DOCSLIB.ORG

Routeing of Bus Route 100 at Ludgate Circus Via Queen Victoria Street

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Routeing of Bus Route 100 at Ludgate Circus Via Queen Victoria Street Consultation on proposed re- routeing of bus route 100 at Ludgate Circus via Queen Victoria Street Consultation Report April 2015 Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2 The consultation ............................................................................................................. 2 3 Responses from members of the public ......................................................................... 4 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders .............................................. 7 Appendices Appendix A – Copy of the flyer/poster ..................................................................................... Appendix B – Copy of email to customers .............................................................................. Appendix C – Email to stakeholders ....................................................................................... Appendix D – List of stakeholders ........................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction Transport for London (TfL) recently consulted on a proposal to reroute the 100 at Ludgate Circus in the City of London. Route 100 operates between Elephant & Castle in the south and Shadwell in the east via Liverpool Street station and the City in central London. The proposed change would mean the 100 would be re-routed via Queen Victoria Street which runs parallel to its current route but avoids a busy junction that is being made safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The consultation ran from 9 January to 15 February 2015. The route would use Queen Victoria Street instead and no longer serve New Bridge Street, Ludgate Hill nor St Paul’s Churchyard stops. These stops are served by other frequent services and the new stops are nearby. After Queen Victoria Street the route would continue along Friday Street to its current route on New Change. There will be no change to the frequency of buses which is 7.5 buses per hour (bph) Monday to Friday daytimes, 6 bph Saturdays and 5 bph Sundays and all evenings. There will also be no change to the type of buses used which are 55-capacity single- deckers. We are proposing to make this change to improve current reliability of the service and journey time. In addition the new North-South Cycle Superhighway will introduce a two-way segregated cycle lane between Elephant & Castle and Farringdon on the western side of Blackfriars Road, New Bridge Street and Farringdon Street. This will mean that the Ludgate Circus junction will be reduced in size and vehicles will no longer be able to turn right onto Ludgate Hill. This report explains the background to the proposal, the consultation and summarises the responses. It will contribute to the decision on whether to go ahead with the proposed change or not. 2 The consultation The consultation was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to route 100. The potential outcomes of the consultation are: We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation. The objectives of the consultation were: To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond 2 To understand the level of support or opposition for the change To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware To understand concerns and objections To allow respondents to make suggestions. The public consultation intended to seek the views of people who live near to the proposed route, current users of the service and other potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. Who we consulted TfL contacted registered Oyster users of the service via email and sent 131,615 emails at the start of the consultation and another 131,614 emails two weeks into the consultation. TfL also contacted the local councillors, local resident and business groups, London TravelWatch, the City of London, Lambeth and Southwark Councils, Assembly Members and the MP direct. Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online at consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/100-ludgate-circus. The webpage explained the background to the proposal. We invited people to respond by answering a number of questions and leaving comments. Posters were displayed along the current route at Blackfriars Road, New Bridge Street, Ludgate Hill and St Paul’s stops. And a flyer was hand-delivered to frontages along the affected section. The proposal was also mentioned in public and key stakeholder meetings for the post-consultation on the North-South Cycle Superhighway from the end of 2014 to the end of the route 100 consultation. People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond via our freepost address (FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS), by emailing [email protected] or by accessing the online consultation where they could let us know their views. A copy of the consultation material is shown in the Appendices. 3 3 Responses from members of the public Overview of responses There were 519 responses to the consultation. 87.48% responded after receiving the email. Others had seen the bus stop posters or heard about it from a public or stakeholder meeting. 73% of people who replied said they were in favour of the proposal. 27% opposed it. 20% of people who replied didn’t currently use the service but would consider using it in future. To help us understand more about who replied and their thoughts on the route and proposal we asked a number of questions: 1. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group please provide us with the name. 2. How did you hear about this consultation? 3. Do you currently use the service? 5. Do you have any objections to this rerouting? 6. Do you have any other comments about the route? 7. Do you or would you use any other routes in the area? How people heard about the consultation Email from TfL 454, 87.48% TfL website 27, 5.202% Other (public/stakeholder meetings etc) 16, 3.083% At a bus stop (a poster) 6, 1.156% Via social media (Twitter, Facebook etc) 6, 1.156% How people heard about the consultation 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Email TfL Social Other Poster Total from TfL website media Number of replies 454 27 16 6 6 509 % of total 88 5 3 1 1 98 4 People who currently use the service Yes 413, 79.58% No 100, 19.27% Not Answered 6, 1.15% Who currently use the service 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Not answered Total Number of replies 413 100 6 519 % of total 80 19 1 100 People who had objections to the proposed rerouting Yes 142, 27.36% No 377, 72.64% Not Answered 0, 0% Who had objections to the proposed rerouting 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Not answered Total Number of replies 142 377 0 519 % of total 27 73 0 100 5 People who had other comments about the route There were 277 responses to this question. The themes were extending the route, having direct links, using bigger buses and increasing the frequency. People who use other routes 281 people responded to this question. Summary of responses by issues raised/theme Below shows the number of times an issue or theme was raised. Number of Issue raised/theme times raised Will improve journey time reliability/reduce delays 170 Will make connections difficult including City Thameslink customers and 68 getting to the West End Will increase commute to/from work 51 Increase the capacity of the buses on the route (eg with a double- 21 decker) Have more direct links to other destinations/places where people want to 20 go Increase the frequency 18 Reduce delays elsewhere on the route 10 Concern about the mobility impaired and access to stops 10 Extend the route north/south 5 Comments about other parts of the route including where to put new 5 stops, bus shelters and electronic information boards Comments relating to just doing this to facilitate the North-South Cycle 4 Superhighway/for cyclists Concern about safety for passengers at night on Queen Victoria Street 3 Concern about rerouting away from London Wall 1 Concern about loss of taxi ranking spaces 1 6 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders Three key stakeholders responded to this consultation including the local authority. London TravelWatch did not submit a response to the consultation although it did question if we were consulting prematurely because a decision on the North-South Cycle Superhighway had not been made at the time. A business on New Bridge Street gave relevant comments in the consultation on the North-South Cycle Superhighway. City of London Corporation It said that given the Cycle Superhighway changes at Ludgate Circus it will help reduce the excessive number of buses on Ludgate Hill. And that the new route will probably be quicker and more reliable than the congested route via Ludgate Hill. It added that most passengers currently using the un-served stops will have an alternative within reasonable distance. Licensed Taxi Drivers Association It was concerned about loss of taxi ranking spaces next to the current bus stops/stands in Queen Victoria Street. TfL confirmed direct that the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 83-483-N83 Consultation Report
    Consultation on proposed changes to bus route 83 and the introduction of new route 483 Consultation Report June 2016 1 Consultation on proposed changes to bus route 83 and the introduction of new route 483 Consultation Report 2 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 2 The consultation .......................................................................................... 2 3 Responses from members of the public ...................................................... 4 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ......................... 14 Appendix A – Consultation materials .............................................................. 19 Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area ............................................................. 24 Appendix C - Postcode Analysis ..................................................................... 25 Appendix D – All comments received .............................................................. 30 Appendix E – List of stakeholders consulted ................................................... 39 1 1 Introduction We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposed change to bus route 83 and the introduction of a new bus route, numbered 483. The consultation took place for a period of six weeks from Monday 11 January to Monday 22 February 2016. This report explains the background to the scheme and consultation, and summarises the responses. Route 83 is a 24-hour service that runs
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes PDF 94 KB
    MINUTES Meeting: Environment Committee Date: Wednesday 16 January 2019 Time: 10.00 am Place: Committee Room 5, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment Present: Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Leonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Shaun Bailey AM Tom Copley AM David Kurten AM 1 Ap ologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1) 1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Dr Onkar Sahota AM, for whom Tom Copley AM substituted. 2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2) 2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. 2.2 Resolved: That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests. City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Greater London Authority Environment Committee Wednesday 16 January 2019 3 Minutes (Item 3) 3.1 Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2018 be signed by the Chair as a correct record. 4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4) 4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat. 4.2 Resolved: That the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings of the Committee be noted. 5 Action Taken under Delegated Authority (Item 5) 5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Schools Development Plan Document SD8A Consultation Statement
    Planning for Schools Development Plan Document SD8A Consultation Statement 8th July 2015 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 22(1) (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local development) (England) Regulations 2012 (‘the Regulations’). It details the publication procedures undertaken by the Council for the Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (PfS DPD) in compliance with the Regulations. The statement seeks to show how the local planning authority has prepared the plan in accordance with Regulation 18 and has dealt with any representations received relating to a local plan in accordance with Regulation 20. 1.2 For clarity, this statement has been divided into two sections as follows • Section two deals with representations received at the Initial and Options stage. It sets out which bodies and persons were invited to make representations, details of the consultation and a brief analysis of the representations received. The summary of the main issues and how those issues were addressed is published in the standalone report titled EB4 ‘ Planning for Schools DPD, Issues and Options, Representations Report’ (February 2015). • Section three deals with representations received at the Publication stage. It details the publication procedures undertaken by the Council, the number of representations received and a summary of the main issues raised in the representations. 1.3 This consultation statement is also supplemented by a full summary (Part B – in an excel spreadsheet sheet form) of any Regulation 20 representations received together with the detailed responses and recommendations of the Council. A summary of the spreadsheet will also be provided in the appendices – Appendix D.
    [Show full text]
  • London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) Date: Thursday 19 March 2020 Time: 10.00 Am Place: Chamber, City Hall, the Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA
    MINUTES Meeting: London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) Date: Thursday 19 March 2020 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/whole-assembly Present: Len Duvall AM (Chair) Florence Eshalomi AM MP Shaun Bailey AM Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman) Siân Berry AM Joanne McCartney AM Andrew Boff AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Leonie Cooper AM Keith Prince AM Unmesh Desai AM Caroline Russell AM Tony Devenish AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM Andrew Dismore AM Peter Whittle AM City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Greater London Authority London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) Thursday 19 March 2020 1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1) 1.1 In the absence of the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Assembly, who had both given apologies for absence, and in accordance with Standing Order 2.1C, the Assistant Director, Committee & Member Services conducted the election of a Chair for the meeting. 1.2 Dr Onkar Sahota AM moved and Susan Hall AM seconded that Len Duvall AM be appointed as Chair for the duration of the meeting. 1.3 There being one nomination before the Assembly, it was: Resolved: That Len Duvall AM be appointed Chair for the duration of the meeting. [Len Duvall AM in the Chair] 1.4 The Chair then presided over the election of a Deputy Chairman for the duration of the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • DVS Phase 1 Consultation Report
    Direct Vision Standards Consultation results November 2017 Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 2 Methodology for analysis of consultation responses ......................................... 2 3 Analysis of responses to closed question ......................................................... 3 4 Analysis of responses to open question ......................................................... 19 5 Responses from stakeholders ........................................................................ 50 Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted……………………………………………65 Appendix B - Stakeholder email..………………………………………………………...72 1 1 Introduction Between 24 January and 18 April 2017, we consulted on proposals to introduce a Direct Vision Standard for HGVs in London. This forms part of the Mayor’s commitment to reduce road danger through the adoption of a ‘Vision Zero’ approach. This document summarises the results to the consultation. About the proposals Much progress has been made through working in partnership with the freight industry to improve HGV safety, including HGV design, but we need to go further. Evidence shows that HGV drivers react more quickly using direct vision where they can see more of their surroundings directly through their windows, as opposed to indirectly through mirrors or monitors. This has the potential to reduce the risk of fatal or serious collisions. The proposals included introducing a new simple Direct Vision Standard which would rate vehicles from zero (poor) to five star (excellent) based on how much a HGV driver can see directly from a vehicle cab, rather than through other equipment such as mirrors. The aim of which is to give regulators, manufacturers, operators and contractors an objective standard by which to rate and improve the safety of HGVs. The proposals also included using this standard to ban or restrict HGVs with the most limited direct vision from London’s roads.
    [Show full text]
  • London's Political
    CONSTITUENCY MP (PARTY) MAJORITY Barking Margaret Hodge (Lab) 15,272 Battersea Jane Ellison (Con) 7,938 LONDON’S Beckenham Bob Stewart (Con) 18,471 Bermondsey & Old Southwark Neil Coyle (Lab) 4,489 Bethnal Green & Bow Rushanara Ali (Lab) 24,317 Bexleyheath & Crayford David Evennett (Con) 9,192 POLITICAL Brent Central Dawn Butler (Lab) 19,649 Brent North Barry Gardiner (Lab) 10,834 Brentford & Isleworth Ruth Cadbury (Lab) 465 Bromley & Chislehurst Bob Neill (Con) 13,564 MAP Camberwell & Peckham Harriet Harman (Lab) 25,824 Carshalton & Wallington Tom Brake (LD) 1,510 Chelsea & Fulham Greg Hands (Con) 16,022 This map shows the political control Chingford & Woodford Green Iain Duncan Smith (Con) 8,386 of the capital’s 73 parliamentary Chipping Barnet Theresa Villiers (Con) 7,656 constituencies following the 2015 Cities of London & Westminster Mark Field (Con) 9,671 General Election. On the other side is Croydon Central Gavin Barwell (Con) 165 Croydon North Steve Reed (Lab [Co-op]) 21,364 a map of the 33 London boroughs and Croydon South Chris Philp (Con) 17,410 details of the Mayor of London and Dagenham & Rainham Jon Cruddas (Lab) 4,980 London Assembly Members. Dulwich & West Norwood Helen Hayes (Lab) 16,122 Ealing Central & Acton Rupa Huq (Lab) 274 Ealing North Stephen Pound (Lab) 12,326 Ealing, Southall Virendra Sharma (Lab) 18,760 East Ham Stephen Timms (Lab) 34,252 Edmonton Kate Osamor (Lab [Co-op]) 15,419 Eltham Clive Efford (Lab) 2,693 Enfield North Joan Ryan (Lab) 1,086 Enfield, Southgate David Burrowes (Con) 4,753 Erith & Thamesmead
    [Show full text]
  • MGLA190719-8032 12 August 2019 Dear Mr Hai Thank You for Further
    Abdul Hai (via WhatDoTheyKnow.com) Our Ref: MGLA190719-8032 12 August 2019 Dear Mr Hai Thank you for further email of confirming that you would like to see copies of the media monitoring reports held by the Greater London Authority (GLA) as provided to the GLA by Kantar. Your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please find attached the information we hold within the scope of your request. As we mentioned in our previous reply, the GLA only retains these summaries for approximately one calendar month. The links in the summaries do not directly link to the newspaper websites themselves, only to Kantar Media’s online platform. The daily summaries include articles related to the work of the GLA group including the Mayor, the London Assembly, TfL, Crossrail and the Met Police – there is no single ‘GLA list’. We are releasing the information that we hold in full, but we have made some minor redactions to remove third-party personal data in accordance with the provisions of section 40(2) of the Act. If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact me, quoting the reference MGLA190719-8032. Yours sincerely Ruth Phillips Information Governance Officer If you are unhappy with the way the GLA has handled your request, you may complain using the GLA’s FOI complaints and internal review procedure, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our- information/freedom-information Police base set to close Barnet and Potters Bar Times, 18/07/2019, p.3, Simon
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIAL BRIEFING: LONDON MAYORAL and ASSEMBLY ELECTION RESULTS 2016 7 May 2016 Khan Storms Into City Hall
    SPECIAL BRIEFING: LONDON MAYORAL AND ASSEMBLY ELECTION RESULTS 2016 7 May 2016 Khan storms into City Hall Robert Gordon Clark Executive Chairman Sadiq Khan has been elected as Mayor of London with a comprehensive 57%-43% victory over Conservative Zac Goldsmith after second preference votes. He also returned the biggest ever first preference vote (1,148,716) for a mayoral candidate against the highest ever mayoral election turnout (45.6%). For Khan, the uber-campaigner who managed Labour’s success in London local elections in 2014 and in the capital’s 73 seats at the General Election last year, this is the pinnacle of his electoral achievements to date and confirmation should anyone need it that London is now a solidly left leaning city and one at ease with electing a first Muslim Mayor. Meanwhile the race for third was as tight as predicted with the Green Party’s Sian Berry repeating the party’s third place of 2012 with 6% of first preference votes, narrowly ahead of the Lib Dems’ Caroline Pidgeon on 5%. UKIP’s Peter Whittle was fifth with 4% followed by Sophie Walker of the Women’s Equality Party on 2%. Khan’s energy and enthusiasm for the mayoralty was evident right from the start of Labour’s selection contest where he overcame frontrunner Tessa Jowell. Hustings victory then morphed seamlessly into a mayoral campaign where he was much quicker than Goldsmith in activating party supporters and hitting the streets and airwaves with his vision for London. He also zoomed in on parts of the capital and communities where predecessor Ken Livingstone struggled in 2008 and 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Independent Healthcare
    Michael Mansfield QC Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London 2 Independent Healthcare Commission for North West London Final Report 2015 Contents Foreword 4 Key Findings and Main Recommendations 7 Executive Summary 11 Introduction 19 Section 1: Current and Future Healthcare Needs in North West London 25 Section 2 : Finance and Economics 31 Section 3: Public Consultation on SaHF 43 Section 4: A&E Closures and Other Reconfiguration Plans 51 Section 5: Out-of-Hospital Provision 65 Section 6: Governance and Scrutiny 73 Appendix A The Commissioners 80 Appendix B Written Evidence Submissions Received 82 Appendix C List of Witnesses 86 3 Foreword At the very core of any decent civil society is The impact of fragmentation through the imperative to ensure that the individuals privatisation is slowly eroding what was a and communities who make up that society ‘national health service ‘. have sustainable access to good quality healthcare. These questions are raised, not to decry the efforts of those who have undoubted The issue faced by those tasked with commitment to the provision of healthcare delivering this objective is, put at its simplest: across the region, but out of a desire to “how can this be done?”. ensure that, through robust and evidence- based challenge, only those plans and The response in North West London initiatives that are genuinely able to meet the (seemingly flowing top down from needs of this rapidly growing and changing government) came in the form of the area are pursued. “Shaping a Healthier Future” (SaHF) programme, a project of unprecedented size As Chair, It has been my privilege not only to and scope, aimed at achieving a root and read a wealth of information and evidence branch reconfiguration of all health services but to hear from a wide range of professional across eight diverse, densely populated and lay interested parties.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 February 2020 London Assembly – Membership of Committees/Panels and Terms of Reference 2020/21 the Attached Gr
    Version 3 – 4 February 2020 London Assembly – Membership of Committees/Panels and Terms of Reference 2020/21 The attached grid sets out the structure of and terms of reference for London Assembly committees and other bodies for the 2020/21 Assembly Year put forward following informal discussions between the Assembly’s party Groups, and nominations from Groups to those bodies, including nominations for Chair and Deputy Chair of each committee. The proposals set out give rise to the following proportionality calculations, across the committee structure as a whole. The proposed allocation of seats has been drawn up on the basis that the Assembly will, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act, unanimously agree to disapply the proportionality rules where committee membership is not politically proportional in respect of the overall membership of the Assembly. The working groups set out at Appendix 2 are not included in the calculations below as they are not subject to proportionality rules. Number of seats per Group Assembly Committee Seats seats overall1 Labour Group 12 48% 42 (42.24) Conservative Group 8 32% 28 (28.16) City Hall Greens Group 2 8% 7 (7.04) Brexit Alliance Group 2 8% 7 (7.04) Ungrouped Member 1 4% 4 (3.52) Total seats 25 88 Committee Structure: 1x11 Member committee 2x10 Member committees 1x9 Member committee 1x8 Member committee 2x7 Member committees 2x6 Member committees 2x5 Member committees 1x4 Member committee Total – 88 seats 1 The strict proportional entitlement to seats as a whole is set out in brackets.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayor's Question Time
    Appendix 2 London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) – 20 February 2017 Transcript of Agenda Item 4b – Final Draft Consolidated Budget 2017/18: Questions to the Mayor Tony Arbour AM (Chairman): Members will now put questions to the Mayor seeking an update or clarification on matters relating to the Final Draft Consolidated Budget. Tom Copley AM: Mr Mayor, good morning. My question relates to the Mayor’s Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund. There was a significant underspend in that fund under your predecessor. Could you tell me how you intend to accelerate the delivery of supported housing in turning around this underspend? Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Thanks for raising this, Assembly Member Copley. There are undoubtedly significant challenges to the delivery of supported housing, including - if we are candid - through uncertain treatment through welfare reform, shrinking levels of revenue subsidy from local authorities and rising costs of development and management. These factors are largely outside of my control, but delivery has not been helped by inflexible programme rules and a passive approach of waiting for partners to bid for schemes. I am addressing both of these concerns by looking to fund supported housing from my main affordable housing programme. This more flexible approach, which could see schemes funded that do not fit within rules of other Government programmes, should increase delivery, which I know you are keen to see. I also wish to adopt a more proactive approach to commissioning supported housing schemes to meet known needs. In order to support this, I have adjusted responsibilities so that it now sits within the team that commissions my pan-London services to tackle rough sleeping.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes PDF 103 KB
    MINUTES Meeting: London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) Date: Monday 24 February 2020 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/whole-assembly Present: Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair) Susan Hall AM Tony Arbour AM (Deputy Chairman) Nicky Gavron AM Gareth Bacon MP AM David Kurten AM Shaun Bailey AM Joanne McCartney AM Siân Berry AM Steve O'Connell AM Andrew Boff AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Léonie Cooper AM Keith Prince AM Tom Copley AM Caroline Russell AM Unmesh Desai AM Fiona Twycross AM Tony Devenish AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM Len Duvall AM Peter Whittle AM Florence Eshalomi MP AM City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Greater London Authority London Assembly (Mayor's Question Time) Monday 24 February 2020 1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1) 1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Andrew Dismore AM and Navin Shah AM. 1.2 The Chair welcomed to the public gallery Politics students from King's College London and 1st Year Journalism students from London Southbank University. 1.3 The Chair then provided an update on some recent Assembly activity, including: the publication of a report by the Transport Committee on how London’s transport network needed to evolve as the city grew and the living and working patterns of Londoners changed; the Police and Crime Committee’s questioning of the Mayor of London on his Police and Crime Plan; and an open mic forum held by the Environment Committee with experts on reducing emissions from homes and the energy consumed in them.
    [Show full text]