going to accept it, because it will disrupt in certain areas as you discussed now.
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): Chairman, if I may, I think the reference to Croydon trams distracts us from what we are looking at in East London. I think most people and certainly most professionals would think that the Croydon tram is a success. There might be some financial problems and there are arguments as to why those financial problems exist in terms of constraints on the package and how it has been constructed, but let us not get distracted from what we are proposing in East London. It is not a tram at the moment. We have already indicated that in some parts a tram might not be immediately implementable, but it certainly could be implemented between Barking, Woolwich and Abbey Wood without too much difficulty.
It is not being promoted at this stage as part of Thames Gateway Bridge, because it would have required an application under the Transport Works Act. We have all accepted that, but the undertaking is that the design is such that it could be upgraded to tram as and when.
Kent Thameside had the same issue as to could they put in a tram immediately and the answer was not in the part that Stephen described as the not so good section. Rather than compromise the whole deal by putting in tram where they could, they decided to have a bus rapid transit system, which kept the cost down; was environmentally acceptable and could be introduced as a piece, now as a concept, with upgrade later. I hope that answers your question and I think if you go back to some of the points that you were given by TfL on 8 June you will see the reasons for those sorts of answers.
12
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B Geoff Pope (Chair): In terms of a potential link of the East London Transit, could that be a potential part of the concept, linking it through to the North Thames Transit scheme?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): The simple answer is obviously yes. We have discussed that. We would like to see the mature transit concept link to Fastrack and also we would like to see the mature transit concept at the north of the river linking also into land beyond the Greater London Assembly (GLA) boundary. You just simply have to sit round the table and look at those options and figure out which extensions are the right ones to do, but a link to Fastrack clearly is something we have discussed.
Geoff Pope (Chair): Is that supported by ….
Richard Hawkins (London Borough of Bexley): That is really my main reason for being here, Chair. Yes, we see an extension of Fastrack to Greenwich Waterfront Transit or the other way around, we are quite happy with it. Certainly that part of Bexley is very deprived. There are about 10 output areas a system like that would go through that are in the 25% most deprived within England, so it is a deprived area. It is a regeneration area within the London Plan, within the Sustainable Communities Plan, within the Sub Regional Development Project, so it is very much a regeneration scheme as the Chair said when we met them before. So, we are very supportive of having a link between the two. We would then have a proper network serving that part of South East London.
I would like to point out it is one of major concerns that transport, particularly in Bexley and that northern part of Bexley, there is a hug gap. Crossrail, if it is built will come as far as Abbey Wood; Greenwich Waterfront Transit, if it is built, will come to Abbey Wood; Dartford and Kent Fastrack comes in and starts at the borough boundary on the other side. There is a huge gap that is the Borough of Bexley, that we need that sort of public transport. Everybody seems to accept now that, if we are going to get the regeneration and to get the right modal split, then we need the sort of system, this distinctive system that has been described to you, to get the right sort of development, the sustainable development that London wants and London needs and obviously what Bexley wants.
Geoff Pope (Chair): Do you see this gap in the ability to strategically plan the concepts across your patch? Do you see there is a gap for you to have an input into it, as has been described earlier?
Richard Hawkins (London Borough of Bexley): Bexley would like to be involved in that, because I do not think we are going to get the regeneration; we are not going to get the sort of development that we want unless we have got a system that is distinctive that is on all the right maps. I do not think we will get that regeneration if people are just told you are going to get slightly better bus services in that area.
We need this distinctive, unified, brand new system that we can sell to the potential developers and say, ‘Look, we have got a good system. We have got something that will get your people to work quickly and conveniently and safely.’ That is what we need; to have something we can sell. At the moment we have a blank that makes it very difficult for us to show. What it is leading to, I am sure others of my colleagues have got the same problem, but we are ending up with people saying, ‘Well, our people have to come by car’; any developers coming in are saying, ‘We have got to have car-based systems.’ We are getting a lot of logistics, because they know that we cannot get larger numbers of people to those areas, but, if we are going to get the sort of development we want in Thames Gateway, then we have got to have this sort of distinctive, good quality public transport that is going to be different to what we have got now.
Darren Johnson (AM): This is a question for Greenwich, just to clarify your latest position there regarding the planned implementation of the Waterfront Phase 1. Can you just outline your latest position there? 13
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): Yes, Greenwich Waterfront Transit is slightly behind East London Transit in terms of detailed design. We have had a good relationship with TfL, not without some detailed discussion on what the route ought to be, but we have now got an agreed route from Abbey Wood to Woolwich and a way of getting the transit, rubber tyre-based transit through Woolwich town centre. All the big issues are there ready for what we think could be the transit that we need.
Our concern would be - it has just moved to detailed design in TfL, if in that move it becomes a replacement for the existing bus system, then the opportunity is really missed. I think Stephen referred to the good bits and the not so good bits in any sort of transit scheme. Waterfront Transit Phase 1 has got a huge number of good bits – a large amount of segregation; a big opportunity to link Woolwich Arsenal to the north of the A206, with Woolwich town centre to the south and regeneration potential along its length. It would be a huge shame if we have got so far with this scheme, if it then ended up as a replacement for the 472 bus; and add to that what was said about the need for branding and all the rest of it. The opportunities are right there for Waterfront Transit.
Darren Johnson (AM): Are your key concerns then around branding rather than around the degree of segregation, given that you say a lot of the route is segregated?
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): The degree of segregation on Waterfront Transit is more or less there, provided there are no back steps taken on bits alongside dual carriageway to make them in the dual carriageway, provided there are not too many stops along the route to make it a slow, stopping bus replacing another one, and providing steps are taken to provide feeder routes in the detailed design stage, then the potential is there for transit. Those are our concerns.
Darren Johnson (AM): So it is mainly around the branding that …
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): The branding and the operational design.
Geoff Pope (Chair): You said ‘provided there are not too many stops’, but I understood that here were going to be just as many stops as on existing bus routes, so is the proposal not going against your requirements?
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): I like to think we are very pragmatic people in Greenwich and concentrated very much on moving forward with TfL in the areas we can move forward on, including the route. There are a number of plans around with a lot of dots on them that we think, if they all represent stops, there are too many of them, but that is something we would aim to make sure are designed out at the detailed stage.
Geoff Pope (Chair): The reason for that is presumably, because you would like a scheme, which is seen as a fast service rather than one that stops at every lamp post?
David Jessup (London Borough of Greenwich): Indeed.
Murad Qureshi (AM): I thought it was the last question on the list, but I think you have covered some of it. I just want to be clear from the presentation, Stephen (Joseph), about what the appeal is of the Kent Fastrack; what it offers over and above both the transit schemes, specifically in the presentation?
Stephen Joseph (Thames Gateway London Partnership): One of the things they are clearly offering is a vehicle type, which has a capacity of 70 - 40 seated, 30 standing. It is not a bendy bus or a double decker. If that is translated to a London situation, it would mean that the frequency would 14
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B have to go up - because, obviously, we have greater capacities - and that is probably a good thing. At least one gets a step change in stopping frequency because of the adoption of that specific bus type, but there are other features of that bus. We were on it yesterday; it was a warm day; it was air- conditioned. There is obviously other electronic wizardry within the bus, which is not on a standard bus; there are leather trimmed seats and some other things that make it quite distinctive. They did a lot of work in trying to find a manufacturer to manufacture to their specification rather than just buying a bus off an existing list.
TfL with its marketing muscle and power would probably be in a much better position to negotiate with any manufacturer a bus that meets the highest standards that you want to set. Perhaps a manufacturer might make a dedicated run specifically for that specification. I think they had a little bit more difficulty with a smaller run to be able to do that, but they managed to go quite a way in getting a bus to a higher, transit-like specification, even with the limited offer.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): If I could add to what Stephen said, that is a technical benefit from Fastrack, but the two major benefits from taking the Fastrack approach are firstly, the overall concept is one which is separate, distinctive and supported by all concerned and secondly, that they have put in place both governance and delivery arrangements to make sure that where there are problems, they are faced together within that overall concept. I think perhaps Alan Brett would like to come in on this one and give a little more explanation of what he sees as being some of the advantages.
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): I think it is this overall concept. It is a lot more than just about the vehicle. It is about the whole package from the branding, through the information, the dedicated stops, the easy access in boarding, simple and understandable fare collection and transaction systems. It is a whole range of things – reliability and length of time it operates. It is quite clear and again, the research in the States has looked very clearly at these features and how each of those are needed to deliver the key outputs of travel time savings, reliability, etc. that people are looking for.
Interestingly, the research in the States has shown that the most successful bus transit systems are those that do have a very distinct identity and are promoted with a distinct identity and that also have a very clear position in the modal hierarchy. They are seen as having a particular position above that of a normal bus systems and closer to that of light rail, but below that of normal rail. That would affect things like, going back to the question earlier, stop distances, so typically stop distances will be greater than for normal bus.
The currently proposed system in Coventry, for example, has an average stop distance of 650 metres, which is about double that of conventional bus, but a lot less than that for heavy rail in the area, for example. So, again, a very distinct role to play within the hierarchy of modes and that is what is really important here, this issue about a concept of something different, because that is what then enables you to attract a different type of user onto public transport. The sort of user that is currently using the car at the present time is not attracted by the conventional bus services, but this type of intermediate mode can capture a lot of those people, because it is seen as conceptually something different.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): Chair, I have thought of a third benefit in the Fastrack approach and that is they believe in what they are doing; they are not ashamed of it and, disregarding leaflets that promote it, they in fact actively promote the concept. They go out of their way to do what they can, even to the extent of putting clips of a promotional video on some of their bus stops, so that, while passengers are waiting, they can be reminded of the long-term vision. It is a 25-year project and it helps to keep people enthusiastic and informed of where they are going. In fact, their promotional strap-line is, ‘Fastrack, the journey begins’, which relates to the fact not just that you are taking a trip on Fastrack, but the Fastrack is taking its first step towards a 25-year future. 15
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B
I have provided a copy of that promotional video with Stephen Jordan talking in it for five minutes to Danny Myers, who warned it was not appropriate to show it today. Also, I have given him also the paper that David George from Fastrack gave at the Manchester conference recently, which stopped our breath, attended by the practitioners of the bus rapid transit organisations. There too I have given him a copy of the slides supporting that paper in case Members wanted to look at these features of Fastrack a little bit more closely at your further meetings.
Angie Bray (AM): The clip might be preceded with a ‘brought to you by the Mayor of London.’
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): It is perhaps worth very briefly noting that we, at the moment, do not seem to fully understand and fully take account of the benefits delivered by these more advanced bus systems, because against a lot of the light rail systems, where we have tended to over-forecast the patronage - most of those have underperformed – of the systems to date, Crawley is running at something in excess of 40% above the forecast patronage and we have already heard that Kent is running at about 30% above, so it is clear these systems are very attractive to people and more attractive than as a profession we are currently estimating.
Geoff Pope (Chair): You are saying that both the estimates are low and that typically the actual ridership increases above that which is estimated anyway.
Dr Alan Brett (Atkins): Yes.
Geoff Pope (Chair): That is a pretty good argument I think.
Murad Qureshi (AM): We have taken note and I am sure there could be some progress made there.
Peter Hulme Cross (AM): We might have covered this a little bit, but your point, Peter (Morley), I think, that you made, was that there may have to be a change of vehicle from Barking onwards. It seems to me that the weak point is Ilford Road, where you have only got about 5% segregation and there is a lot of traffic down there and you have the problem of supplying those shops along there with the stuff that they sell and so on. It just seems to me that Ilford Road is, it seems to me, the sticking point, whereby a Fastrack system is not going to be viable down there, but from Barking onwards it probably would.
Peter Morley (Thames Gateway London Partnership): In direct response to that, Fastrack have actually done it, as we have already said, in the not so good section. I think to say it is the sticking point to transits is not an approach we would advise, largely because, if there is an overall concept for a 25-year project, there is plenty of time to think of other ways of serving people in Ilford. It might not be the appropriate way now and one might have to have a measure that is in there for a temporary period. All of this depends on having an overall concept, being unafraid to market that concept, and to take whatever decisions are necessary at the time.
I mentioned the possibility of a change of vehicle in the future, not now, but in the future. If it were possible to have tram system between Barking, Woolwich and Abbey Wood, then yes, if it is still a bus-based system running through Ilford Lane, one would need to change, but, as I understand it, one would still need to change at Barking town centre from Ilford Lane, if you wished to go across Thames Gateway Bridge, because the services from ELT 1a and ELT 2 are being planned differently with different termini. As far as I understand it, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the Development Corporation are working with TfL on a much larger, longer-term project to improve transport interchange at Barking station, so there is time to integrate those things into the plans, but it is all about having a unified concept and vision for 25 years, as Fastrack have and then working within it to implement what you can. 16
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B
Geoff Pope (Chair): Many thanks, let us hope that we can get that exciting vision rekindled as a result of the discussions we are having. We are planning to take some of these issues further with TfL. We are scheduling to produce a report in November, but that may change if there are any sorts of updates on events or opinions, which we feel might require us to publish a report at a slightly different time. Many thanks for all of your evidence, thank you very much.
17
Transport Committee 07.09.06 Appendix B