DOCSLIB.ORG

Subject: Questions to the Mayor Report Number: 5 Report To: London Assembly Date: 25/01/06 Report Of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subject: Questions to the Mayor Report Number: 5 Report To: London Assembly Date: 25/01/06 Report Of: Executive Director of Secretariat Subject: Questions to the Mayor Report number: 5 Report to: London Assembly Date: 25/01/06 Report of: Executive Director Of Secretariat Breakdown of Policing Budget Question No: 1 / 2006 Jenny Jones From next year’s MPA budget, can you provide the approximate allocations for 1) counter terrorism and security, 2) safer neighbourhood policing, 3) general territorial policing, 4) serious crimes, 5) road safety and transport policing, 6) public order policing, 7) other (please specify)? A detailed service analysis of the MPS Budget for 2006/07 was included within my Consultation Budget (see Section 2.3 on page 8) which does show budgets for the main business groups within the MPS such as Territorial Policing, Specialist Crime, Special Operations etc. However, a detailed analysis by the headings requested is not possible as many of them are not separately identified within the overall budget. In addition, the costs of support directorates such as Directorate of Information, Resources and Human Resources are shown separately and are not apportioned to operational groups - which, of course, would be needed if the budget were to be allocated across the requested (and similar) headings. The MPS continues to implement and refine its Activity Based Costing. A report entitled "MPS Development of police Activity Based Costing (ABC): 2004-05 results" went to Finance Committee on the 19th January which provides more of the activity analysis requested. A relevant table from that report is shown attached as Appendix A. Spending on Counter Terrorism Question No: 2 / 2006 Jenny Jones How much extra will be spent next year by the GLA Group on counter terrorism and security? How will this be allocated in broad terms? How much of the total will be funded by the government? As at 23 January, unfortunately the Home Office have not yet confirmed the level of Counter Terrorism grant that the MPA/MPS will receive for 2006/07. We have been informed that a new "single pot" for Counter Terrorism is being created from three existing sources but, at that stage, only one element of the new pot has been confirmed. The estimate of £228m included within the draft budget equates to the sum currently being received from the three separate funding sources. In addition, a sum of £187m for the MPS special grant for international/ national/capital city functions has been included elsewhere in the budget. LDA and Aviation Question No: 3 / 2006 Darren Johnson How much has the LDA spent on projects related to the aviation industry in each of the last five financial years? In the context of the disastrous impacts that a third runway would have in terms of climate change emissions, noise, and air quality, is it appropriate for the LDA to be funding a project (The Environmental Technologies Project with Brunel University) ‘which may help overcome one of the barriers to further expansion’? In light of your policies on climate change, will you divert money away from aviation towards more sustainable industries in next year’s budget? Between 2000/01 and 2004/5 the London Development Agency (LDA) spent a total of £5,705,588 on projects related to the aviation industry. This included projects enabling people from the Thames Gateway area to access job opportunities at Stansted Airport and providing high quality Business Support services to mainly BME Micro Businesses in the Heathrow City area. In the year to date the LDA has spent £578,915 on such projects relating to the aviation industry. Any strategy for increasing airport capacity must be environmentally sustainable in the longer term. I believe that the negative environmental consequences outweigh the economic benefits put forward for the expansion of Heathrow. I am therefore opposed to a third runway at the airport. The LDA has not provided any funding to Brunel University or anyone else to provide justification for such a runway. The Environmental Technologies Project that you refer to is a feasibility study with Brunel University on the potential for creating a cluster of environmental technology businesses at Heathrow City looking at issues such as waste treatment and pollution control. It is not related to the airport itself. In order to reduce CO2 emissions from Heathrow airport, one of the largest energy consumers in London, my London Climate Change Agency is working with the BAA on the implementation of cogeneration, trigeneration, renewable energy and low or zero emission ground transport systems which may be delivered through the London Energy Services Company. Spending on Sport Question No: 4 / 2006 Jenny Jones In your 03/04 budget £87,000 was spent on specifically on sport related initiatives, with £67,000 going towards the London Grand Prix Event. Can you detail what money was spent on sport related initiatives in 04/05 and how much money will be allocated for sport related initiatives in your 05/06 and 06/07 budgets, excluding the Olympics? GLA Expenditure for 2004/05 is as follows: £27,200 on sport and social inclusion £10,000 on older people and sport £262,000 on the Kids Swim Free Programme Total: £299,200 Planned GLA expenditure in 2005/06 breaks down as follows: £10,000 on the Mayor’s Community Skating Programme £10,000 on physical exercise and health £20,000 on older people and sport £25,000 on London Youth Games £15,000 on the Big Dance health promotion £7,000 on Bangladeshi Cricket Reception £60,000 on the Grand Prix in London Total: £147,000 Once programme budgets for next year have been confirmed, the allocation for sport will be available but conversations are taking place with the English Cricket Board to develop appropriate events for the touring teams from Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Motorbikes and Climate Change Question No: 5 / 2006 Jenny Jones Are you aware of the research led by Dr Ana-Marja Vasic of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing & Research which has found that motorcycles emit 16 times the amount of hydrocarbons produced by cars and three times as much carbon monoxide? Will the evidence, that annual hydrocarbon emissions from the average powered two-wheeler in urban traffic are up to 49 times higher than those from the average car, make you reconsider introducing a reduced congestion charge for motorbikes? I have not personally seen the research, we should not assume research undertaken elsewhere can directly translate to London. However, particulate matter (PM) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) are the emissions considered most damaging to human health. Motorcycles travelling at average London speeds in the Greater London area are very low emitters of these pollutants as a proportion of road transport emissions. It should be remembered that the primary objective of Congestion Charging is to reduce congestion in Central London. As I stated in March 2005 powered two-wheelers do not contribute significantly to congestion and as such they are exempt from the Charge. For this reason I will not be considering removing the exemption for motorbikes. Price Signals and Transport Question No: 6 / 2006 Jenny Jones Are you concerned that an overall decline in the cost of motoring since 1997, combined with price rises for Londoners in rail, tube and bus fares, is sending a strong pricing signal that cars are becoming a cheaper option than public transport? What can be done to reverse, or counter, this pricing signal? Between 2000 and 2004 car use in London has fallen from 44% to 41%. In addition, congestion charging has given a clear signal encouraging reduced car use in the most congested parts of London, and the western extension of congestion charging will further strengthen this. Fares are only one element in the signal that public transport provides to Londoners. Just as important are the ticketing system, where Oyster is a world leader, and the quality of service. Central to the future will be the projects and initiatives set out in TfL’s Business Plan and Investment Programme. These are all geared to improving the quality of public transport in London, fares make a vital contribution to funding this programme. Stratford High Street Question No: 7 / 2006 Jenny Jones What plans does TfL have to improve Stratford High Street for pedestrians and cyclists? Do you agree that the re-development of Stratford in the run-up to the Olympics should include measures to make Stratford more pedestrian-friendly? Newham Council is the highway authority for Stratford High Street and TfL’s jurisdiction is therefore limited. However, TfL would be delighted to work with the Council to seek improvements in provision for pedestrians and cyclists that would not unduly prejudice network operations. To that end TfL’s Walking, Cycling and Accessibility team met with Newham (and neighbouring boroughs) on 31 January. The aim was to determine and agree appropriate walking and cycling enhancements, both in central Stratford and over the wider area, to ensure the delivery of a sustainable Games and legacy. LDA and Building Standards Question No: 8 / 2006 Darren Johnson Following your response to questions 1836/2005, 2031/2005, and 2377/2005, how do you expect the policy in your Energy Strategy for all LDA developments to achieve ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ BREEAM ratings to be evaluated if the LDA does not have a policy of commissioning BREEAM assessments on all of its new developments? I have instructed the LDA to implement the policy of commissioning BREEAM assessments on all of its new developments. Renewable Energy in GLA Buildings Question No: 9 / 2006 Darren Johnson Following your answer to question 2378/2005, as the target in your Energy Strategy for 100% renewable energy in GLA buildings by the end of 2005 appears to have been missed, when do you expect for this target to be met? As you know from my answer to question 2378/2005 all GLA buildings are supplied by green electricity tariffs except the LDA and LFEPA.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Operator's Story Appendix
    Railway and Transport Strategy Centre The Operator’s Story Appendix: London’s Story © World Bank / Imperial College London Property of the World Bank and the RTSC at Imperial College London Community of Metros CoMET The Operator’s Story: Notes from London Case Study Interviews February 2017 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a permanent record for the researchers of what was said by people interviewed for ‘The Operator’s Story’ in London. These notes are based upon 14 meetings between 6th-9th October 2015, plus one further meeting in January 2016. This document will ultimately form an appendix to the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’ piece Although the findings have been arranged and structured by Imperial College London, they remain a collation of thoughts and statements from interviewees, and continue to be the opinions of those interviewed, rather than of Imperial College London. Prefacing the notes is a summary of Imperial College’s key findings based on comments made, which will be drawn out further in the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’. Method This content is a collation in note form of views expressed in the interviews that were conducted for this study. Comments are not attributed to specific individuals, as agreed with the interviewees and TfL. However, in some cases it is noted that a comment was made by an individual external not employed by TfL (‘external commentator’), where it is appropriate to draw a distinction between views expressed by TfL themselves and those expressed about their organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of
    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF 397KB
    Transport Committee Oral evidence: Coronavirus: implications for transport, HC 268 Wednesday 22 July 2020 Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 22 July 2020. Watch the meeting Members present: Huw Merriman (Chair); Ruth Cadbury; Lilian Greenwood; Simon Jupp; Robert Largan; Chris Loder; Karl McCartney; Grahame Morris; Greg Smith; Sam Tarry. Questions 456 - 555 Witnesses I: Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London; Simon Kilonback, Chief Financial Officer, Transport for London; and Gareth Powell, Managing Director Surface Transport, Transport for London. Written evidence from witnesses: – Mayor of London (GLA/TfL) (CIT0199) Examination of witnesses Witnesses: Sadiq Khan, Simon Kilonback and Gareth Powell. Q456 Chair: This is the Transport Select Committee evidence session with the Mayor of London and Transport for London officials on the coronavirus implications for transport. Welcome, Mayor Khan. Could you introduce yourself and your team for our records, please? Sadiq Khan: Good morning, Huw, and thank you for inviting us to talk to the Select Committee today. I am joined by Gareth Powell, who is the managing director for surface transport at TfL; he is joining us on Zoom. He is with the chief financial officer for TfL, Simon Kilonback. Q457 Chair: Welcome to you, and to your colleagues Gareth and Simon. We are grateful to you for joining us. We are aware that you are scrutinised by your own assembly, so it is good for us to talk here in Parliament about the wider issues that impact on transport. Can I open by asking about the terms of reference for the Government- led financial review of Transport for London? Our understanding is that the review was required by Government as part of the arrangement to give out £1.6 billion of funding support.
    [Show full text]
  • Cure Alzheimer's Fund and Rotary Co-Fund Research on Women And
    QUARTERLY REPORT: 3RD QUARTER 2016 Q3 2016 INSIDE THIS REPORT Milestone Research Year Cure Alzheimer’s Fund and 3 Do You Remember? Rotary Co-Fund Research 3 on Women and Alzheimer’s CaringKind Support 3 Cure Alzheimer’s Fund and Rotary joined forces this fall to fund research Not Your Average Night into why women are more likely to get Alzheimer’s disease than men. at Yankee Stadium The two organizations granted a total of $375,000 to the lab of Rudy 4 Tanzi, Ph.D., at Massachusetts General Hospital. Tanzi, who serves as Women Against Alzheimer’s the Research Consortium chair for Cure Alzheimer’s Fund, will analyze 4 existing databases of Alzheimer’s family genomes to identify gene Remembering Bob Kiley variants that impact risk differently for women than for men. 4 The Alzheimer’s Women and Alzheimer’s Reading Room Of the 5.4 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease, nearly two-thirds are women. While researchers and clinicians have observed this phenomenon for some 4 time, the reasons why incidence among women is greater are unknown, and little Cure Alzheimer’s Fund research has been done to determine possible genetic underpinnings. Women do Heroes have a longer expected lifespan than men, but this difference alone does not explain the observed imbalance in incidence of the disease. At age 65, women face twice the 5 & 6 lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s than men. At 75, their risk is nearly threefold. State of the Mind Women also exhibit faster cognitive decline than do men. In one study, women with 8 mild cognitive impairment, a diagnosis that often precedes Alzheimer’s, increased their rate of cognitive errors faster than did their male counterparts when tested over several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Ppps Transport for London (Tfl) Originally Set up Nearly One Quarter of the UK’S Entire PPP Programme
    1. Case studies 1.1. Case study: London Transport – the economic advantages of re-municipalising PPPs Transport for London (TfL) originally set up nearly one quarter of the UK’s entire PPP programme. Nearly all of these PPPs have now been terminated. Between 1996 and 2005 ten PPPs were set up for various developments of the underground and light rail public transport systems in London. The three largest PPPs were set up in 2003, for the renovation and maintenance of the entire London underground railway system. These were awarded to two large private consortia, Metronet and Tubelines, under PPP contracts worth over £17 billion (USD $26 billion). TfL and the government guaranteed 95 per cent of all the debt raised by the consortia to finance the PPPs. These PPPs were set up despite strong opposition from the elected London mayor and assembly and their professional advisers, who wanted the work to be done by direct labour, financed by issuing bonds. The first terminations happened in 2007 following the collapse of Metronet, which held two of the PPP contracts. Metronet was unable to manage the work within the amount budgeted in the PPP, and ran up a deficit of over £1 billion. TfL refused to provide an extra subsidy to cover this loss, and Metronet went bankrupt, although its shareholders had already received generous dividends. The overall cost to the taxpayer of this collapse was estimated at between £170 million and £410 million. The final report on the PPP stated, “The legacy left by Metronet’s former shareholders was one of poor programme management and system integration, ineffective cost control, a lack of forward planning and inefficient fiscal management.”1 The UK parliament’s Transport Committee summarized the lessons in a series of damning statements: “It is difficult to lend any credence to the assertion that the Metronet PPP contracts were effective in transferring risk from the public to the private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the 7 July Review Committee
    cover2.qxd 5/26/06 3:41 pm Page 1 Report of the 7 July Review Committee - Volume 2 Volume - Committee Report of the 7 July Review Report of the 7 July Review Committee Volume 2: Views and information from organisations Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 June 2006 Minicom 020 7983 4458 LA/May 06/SD D&P Volume 2: Views and information from organisations Contents Page Transcript of hearing on 3 November 2005 3 Transport for London, Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police, British Transport Police, London Fire Brigade and London Ambulance Service Transcript of hearing on 1 December 2005 Telecommunications companies: BT, O2, Vodafone, Cable & Wireless 61 Communication with businesses: London Chamber of Commerce & Industry 90 and Metropolitan Police Service Transcript of hearing on 11 January 2006 Local authorities: Croydon Council (Local Authority Gold on 7 July), Camden 109 Council, Tower Hamlets Council and Westminster City Council Health Service: NHS London, Barts & the London NHS Trust, Great Ormond 122 Street Hospital, Royal London Hospital and Royal College of Nursing Media: Sky News, BBC News, BBC London, ITV News, LBC News & Heart 132 106.2, Capital Radio and London Media Emergency Forum, Evening Standard, The Times Transcript of hearing on 1 March 2006 147 Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Written submissions from organisations Metropolitan Police 167 City of London Police 175 London Fire Brigade
    [Show full text]
  • London Assembly (Plenary) – 13 June 2007
    Appendix 3 London Assembly (Plenary) – 13 June 2007 Consultancy Agreement between Transport for London and Bob Kiley – Question and Answer Session with the Chair of the Transport for London Board Sally Hamwee (Chair): We now move to questions to the Mayor in his capacity as Chair of Transport for London. The lead off question from me is to ask you if you can tell us the purpose of the consultancy agreement between TfL and Bob Kiley, and how it offers value for money? Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London/Chair of the Transport for London Board): When Bob Kiley decided that he intended to retire, I was determined that we should retain his advice. He has, I think, certainly in the English speaking world, a reputation as being the most successful transport operator over a period of some decades, and the record he had in terms of turning round a pretty dysfunctional transport system in London speaks for itself. We were also coming up to the negotiations for the second tranche of the PPP (Public Private Partnership) contracts, and I certainly wished to have him advising us on that. We particularly wanted his continuing advice on the issue of Crossrail, but also just on day-to-day other issues. I think I have told the Assembly before that when I was getting wholly conflicting advice about the level of cost overruns that should be budgeted for in the Olympics, I could have commissioned Parsons Brinckerhoff or KPMG, no doubt, for tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to give advice.
    [Show full text]
  • On the 24Th November, Mr
    A3 THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND PLANNING POLICY – 15 DECEMBER 2003 REPORT BY THE DEPUTY LEADER AND CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING POLICY AND TRANSPORTATION CABINET MEMBER REPORT ON CURRENT ISSUES The following are matters of current and future business. I will not be present at the Committee meeting but officers can provide additional information on the night. FOR INFORMATION Since the last meeting: 1. CONGESTION CHARGE ZONE – PROPOSED EXTENSION 1.1 On 24 th November Mr Swinburne and I gave evidence to a meeting of the Greater London Authority’s Transport Committee, which was considering the Mayor of London’s proposed extension of the Congestion Charging Scheme. The Committee was reminded of the Council’s view that proposals to extend the zone to the west were premature and that if the scheme were extended it should include the entire Royal Borough. The Council believes that any proposed extension should only be considered as part of the planned major review of the Transport Strategy, taking into account wider issues such as the London Plan and the Mayor of London’s Air Quality Strategy. 1.2 The following arguments were also presented to the Transport Committee: • TfL have published no empirical research on the scheme’s impact on businesses. To have any credibility this must include the vital Christmas and New Year sales data, which are unlikely to be available until after the consultation period. • The current option merely replicates the solution produced for central London by TfL, who have adopted a one size fits all model regardless of the different circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Session 28.03.07
    TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BOARD MEETING – OPEN SESSION TO BE HELD ON 28 MARCH 2007 AT 1000 HOURS IN COMMITTEE ROOMS 4 & 5 CITY HALL, THE QUEEN’S WALK, LONDON SE1 2AA AGENDA A Meeting of the Board will be held to deal with the following business: 1. Apologies for Absence 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 7 February 2007 3. Any Matters Arising from the Minutes Business Items Sponsor 4. The Commissioner’s Report Peter Hendy, Commissioner 5. 2007/2008 Budget Stephen Allen, Interim MD Finance 6. Treasury Management Strategy & Stephen Allen, Interim MD Finance Prudential Indicators 7. Update on Sustainability and Peter Hendy, Commissioner Climate Change 8. Woolwich Ferry Transfer David Brown, MD Surface Transport 9. Revision of Standing Orders Howard Carter, General Counsel and Appointments Items for Noting 10. Report from the Finance Committee Sir Mike Hodgkinson, Chair of the Committee 11. Report from Safety, Health & Environment Dave Wetzel, Chair of the Committee Committee 12. Report from the Audit Committee Judith Hunt, Chair of the Committee Page 1 of 2 13. Mayoral Delegation and Direction to Howard Carter, General Counsel TfL to Revise the Transport Strategy 14. Mayoral Guidance and Direction to TfL Howard Carter, General Counsel in relation to Road User Charging Schemes 15. Any Other Business Date of next meeting: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 Page 2 of 2 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD – OPEN SESSION MINUTES of the Board Meeting held in the Chamber, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA at 10.00 am on Wednesday,
    [Show full text]
  • The London Congestion Charge Scheme Dave Wetzel FCIT CEO ‐ Transforming Communities
    Dave Wetzel – Report on London’s Congestion Charge Scheme The London Congestion Charge Scheme Dave Wetzel FCIT CEO ‐ Transforming Communities 1. Acknowledgements 2. Executive Summary 3. Introduction – The Problem and Difficulties 4. The Theory of Marginal Cost Pricing 5. The History of Different Road Pricing Solutions 6. Road User Charging Studies in the UK 7. The First London Mayoral Election. May 2000. 8. London Congestion Charging – The Mayor’s First Steps 9. Monitoring 10. Consultation, Publicity and The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 11. Public Transport Improvements 12. Outline of the Scheme as First Introduced February 17th 2003 13. Traffic Engineering Improvements 14. Early Results 15. Major Changes 16. Mayor’s Re‐Election 2004 17. The financial effects of congestion charging 18. Election of Conservative Mayor 2008 19. Lessons Learnt from The Introduction of the London Congestion Charging 20. Conclusion 21. Appendix 1. Author’s cv 22. Appendix 2. Mayor’s Question Time 27th July 2000 1. Acknowledgements: I wish to thank the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation for commissioning this paper. I am also grateful to the following people with whom I have conducted interviews for this project and exchanged information (See Appendix One for copy of the questionnaire used): 1 Dave Wetzel – Report on London’s Congestion Charge Scheme Ken Livingstone: Leader ‐ Greater London Council 1981‐86 and the first Mayor of London 2000‐2008 Former Member of Parliament and Chair of Transport for London (TfL) 2000‐ 2008 (who introduced the London Congestion Charging scheme in 2003). Steve Norris: Executive Chairman Jarvis from 2003; Former Member of Parliament and Minister of Transport 1992‐1996 and former Vice‐Chairman of The Conservative Party ; Unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative Party in both the 2000 and 2004 London Mayoral elections; Transport for London Board Member 2000‐2001 and 2008 to date; Former Director General of the UK’s Road Haulage Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Board Meeting Agenda and Papers
    TRANSPORT FOR LONDON MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD – OPEN SESSION MINUTES of the Board Meeting held in the Chamber, City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA at 10.00 am on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 Present: Ken Livingstone Chair of the Board Dave Wetzel Vice Chair Kirsten Hearn Sir Mike Hodgkinson Paul Moore Patrick O’Keeffe Tony West In Bryan Heiser Special Adviser to the Board Attendance: Murziline Parchment Special Adviser to the Board Lynn Sloman Special Adviser to the Board Steve Allen Director of Corporate Finance Ian Brown Managing Director, London Rail Peter Brown Chief Operating Officer, Surface Stephen Critchley Chief Finance Officer Mary Hardy Director of Internal Audit Peter Hendy Commissioner Ellen Howard Public Law Team Leader Gareth John Director of Legal & Compliance Peter McGuirk Int. Director of Governance & Assurance Tim O’Toole Managing Director, London Underground Ben Plowden Managing Director, Group Comms. Tony Richardson Fares Analysis Manager Len Simkins Head of Business Services & Strategy Duncan Symonds Commissioner’s Chief of Staff Valerie Todd Act. Managing Dir, Group Services Jay Walder Managing Director, Finance & Planning Horatio Chishimba TfL Secretariat James Varley TfL Secretariat The Board welcomed Peter Hendy as the new Commissioner of Transport for London. 01/02/06 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from Honor Chapman, Stephen Glaister, John Ormerod and Lynn Sloman. The Board wished Honor Chapman a quick recovery following a motor vehicle accident. Minutes 01/02/06 – 12/02/06 Page 1 of 5 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Declaration of Interests There were no interests declared. 02/02/06 Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 7 December 2005 The minutes of the last meeting were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to an amendment being made to correct the date of the last meeting to read Wednesday, 7 December 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Profit-Function of Two Similar Warm Standby System Subject To
    International Journal of Recent Advances in Engineering & Technology (IJRAET) ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Profit-Function of Two Similar Warm Standby System subject to Metronet’s failure for failing to implement sufficient safety checks and failed to follow good industry practice with different repair facilities Ashok Kumar Saini BLJS COLLEGE, TOSHAM (BHIWANI) HARYANA, INDIA White City, for failing to implement sufficient safety Abstract : "The Metronet PPP contracts to upgrade the Tube left the DfT without effective means of protecting the checks despite being ordered to do so by TfL. taxpayer. Metronet’s failure led to a direct loss to the In April 2005 the Commissioner of Transport for taxpayer of between £170 million and £410 million. The London, Bob Kiley, pressed for an urgent review of the DfT’s work with the Mayor of London, TfL and London PPP, describing its performance as "bordering on Underground on a long term solution will need to improve governance and risk management in the new arrangements disaster". A week later the chief executive of Metronet they are intending to put in place to protect the was sacked, after complaints that it had made £50m taxpayer."The Comptroller and Auditor General, 5 June profit despite being behind on all its major works. By 2009 April 2005, it had started work on only 13 station refurbishments (instead of 32 as scheduled), and was In this paper we have taken failure of Metronet’s failure for failing to implement sufficient safety checks and failed more than a year behind on the refurbishment of 78 to follow good industry practice. When the main unit fails District line trains.
    [Show full text]