COUNCIL MEETING - 22 APRIL 2009 QUESTIONS ASKED OF

From Martyn and Rosemary Baker

May we have some indication as to the level of passenger service and timetabling of stopping trains at the Imperial Wharf Station once it is opened? At present that line appears to mainly carry goods trains .

Construction of the new station is progressing well and the station is due to open by late 2009.

The 17 May to 20 September 2009 booklet timetable was available to passengers from all Overground managed stations from week commencing 11 May. The following service level will operate between May and September 2009 as follows:

• Monday – Friday: 6am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm: 3 trains per hour on the Overground and up to 3 trains per hour on Southern Trains.

• Monday – Friday off peak: 2 trains per hour on the Overground and 1 train per hour on Southern Trains.

• Monday to Friday off peak: 3 trains per hr.

• Saturday: 2 trains per hour Overground and 1 train per hour on Southern

• Sunday: 2 trains per hour Overground and 1 train per hour on Southern

• Details of the September - December 2009 timetable are not yet available

From Martyn and Rosemary Baker

As we all are aware the Embankment/Cheyne Walk/ Cremorne Road major road is now a TfL responsibility. With this in mind there are several matters of concern, particularly to pedestrians, that we would very much appreciate your raising with Mr. Hendy of Transport for London. These are: •Some time ago local residents were promised a pedestrian crossing across Cheyne Walk at Bridge. This promise was made at the time that TfL allowed cyclists to use Cheyne Walk embankment pavement alongside pedestrians. Since the extension of the congestion charging zone the majority of vehicles coming north over Battersea Bridge now turn left, west along Cheyne Walk, making it even more difficult for pedestrians to cross at this point and because of the

1 position of the bus stops many pedestrians wish to cross here. When may we expect this pedestrian crossing to be put in place? •The stretch of Cheyne Walk between Lots Road and Battersea Bridge is becoming dangerous. There have been three fatal/very serious accidents there within the last year, including one which demolished a public bench and another which flattened a lamppost. Traffic in this area is either moving very slowly or much too fast. What does TfL propose to do to improve this situation? •The realignment of Lots Road and Cheyne Walk, widening the entrance into Lots Road, has now made this junction extremely dangerous for pedestrians. Previously vehicles had to slow down to turn into Lots Road; with the new alignment they no longer have to, making it very difficult for pedestrians to walk along Cheyne Walk and continue along Cremorne Road.

Thank you for your question concerning the safety of pedestrians along the stretch of Cheyne Walk between Lots Road and Battersea Bridge and the need for pedestrian crossing across Cheyne Walk at Battersea Bridge.

Firstly, I would like to say I appreciate your concerns and the time you have taken to bring this to our attention.

We are currently investigating options to improve safety along the stretch of Cheyne Walk between Lots Road and Battersea Bridge. This is incorporated into a wider study that examines the link between Lots Road along Cheyne Walk and Chelsea Embankment until Albert Bridge.

Furthermore, we are working in conjunction with the Royal Borough of and Chelsea to develop improvements at the junction of Lots Road and Cheyne Walk. This work is currently ongoing, owing to the development of a new academy school on Lots Road.

The realignment of Lots Road and Cheyne Walk that you refer to was introduced in 2005 as a result of a cycling scheme covering the surrounding area.

Owing to the impending removal of the Western Extension of the Congestion Charging zone (WEZ), it is expected that traffic levels will reduce along Cheyne Walk as this route will no longer act as a boundary between zones.

In addition, this will affect options for the Battersea Bridge junction that are currently being prioritised and revisited as part of the wider study I have discussed above. It is noted that improvements for pedestrians and cyclists at this junction would significantly increase the level of permeability and perceived safety of its users.

However, we are currently aiming to strike the right balance in terms of traffic delays and the absence of a demonstrable safety record involving pedestrians. A review of the accident statistics at this junction has shown that

2 over the past three years there are no recorded collisions involving injury to pedestrians at this junction.

As you may be aware, the London Road Safety Unit (LRSU) is committed to achieving the Mayor's casualty reduction targets and its policy of investment is firmly ‘data-led’. This means that finite resources are directed at sites and lengths of road where there has been a history of collisions and casualties. Treating these high-risk sites has proven in the past to give the best casualty reductions for the money available. However, in addition to collision data, we are taking into account the recent revision of signal cycle timing guidelines and the removal of WEZ in our analysis. This ongoing assessment will determine whether a deliverable option exists for improving pedestrian and cycling facilities at this junction.

From Will Pascal

1. Progress on the Line, opening of the Station and the likely frequency of trains.

2. Whether the Boris proposal for an Estuary Airport is a valid alternative to the third Heathrow runway

1. The progress and timetable of the West London Line is as above.

The immediate priority is to deliver the Crossrail project as specified in the Act of Parliament. In the longer term, it may be that additional interchange would be worthwhile. The revision to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy is considering this.

2. The Mayor has stated that the announcement by the Government concerning the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a truly devastating blow for millions of Londoners whose lives are set to be blighted by huge increases in air pollution and noise. It is clear that the Government has failed to deliver a convincing case for expansion at Heathrow or considered adequate solutions for the nightmare problems this would cause.

To this end, the Mayor has proposed a serious alternative, in the shape of an Airport in the Thames Estuary and has invited Doug Oakervee to carry out a preliminary feasibility study into the idea, which is now underway. Mr Oakervee will advise the Mayor on whether to proceed to a full-scale appraisal, which would involve commissioning further, specialist advice. This also includes looking at other alternatives such as Manston, Cliffe and Lydd in Kent and Northolt in , to name but a few.

From Michael Bach

In order to promote interchange between the West London Line and the underground network, will you consider extending the western boundary of Zone 1 to the West London Line and provide joint Zone

3 1/Zone 2 stations and interchanges along the West London Line at Brompton, Earl’s Court, Olympia and Shepherd’s Bush?

TfL does not think there is a good case for changing the status of the stations in question.

TfL has already taken a major step to promote interchange between the Underground and the West London Line by making Shepherds Bush an out of station interchange location.

This means that a passenger can start from , Olympia or Earls Court; travel to Shepherds Bush (West London Line); re-enter the Tube at Shepherds Bush (Central Line) and be regarded as continuing their journey and not required to pay an additional fare.

For example, the Oyster pay as you go fare from West Brompton to, say, is £1.10, just as it is for a journey from West Brompton that terminates at Shepherds Bush. Changing the zone boundary as proposed would certainly reduce fares for local residents but it is not clear that it would promote interchange.

From Michael Bach

When will the status of Crossrail 2 be resolved including funding, timing and route? What options are still being considered?

There will not be a Crossrail station in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

The Crossrail Bill was enacted by the receipt of Royal Assent on 22 July 2008, after the Third Reading in the House of Lords. The Department for Transport has made an Order to appoint Crossrail Ltd (formerly Cross London Rail Links) the Nominated Undertaker for the Crossrail works. The Order, which transfers to Crossrail Ltd the powers to gain the necessary consents and build the railway, was made on 24th July 2008 under the powers of the Crossrail Act 2008.

Crossrail works in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

The Crossrail route through the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) will be approximately 2km in length, which will be comprised entirely of surface rail.

The major elements of Crossrail works in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea will be:

o Remodelling of Paddington approaches track-work from Kensal Green to Westbourne Park

4 o Construction of new twin track on a new ramp to the north-west of the existing Engine and Carriage Flyover and leading to the Depot

o Associated changes to the track layout including the partial reinstatement of twin track leading to the Engine and Carriage Flyover.

o The Crossrail Context Report for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea provides an overview of the Crossrail works that will take place the local authority and I have attached a PdF file copy for your information.

The Chelsea-Hackney Line

The Chelsea-Hackney Line Safeguarding Direction was issued on 30 June 2008 replacing an earlier direction issued in 1991.

The Direction safeguards a nominal route following the District Line from Wimbledon to , running in new tunnels via new stations at Kings Road, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Tottenham Court Road, Kings Cross, Angel, Essex Road, Dalston, Hackney and Homerton, and surfacing south of Leytonstone to run on the Central Line to Epping.

While RBKC strongly support the provision of a Chelsea-Hackney Line station at it is not currently the preferred option. However, two alignments through the south of the borough have been safeguarded including a route through Sloane Square that retains the possibility of providing a station were a business case made.

In the Mayor’s 2008 Transport Plan, the earliest possible date for a start to construction of the Chelsea-Hackney Line was given as 2019. There is currently no commitment to a scheme although a high-level strategic review is to be undertaken by TfL.

From Michael Bach

What steps are you taking to promote the removal of Red Route signs whose sole function is to explain what a double red line means? Will you be pressing the Department for Transport to agree this ahead of their Traffic Signs Review?

TfL have been pressing the DfT for some time to allow the removal of “No stopping at any time” plates on roads with double red lines. The DfT have, to date, not agreed to this change.

From Michael Bach

The proposals for a step-free access scheme at is not in the recently approved TfL Business Plan. Given that the station has one of the highest number of customers of any station outside Central

5 London – more passengers a day than Gatwick Airport – is there any reason why this project cannot be an integral part of TfL’s Property’s proposals for development at South Kensington Station? We remain strongly committed to improving the accessibility of the Tube network. However the necessary funding for a number of step-free access (SFA) projects, including South Kensington, was never available and it has therefore been necessary to defer them until after the period of the current Business Plan.

Separately, Transport for London has been looking at the feasibility of real estate development at South Kensington, while recognising that the unique and historic nature of the station and its neighbourhood make this particularly challenging. A feasibility report was recently prepared by architects that included analysis of opportunities for station improvements. The report concluded that a development may be able to fund the underlying infrastructure for an SFA scheme (such as shafts), but that it would likely be unable to cover the full cost of installing machinery.

The feasibility report is currently subject to consultation with local residents and other stakeholders. TfL will be taking a decision on how to move forward once the results of that consultation are available in September.

From Michael Bach

What projects are proposed for Kensington and Chelsea in the latest Business Plan?

Please find below a list of proposals for the TLRN in Kensington & Chelsea that are programmed for 2009/10.

Fulham Road & Kings Preliminary design of safety and cycling improvements at Road J/w Edith Grove & Road j/w Gunter Grove, Fulham Road j/w Edith Gunter Grove Grove, King's Road j/w Edith Grove. Improvements include advanced stop lines for cyclists, removal of guardrail and signal timing changes. A4 Road Preliminary design to reduce conflicts between cyclists junction with Albert travelling northbound against those travelling southbound Gate through Albert Gate.

Old Brompton Road / Feasibility of providing additional pedestrian facilities on the Warwick Road eastern arm of this junction

A3212 Chelsea Feasibility of providing pedestrian facilities at the junction of Embankment/Cheyne Chelsea Embankment with Battersea Bridge. Also safety Walk: Lots Rd to Albert and cycling improvements along Chelsea Embankment/ Bridge Cheyne Walk between Lots Road and Albert Bridge.

6 A3218 Warwick Rd Preliminary design of improvements to existing pedestrian between Old Brompton crossings along the link Road & West Cromwell Road - Crossing upgrades A3212 Chelsea Preliminary design of safety and cycle improvements at this Embankment / Chelsea junction including advanced stop lines for cyclists, removal of Bridge Road / guardrail and improved streetscape. Grosvenor Road A4 West Cromwell Review of the existing proposals for improved streetscape Road Streetscape on A4 Cromwell Road between Earls Court Road and Project - further Warwick Road. Also update traffic modelling development A4 junction with Feasibility study of providing pedestrian facilities at this Grenville Place junction Pedestrian facilities A4 Cromwell Road west Preliminary design of an off-carriageway cycle lane on A4 of Warwick Road off- Cromwell Road between Warwick Road and North End carriageway cycle path Road.

Warwick Road junction Preliminary design of safety improvements for cyclists and with High Street pedestrians at this junction Kensington

Replacement of lighting is planned for Cremorne Road, Gunter Grove, Edith Grove, Holland Road, Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road Junction and Kensington High Street Warwick Gardens Junction. This is the only scheme we have currently on our programme for implementation in 2009/2010.

From Mr G Warre

Is there a possibility that London Transport are going to improve the water transport links down the Thames in time for 2012? As the overland links to the Olympic area are so poor it would enable people to travel to the games, and as well could ease the daily road congestion in Chelsea during working hours. Many residents drive to work from this area or take taxis to the City: I have seen Rivercats (a sort of small hovercraft) in Brisbane Australia on a similar river to the Thames (ie fast and with large changes in water level) and they provide the fastest travel time over a distance of 15 kilometers, on a 1/2 hour schedule. Each Rivercat ferry can carry up to 120 passengers and can run on bio-fuel. The ferry stops are normally on floating pontoons which rise and fall with the tide - we have many ideal locations for pontoons along the Chelsea Embankment. We hear a common theme from visitors/tourists: where are all the typical London buses (ie double decker) that were so easy to get on and off? They were a real drawcard for tourists. Why can bus stops not be recessed into wider pavements, such as those near the junction of Old Church Street and Fulham Road, so that the traffic can

7 pass safely while the bus is stopped? There would still be room for pedestrians if these bays were created. TfL seems unable to make the buses run on time in RBKC - one of the reasons for these delayed buses seems to be the inordinate amount of both small and large roadworks, some of which last for months, and many at the same 'trouble spots'. Why can this work not take place at night, as it does in so many countries, to speed up the process?

Planning work is currently taking place for the use of river services during the 2012 Olympics. Whilst it is not possible to serve the main Games site at Stratford, services will run from Central London to Greenwich for Greenwich Park, and North Greenwich for the O2. Services may be operated to Woolwich Arsenal if sufficient demand is forecast.

Thames Clippers already have 9 catamarans similar to those in Brisbane, which provide daily services between the London Eye and the O2. Enhanced services operate in connection with events at the O2. Unfortunately, these catamarans are too large to operate under Westminster Bridge and Chelsea Bridge at high tide. The Mayor’s recent announcement about river services noted that Oyster Pay-As-You- Go will be introduced on Thames Clippers later this year, making their services cheaper and easier to use. We are also reviewing pier capacity to ensure that we are able to cope with anticipated future demand, including during the 2012 Olympics.

As you may have already heard, we ran a New Bus for London competition, recently, whereby anyone could submit their design ideas for a new bus fit for use in the 21 st century. Many of the submissions we received were based on the concept of the previous Routemaster buses. As a result, 2 winners were picked. You can view their designs by going to our website at the following address http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ and keying in ‘New Bus for London’ in the search field. The aim is to have the finalised buses on London’s roads by 2011.

I would like to address the point you raise about bus stops. Bus stops are not recessed because we need buses to remain in the flow of traffic. There are a few recessed bus stops across London and we have found that when a bus pulls into these stops, it takes a while for them to resume their journey. This is because the proceeding traffic tends not to give way to buses, by not allowing them to exit the recess. This therefore hampers them from continuing on their journey and the impact of this is longer journey and waiting times.

Finally, with regards to ongoing roadworks in Kensington & Chelsea, let me assure you that we are working closely with all London boroughs, utility companies and central Government to coordinate necessary maintenance works as much as possible. Ultimately, it is our aim to ensure any disruption of the road networks is minimised. However, given the high traffic volumes and complex infrastructure underground; it is inevitable that on occasion, some disruption is unavoidable.

From Mr G Warre

8 Local retailers are suffering: at a recent forum between Fulham Road retailers and Council planning officers the idea of a local "hop on hop off" bus for shoppers was mooted and warmly received by retailers who say that many of those who come to Chelsea as a shopping "destination" do not know how to get around the spread-out shopping clusters as public transport does not conveniently link these areas and they have no shopping map to indicate where the fashion shops are, so they tend to stay in areas within a certain radius of a tube station. This disadvantages other retailers, such as those situated on the long strip of the Fulham Road between Sydney Street and Edith Grove, which are not near a tube.

This small electric Chelsea Bus would do a continuous circuit of Chelsea, making frequent stops, during shopping hours: from South Kensington Station down to Brompton Cross down the Fulham Road to Chelsea Harbour where it would connect with the new West London Rail Link (their representative was also at the meeting and is keen to promote the new station), then up the Embankment to Beaufort Street where it would turn into the Kings Road and go down to Sloane Square. It would then go up and along Knightsbridge till it turned back to South Ken Tube Station. The Chelsea Bus would need some Council funding and some funding from participating retailers along the route. It could also get revenue from local advertising on the exterior. Shoppers could buy an all-day ticket or receive a day pass from the first shop where they purchased goods worth more than, say, 50=00. I have seen similar electric bus systems in other European cities such as Rome and they are very convenient, normally the passengers stand (with fold-up seats for those who cannot stand easily) and this enables even a small bus to carry 18-20 people at the same time. They are also very quiet and non-polluting.

Thank you for highlighting your constituent’s suggestions regarding a local service to support retailers in the Chelsea area. I appreciate your concerns for the matter. TfL would not provide a local ‘shoppers service’ outside the normal transport network. This would need to be under a London Local Service Agreement/Permit (LSP). For example, you may be aware that Tesco used to run their own free bus to certain stores in London. Further information on the LSP can be obtained by visiting the following pages on the TfL website: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/busoperators/1228.aspx

The bus network is continually monitored to see if any changes can be made to improve the level of service offered to passengers. The suggestions we receive from passengers are an important part of this process. In recent years, our aim has been to offer more high frequency services to key local centres, with good interchange facilities for longer journeys. This allows us to provide a more reliable service.

Please be assured that we make every effort to connect local centres and residential areas - and to respond positively to requests for direct connections. Ultimately, we have to make sure that we use the resources available to

9 provide services that will benefit the majority of passengers using a route. Let me assure you that all new and existing bus routes are assessed in great detail and access to local infrastructure (eg. hospitals, shops and schools) is included in this.

From Ms Reily Collins

Why, after repeated requests, nothing has been done to slow down traffic that roars up from Gunter Grove, and fails to slow down for the pedestrian crossing by Fawcett Street that crosses Finborough Road?

We would like speed cameras to be placed overlooking this crossing - and wonder why this hasn't been done before.

Our London Road Safety Unit is committed to achieving the Mayor's casualty reduction targets and its policy of investment is firmly ‘data-led’. This means that finite resources are directed at sites and lengths of road where there has been a history of collisions and casualties. Treating these high-risk sites has proven in the past to give the best casualty reductions for the money available. Finborough Road is not on this years priority list due to the low collision history of this site relative to other locations along the Transport for London Road Network.

The criterion for installation of speed cameras is that there must have been at least 4 KSI (killed or seriously injured) collisions in the latest 36 months of which at least 2 must have been speed-related. In the 36 months to December 2008, on A3220 Finborough Road between Fulham Road and Old Brompton Road, there have been 0 fatal, 3 serious and 12 slight collisions reported. Of these, 1 serious and 8 slight collisions were recorded as being ‘speed-related’. Therefore, the criterion for installation of a speed camera has not been met and we will not be pursuing the installation of a speed camera at this time.

For further information on the criteria for installation of safety cameras please visit: http://www.lscp.org.uk/?cameracriteria

From Cllr Williams

Could Mr Hendy discuss the wider issue of what can be done to improve the environment for residents living on and near the Earl's Court One Way System?

We have previously considered the impacts of restoring the Earls Court Gyratory to two way working. There are a number of kerb-side parking and loading bays in this area which would need to be removed to allow for two way operation, as much of the gyratory is too narrow. Purely providing only

10 one lane in each direction would be insufficient in capacity terms and create further congestion. Removal of kerbside activity such as loading and parking would also have a negative impact on local businesses and severely limit parking opportunities for local residents. In addition, no funding for the removal of this gyratory exists in our Business Plan.

Therefore, we have no plans to remove the Earls Court gyratory.

From the Norland Conservation Society

Rat-run traffic through St James’s Gardens and Pottery Lane

St James’s Gardens, (north side in particular), like Queensdale Road, provides a straight, fast route to and from the west (particularly the north end of St Ann’s Road and Bramley Road, where a lot of development, including the creation of new employment-generation, has been taking place, and is continuing. The attraction of these routes is of course avoidance of need to go round roundabout to get north up St Ann's Villas. This is apparently exacerbated by SatNav recommendations to use this route.

Pottery Lane is used increasingly (in conjunction with St James's Gardens) as a rat-run westwards, with cars often racing through the narrow, twisting lane to beat the traffic on Holland Park Ave.

Residents complain about the increased volume and speed of traffic, - which, given the use of the square garden by children, families and two schools, and the nursery school in the church, must, sooner or later, cause a fatal accident.

With increasing employment being created to north-west (eg Freston Road), this traffic will only increase.

Traffic Management steps need to be taken to reduce both volume and speed of this traffic through what should be a quiet, residential square.

Kindly note that the roads on the ‘rat-run’ route you referred to are not the responsibility of Transport for London (TfL). They do not form part of The Transport for London Road Network (TLRN, or ‘red routes’). Instead, they are under the control of their local authority, The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Any query concerning road traffic improvements for this particular location should be addressed to that body.

If the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea establishes that there is a problem with collisions along these routes then the London Road Safety Unit will give consideration to funding remedial schemes via the LIP funding process.

From the Norland Conservation Society.

11 Route 316: Apparently this route and the 228 were initiated by RBKC, though Councillors who had supported them dived for cover as soon as the extent of opposition became apparent. The new bus routes were initiated by RBKC some time ago (at least prior to October 2007) and TfL is merely implementing them at RBKC's behest.

In the view of the NCS, and that of Ladbroke objectors to the 228 route, these routes take people from outside the Borough, through the Borough, to go shopping in another Borough. We cannot see one single benefit that this new route gives to Kensington residents, who also happen to be core Conservative voters. Catherine Faulks proposed some alternative routes, but apparently these were never seriously considered.

At the public meeting with TfL on Wednesday 9th July, Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP insisted that since TfL had initiated a set of proposals highly unpopular to those who would be most affected by them, the onus of responsibility was firmly on TfL to demonstrate in detail a convincing case for the new 228 route, not the objectors to prove their case. This case was never made, and most of the time, the 316 (at least) is running largely empty.

Evidently the Council has been pressuring TfL to improve north-south routes through the Borough. The 316 and 298 don’t actually achieve this as they go no further south than Holland Park Avenue.

We circulated all our e-mail membership asking them to write, and from the copies we received, the overwhelming response was strongly anti – of course.

The NCS maintains that:

• The consultation process was flawed:

♣ very few leaflets distributed

♣ short period of consultation during holiday period

♣ consultation leaflet was misleading, and did not include alternative routes

♣ on-line consultation link often not working

• No demand as enough buses already - more only increase congestion, pollution, road safefy, noise, vibrations

• Both routes run through Conservation Areas

• Negative impact on local businesses in Holland Park Avenue, Portobello Road,

12 • Impossible to assess until the western extension of the CC zone is lifted

We suspect that Westfield developers have effectively “bought” these new routes with S106 money: The only reason TfL had to give us at our meeting for there being a new route was that they had to be seen to be 'doing something and providing a new viable public transport service for people wishing to use the new centre.

The Council and TfL must PROVE THE NEED for it. None of us can see one

TfL should define a strategy based on actual need on an hourly basis, rather than blanket coverage of all streets 24/7.

This strategy should be transparent to justify the huge number of empty buses. It should be based on a clear insight into how they go about route planning and regulate frequency as a function of passenger usage,( about which they must have detailed knowledge from the download of the ticket swipes on every bus). If double decker buses are running virtually empty, is there any reason for not using single deckers. Even the 228 single deckers are by no means fully used.

Face-saving suggestions:

Perhaps the Council could get themselves off this hook by cutting out one or both of the proposed routes to Westfield centre, and insisting on a suitable extension southwards from Notting Hill Gate instead?

In any case, the frequency outside peak hours of both 295 and 316 down St Ann’s Villas could be substantially reduced.

Alternatively, is it too much to hope that TfL might invest in some minibuses such as are used for Community Transport and Dial-a-ride so that undersubscribed routes would still have a service at reasonable frequency.

Why in the present economic climate does TfL consider it appropriate to use its limited funds to provide multiple bus routes along routes that have demonstrated limited passenger need or interest? The 295 and 316 each rarely run at more than 10% capacity at any time of the day, yet the 295 duplicates virtually all of the 316 route.

At present we average 4 buses per MINUTE on our side of the Crescent alone on weekends. TfL it seems have decided that the Crescent is an efficient rat run for rail replacement, buses out of service etc. We are now at the stage where the Crescent as a whole is rarely without a bus at any point in time. Perhaps we are being punished for judicially reviewing them. Given the level of fine diesel particulate pollution building up in our front area as a result (it has taken barely 2 months for

13 our newly painted window ledges to go from white to black) we are now looking into whether emissions targets are being breached. Fabulous way to treat RBKC's only grade 2* listed crescent isn't it.

Anyway, it would be nice if "being really pro-active" actually produced some results... our situation is getting increasingly worse. Apologies if that sounds barbed but it is RBKC, not TfL that is the motivating force here, one only has to trawl through the relevant minutes of committees etc. to see that.

As I am sure you are aware, during consultation on route 228 and 316 Transport for London (TfL) received representations both for and against proposals to improve bus links across north west London to White City and Shepherd’s Bush. Clearly, therefore, some people will not have agreed with it.

In reference to your comments regarding current patronage on the routes in question, I can assure you that the capacity of all services is routinely assessed in relation to passenger demand. With this in mind, TfL’s Network Development will undertake loadings surveys to further understand the patronage of the routes following their implementation.

I should note, however, that any forthcoming surveys cannot be considered representative until usage starts to increase, a process that generally takes in excess of 6 months.

Furthermore, new route 228 bus stops planned for have not been delivered by the council yet, so again usage of the service in this area is not yet representative.

I am sorry that you feel the consultation process for the proposal to extend route 316 and to introduce the 228 was flawed. However, a full and comprehensive consultation was undertaken, both with key stakeholders and the public. As you will be aware, a judicial review was refused.

There are no plans to amend routes 228, 295 or 316 as we believe they suit public travel needs. Nonetheless, all services are routinely reviewed with an aim of ensuring that the best possible bus network is provided.

From residents of Ladbroke Gardens

Our understanding is that the proposed route change for the no.23 bus will

-safety add buses to the Ladbroke Grove/Lansdowne Crescent/Ladbroke Gardens junction which – as we are sure you are aware – has a history of being an accident black spot. The current safety features – bollards and pedestrian islands – were introduced following a number of fatalities

14 •congestion increase congestion at the already busy junction of Ladbroke Gardens/Kensington Park Road/Westbourne Grove endangering pedestrians, shoppers and tourists visiting the market at the busiest point of Portobello road where it crosses one of the narrowest and most heavily used areas of Westbourne Grove . This would sorely test the ability of two buses to pass each other on Westbourne Grove given the width of the street. It appears that the proposal simply replicates the same problem in a new street

•use of current stop close an exceptionally well-used bus stop in Elgin Crescent that benefits residents as well as local shops, schools and the market

•Pollution create additional noise, air pollution and vibrations for buildings along Ladbroke Gardens which is already a relatively busy road.

Given this, what has Transport for London considered doing to solve this problem along the well-established current bus route of the no.23 bus?"

Thank you for feedback on behalf of the residents of Ladbroke Gardens and surrounding area about route 23.

As you know, we are currently consulting on a proposed change to the route 23 service. Our Stakeholder Engagement Team is managing the consultation and I have ensured they are aware of your comments. The feedback will be taken into account before making a decision about this proposal.

Thank you for highlighting the concerns of local residents. We will write to you again with further information once all of the responses have been reviewed.

From Peter Debenham

Concerning the buses running up and down Ladbroke Grove I would greatly appreciate a considered answer. There are still multiple buses running up and down the road that are empty. I understood that this practice was due to roadworks elsewhere causing the need for buses to temporarily divert down Ladbroke Grove. The buses that we note frequently passing by include 414, 452 and 295. They commence their runs as early as 4:30 in the morning and wake us up as they either travel fast down the road or brake heavily at the lights at the junction with Ladbroke Road. There are many buses that do this; for example, other day we counted six buses passing our house in the space of 15mins between 07:00 and 07:15.

My questions is should these buses be able to continue to do this and are they legally allowed to do so? They are causing us great disturbance through waking us at a very antisocial hour and generating general

15 noise pollution during the early morning period. They also travel very fast at the aforementioned junction and potentially could cause accidents.

I also understand that we should be being consulted by TfL about the possible rerouting of the 23 bus along Ladbroke Grove. I have heard nothing about this and would appreciate understanding the logic. All the TfL moves appear to be highly incremental, with no strategic plan for transport in our area and it is concerning.

Thank you for raising concerns about empty buses using Ladbroke Grove and proposals to reroute the 23 service. I am sorry you are unhappy about the number of empty buses using Ladbroke Grove and apologise for any inconvenience caused.

As a result of gas works taking place in the area bus services were subject to disruption and diversions. On occasion, some out of service buses have used the southern part of Ladbroke Grove. This has enabled the operators to move buses around to meet passenger demand via the most direct route from the depot and has helped keep services running as smoothly as possible. We are not aware of any traffic management orders that restrict the class of vehicle on Ladbroke Grove. Therefore, buses are using this section of the public highway legally, whether they are in or out of service. Drivers should be operating their buses safely at all times. They should not be travelling too fast and are expected to take particular care at road junctions. Any incident of poor driver behaviour should be reported to TfL Customer Services. Details of the date and time of the incident together with the route number and registration number of the bus would help. The email address to report these incidents is [email protected] .

The bus operators have been made aware of the concerns of local residents and we have asked that, where possible, they minimise the number of out of service buses using Ladbroke Grove. However, there is little that TfL can do to prevent the operators from using this section of the road if they so chose. Turning to the comments about route 23, we are currently consulting on proposals to reroute this service. Leaflets have been distributed to residents along Ladbroke Grove and details of the proposals can be found at the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/busr outeconsultations/11274.aspx . The consultation closes on 1 May. Thank you for raising these issues.

From Mary Louise Thornbury.

Contrary perhaps to others in our area, I felt that the Congestion Charge served us well. We are in an area of intensive traffic (in the Kings Road) and great demand for parking at the weekend. The traffic seemed to be less on weekdays and the money spent on public transport relieved us of the need to use our car except for helping our neighbour to the

16 hospital and other such exceptional uses. Are we expecting to keep the same level of transport provision, mainly in the form of buses, without contributing through the congestion charge or do we assume that the infrastructure is now in place and can be paid for by regular subventions?

The changes to bus services introduced prior to the western extension of the congesting charging zone (WEZ) were designed to meet a number of needs. As well as complementing WEZ they were intended to:

• provide extra capacity for general growth in demand • provide new direct journey opportunities in the area, to meet requests for service improvements by passengers, boroughs and other stakeholders • serve new developments in the area

The bus network is reviewed on a continuous basis in any event and changes in any of the factors influencing bus demand could lead to changes in frequency and/or structure. There are no specific plans on the routes you mention. Significant proposals on any route would be subject to the usual consultation.

From Gordon Taylor

Presently TfL control 5% of London’s road network which carries 30% of London’s traffic. If TfL were given control of say 20% of London’s road network, handling say 90% of London’s traffic, would this help with improving the flow of traffic, increasing average traffic speed and decreasing emissions?

Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning the Transport for London Road Network. While TfL is Highway Authority for only 5% of London’s road network, this (red route) network does represent the capital’s busiest main roads, carrying 30% of London’s traffic. The impact of problems on such high volume routes can be very significant and, thus, it is essential that they are monitored closely and managed coherently.

TfL has pan-London responsibility for managing London’s traffic lights; ensuring that they are maintained to a consistent standard and their timings are optimised to smooth traffic operations and balance competing demands for road space. Through its London Traffic Control Centre (LTCC), which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, TfL responds to incidents, accidents and other events on the network in real time, implementing traffic signal contingency plans, setting Variable Message Signs and advising the media to warn drivers of disruption, thereby helping to minimise the impact of such disruption on road users.

A further 520km of important borough roads (designated as ‘Strategic Roads’ by the Secretary of State under the auspices of the Traffic Management Act 2004) are subject to TfL oversight to ensure that the availability of the capital’s

17 more important ‘local’ roads is optimised to take account of planned works and to provide resilience.

Thus, it does not follow that if TfL were given control, as highway authority, of a greater share of the network that there would be a commensurate improvement in performance either in terms of traffic operations or decreasing emissions.

TfL maintains good relations with the London boroughs. Our programmes are managed in conjunction with the boroughs and the Highways Agency to ensure that works and improvement schemes are co-ordinated and that opportunities for efficiencies and improved effectiveness in the operation of the network are identified and actioned.

By common accord, the current arrangement works well, enabling the conflicting demands to be managed to the benefit of all road users. With the current excellent collaboration between London’s highway authorities, the ‘ownership’ of the respective networks is deemed appropriate and allows for the necessary coordination to optimise network performance.

From Mr Goodwin and Ruston Mews residents,

Can the Commissioner confirm that and Metronet will guarantee to provide effective noise barriers between Ruston Mews (extending from the western end of Ladbroke Grove station to the bridge at St Marks Road) plus features that deliver security and privacy that fully meet residents' requirements? Can he also confirm that the east line westerly approach to Ladbroke Grove will be upgraded to a fully welded rail before the re-routing of the Circle Line comes into force in December 2009?

We were hoping to take advantage of a planned track closure over the late May bank holiday to bring forward track replacement and install Continuous Welded Rail at this location. Unfortunately this clashed with other engineering works and so we were unable to get access in the event. Residents were informed of this late change. We are now looking for further opportunities to do the work, either during planned closures or in the overnight maintenance period, but we may not be able to complete the work this year.

We are unable to build a noise barrier and we have let residents know this. We do not build noise barriers alongside our existing lines. To build one here would be costly - its installation would involve working on an operational railway embankment, which requires additional safety and assurance measures. The fence would also have to be a more robust structure than a standard residential fence, possibly requiring piling, to ensure that it does not get blown on to the tracks (or onto Ruston Mews).

At present LU has no available funding, indeed we have been forced to cancel a number of projects recently due to funding pressures arising from Metronet

18 being brought in-house and lower than anticipated fare revenue forecasts. It is highly unlikely that this situation will change in the foreseeable future.

We are aware that the re-routing of the Circle line at the end of the year will cause additional strain to the east line westerly approach to Ladbroke Grove and we’ll be looking at it further in due course.

However, at present LU has no available funding, indeed we have been forced to cancel a number of projects recently due to funding pressures arising from Metronet being brought in-house and lower than anticipated fare revenue forecasts. It is highly unlikely that this situation will change in the foreseeable future.

There are no plans for an Underground station in this location. However later this year a new station on the West London Line (with services operated by and Southern) will open at Imperial Wharf, very close to Chelsea Harbour.

From Nigel Palmer

Is there any progress on the idea of a new tube station at Chelsea Harbour?

There are no plans for an Underground station in this location. However later this year a new station on the West London Line (with services operated by London Overground and Southern) will open at Imperial Wharf, very close to Chelsea Harbour.

From the West London Line Group

In bidding for the 2012 Olympics, the Government made a worldwide pledge that, if London secured the Games, the capital’s public transport would be improved as a part of the legacy of the Games.

Bearing in mind (a) the West London Line extended corridor will serve both of West London’s Olympic venues (Earls Court for the Volleyball and Wembley for the Football) and (b) the extensive array of further developments along the corridor, will the Commissioner take the opportunity of ensuring that this legacy is extended to the West London Line, in preferably all of the following areas: -

Resolution of individual station issues on the West London Line, viz.,

West Brompton – unsatisfactory management regime insufficient passenger shelter on Platform 3

19

Imperial Wharf – a new station that will not be properly served since trains are unable to cope with existing WLL pressures, let alone the massive fillip to demand expected upon this station’s opening – insufficient passenger shelter on both platforms

Shepherd’s Bush –insufficient passenger shelter on both platforms

Inclusion of an interchange station between the West London Line and Crossrail to provide, among other benefits for Londoners, a shorter one- change journey between Heathrow and Gatwick for transit passengers who would avoid putting further pressure on Central London interchanges.

Extension of the platforms on the West London Line so that, as a minimum, all its key interchanges will accommodate twelve-car trains and its remaining stations will accommodate eight-car trains.

Not only will this accommodate growing local demand on the Line, but it would also, in conjunction with the now unused multiple sidings at North Pole, bring additional flexibility to the rail network across much of London and the home counties. This would be especially welcome, given the reductions in capacities and general upheaval during the major re-development works at London termini such as London Bridge, Blackfriars, Victoria (underground station) and Euston, allied to the relatively greater capacities on the Central Line east of Shepherd’s Bush, to allow commuters and others to reach the West End – their actual desired destination beyond these termini.

It would also mean that proposals for service development involving the West London Line would not be needlessly and forever prejudiced by the fact that WLL stations have platforms that cannot accommodate trains from other parts of the network. Network Rail’s plans for CP4 (2009 – 2014) incorporate the lengthening of virtually all other south suburban stations to accommodate 10-12 car trains.

Reviewing and taking forward (possibly in a modified form) the Group’s proposals for a Heathrow Airport – West London Line – South London Line – North Kent Line – Ebbsfleet/Medway Towns Overground rail service. Such an initiative, providing services that would be of actual use and value to Londoners looking for orbital rail options across the capital, rather than merely a ‘Parliamentary minimum’ service, is likely to make a welcome virtue out of the necessity of resolving the Ealing ‘ghost bus’ issue

Re Imperial Wharf, new London Overground trains, which have more capacity than the current fleet, an increase in train frequency from 3 trains per hour to 4 trains per hour and train lengthening from 3 to 4 car trains. TfL is confident that these changes will cope with demand on the line and while these will not

20 all be in place at the time the station opens, we feel that we should not delay the opening of the station while these improvements are made.

We are aware of the issues that have been raised by the West London Line group and we are currently in discussion with the group and Network Rail to establish if there is a business case for additional shelters at these stations. The station has been built to Network Rail standards and this includes the provision of passenger shelter

The need and scope for platform extensions on the West London Line platforms will be considered by the upcoming Network Rail update to the cross London route utilisation strategy.

TfL do not support this service. The proposed route involves 14 junctions, all but one at grade. There are particular constraints at least at the peak on busy mainlines at locations such as Dartford, Lewisham, and GW mainline; paths given to this service would lead to at least the same number reduced on these congested routes. Even off-peak it would be hard to run a particularly frequent service. Any service at all would worsen reliability of existing services other things equal due to large number of flat junctions negotiated. End to end in-vehicle journey time of 74 minutes assuming a service that calls all-stations which compares to less than 60 minutes with Crossrail in future via Abbey Wood. There are not substantial new journey opportunities unavailable already. The service would also worsen crowding overall to the extent that other longer (up to 12-car) and more heavily used trains to destinations in central London have to be reduced to make way for a new service with just four car trains, despite the fact there would be some reduction in trips and interchange in central London. This will conflict with all daytime freight paths from Kent to the Midlands / North and reduces places where freight trains can be recessed.

21