Transport

Two retail outlets on the concourse at Wimbledon Station have applied for licences to sell alcohol. Do people feel that the sale of alcohol actually within a tube station – when the consumption of alcohol on the underground is prohibited – makes sense?

Snoggys – Lower Tube Concourse (Opposite platforms 1 and 2) have aapplied for Supply of Alcohol: Mon – Sun 08:00 – 21:00, off the premises. LAST DATE FOR REPRESENTATIONS is 14 May 2010

Up Box Trains Ltd – Unit 4 – District Line Concourse have applied for Supply of Alcohol: Mon – Thu 06:00 – 22:00, Fri – Sat 06:00 – 23:00, Sun 07:00 – 22:00, off the premises.

Contact:
Licensing
London Borough of Merton
14th Floor
Merton Civic Centre
London Road
Morden
SM4 5DX
Telephone: 020 8545 3969
E-mail: licensing@merton.gov.uk

Information: Council is intending to examine the steelwork of the main rail bridge, starting 24th May for about a week, and this means that traffic movements in the Town Centre will be significantly altered eg: single lanes only in both directions across the bridge; heavy vehicles traveling west being diverted along Queens Road, Haydons Road, Alexandra Road to avoid bridge; bus stops in changed positions etc etc: Details from Council, Traffic & Highway Services.

At last week’s WURA meeting members generally were very concerned at the proposals in the Wimbledon Town Centre Study. These related to the traffic management options.

1. While the pedestrianisation of shopping centres can be an improvement. This is dependent on there being a satisfactory solution for the displacement of traffic. eg; a good ring road is available.

2. The A219 is a main North/South road across London. It links the White City/M4 junction with Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith, Putney, Wimbledon, North Cheam, Sutton and the A24.

3. The proposals all involve Hartfield Road carrying all its existing traffic, but also most or all of the Broadway Traffic. Some years ago the Broadway was made one way because it could not carry the existing traffic satisfactorily. The same reasons would apply to Hartfield Road. At times Hartfield Road is heavily congested now. So the proposals would all reduce the traffic flow.

4. It has long been WURA’s Policy that traffic measures introduced on Main roads should not hinder the flow of traffic so that traffic is diverted down residential roads. The opposite is what is required. A good local example is when the Council stopped traffic other than buses turning right from Worple Road into Wimbledon Hill road, forcing traffic to use St Georges road. As a result 200 vehicles an hour switched in the morning rush hour to using the Ridgeway and Belvedere Grove and other roads in the Belvedere Estate causing major problems which the Council is currently having to address. Accordingly our Members would oppose strongly any measures which would reduce the traffic flow on the A219 to and from the railway station.

Representatives of the Pedestrians, Cyclists, Taxi Drivers, and Residents Associations joined forces with the Wimbledon Civic Forum last Friday evening to examine measures to improve pedestrian, cyclist and traffic flow through the town centre in the presence of Cllr Russell Makin, Cabinet Member for Transport, Merton Council. The only effective way of reducing traffic flow could be a local congestion charge, however, most were opposed to this idea.

There was agreement that cyclists would benefit from creating a cycle corridor through the new precinct between Broadway and Hartfield Road as a simple and effective means to circumvent the one-way system. This would be a far cheaper and safer solution than the dangerous contra flow cycle track proposed by Merton Council Street Mgmt. and TfL.

For pedestrians, the new crossing in Hartfield Road is in the wrong place and should be moved 50m north outside the shops / restaurants. A crossing planned between Centre Court and Burger King on the Broadway, just 12m from an existing crossing, would have an adverse effect on traffic flow. Cllr Makin undertook to review his decision on this. Most people wanted the pedestrian railings along Broadway removed.

Concern was expressed that the traffic light timings at the Alexandra Road junction had still not been corrected from last April causing unnecessary congestion in the town centre. The Wimbledon Hill Road schemes are unnecessary and will create more traffic flow in residential streets, as far away as Trinity Road.

The entrance to Wimbledon Station is chaotic as pedestrians are not aware of the traffic light phasing and the entrance also repeatedly gets blocked: Cllr Makin agreed that something had to be done here. Paul Thomson, representative of the taxi drivers was further concerned that some taxis use the rank outside Centre Court when it is closed between 4:00pm and 8:00pm and this takes trade from the station rank as well as causing congestion at the bus stop.

There are difficulties for motorists from pedestrians who swarm onto the streets at pub closing times, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings.

The Transport Forum provided some valuable insight into the community view of sweeping road changes proposed for The Broadway in a well-attended debate at St Mark's. The proposals - funded and jointly supported by London Borough for Merton and Transport for London - envisage the construction of a contra flow cycle lane running south-north up The Broadway and aimed at improving cycle access to the station and improved pedestrian facilities. Critics argue that since the scheme would result in the closure of one of the present two lane traffic flow southwards from the station, it will inevitably result in heavy new traffic congestion in the whole area - while statistics indicate that less that one per cent of station-bound traffic involves cyclists.

After a debate by a panel of experts drawn from both sides, the audience was invited to join in the consultative process organised by the Council and TfL into the advisability of the scheme and a record was kept of the results. These were passed on, by prior arrangement, to John Lee, the scheme organiser at TfL, and to Ray Puddy of Street management in Merton.

In summary, the majority of people present were against the scheme. Improved zebra crossings were welcomed, but the floor did not see the need for additional ones. People also thought that many of the benefits of the scheme could be achieved by opening up the station at the northern end obviating the need for the significant bicycle measures proposed. A 1.0m contra flow cycle lane was felt to be dangerous, especially when the recommended width is 1.5m. People were also sceptical about how through traffic could be discouraged at the expense of local traffic, but in general agreed that reducing traffic dominance was a good thing. The consultation leaflet was felt to be very poor, and given the mistakes coupled with the congestion caused by the recently introduced Alexandra Road junction scheme, people were sceptical about the accuracy of the modeling for this scheme, in particular, what sensitivity analyses had been performed to gauge the viability of this new scheme.

Topic: Ken Livingstone’s Congestion Charging: First step in the London Plan

Panel: Nicky Gavron: Deputy Mayor and Co-author of the London Plan
Richard Rawes: Environmental Services Director, Merton
John Stewart: Vice Chair, Transport 2000
Christian Wolmar: Journalist, Author and Broadcaster

Chair: John Ellison: Chair, Transport Forum

Attendance: 96 people + panel + chair = 101 people

Q1: With the forthcoming launch of the Congestion Charging scheme are the panel concerned about the widespread forecasts of chaos and how many extra buses, tubes and trains will there be for commuters?

JS: I think that there will be concern in the early weeks that there will be chaos. There are extra buses being put on and routes are being rejigged, but the tubes are already overcrowded. I’ve got to state that over the longer-term congestion charging is inevitable in central London. If anyone is in London at any time of the day you are better of walking. It is difficult for business and slowing down emergency services. I think that Ken Livingstone is right but the Government is sitting on the sidelines, he takes the risk if it fails.

CW: I’m sure that the campaign against congestion charging will intensify in the last few weeks, but the politics have been played down. It has allowed the media to play it up with the Times and the Evening Standard being extremely hostile: adding to the feeling that there will be chaos. I don’t see the chaos except in the warehouse near Brick Lane where the HQ of the computer is. I can’t see that vast numbers of people will do a U turn at the Euston Road or the Elephant and Castle. I except that lots of people will get away with it in the first few weeks. The number of cars that go in to central London is not an enormous amount. There will be a lot of fuss. Like JS, I think that the scheme is very brave, but it should have been piloted in a smaller town, say, Norwich or Chester: Durham has one street and there is a 90% reduction in usage. I think it is a great shame that the Government hasn’t got behind this and put it in another city first. I think that we have to wish the scheme well.

RR: I am in danger of agreeing with the other panellists: we charge for other scarce resources. You then have choices with this scheme. I think that people will be partly deterred by the charge but it is quite low. I think that it is a brave thing to do.

NG: I do support congestion charging in principle, it’s right for Ken in his first term. If I was mayor I would have gone for new technology. However, we are going into a crude but tried and tested system. I would have set out a much broader, and improved public strategy in the short term on how we should have improved public transport first. The mayor has done a remarkable job in improved take up on the bus. There are 11,000 extra spaces on the buses coming on stream for February 17th when congestion charging begins. We have the tube but we can’t do a lot about that.

In terms of the detail, there is a lot and the devil is in it. We are dealing with something that has not been done before; there will be problems but not ones that can’t be ironed out. Unless there is a glitch with the computer system when I would advise the mayor to abandon it, I don’t know what the chaos could be.

JE: What is the government’s attitude?

NG: I think that the Government wants congestion charging to work: they have put an awful lot of money in the scheme. The Greater London act wills the end and not the means. It is up to local authorities across the country to implement it but the Government doesn’t have control at the detailed level.

Floor: The tube is chaos. All the answers so far are in the short term. What is plan B if this doesn’t work or are all the eggs in one basket?

NG: The mayor doesn’t have a plan B. If there is major glitch then we will have to shut it down. It’s all about a shift in behaviour: 20% of journeys in London are under 0.25 mile. Harringey have a web site on lift share. 12,000 hits in a very short space in time. Multi occupancy car use is in place in Leeds where there are separate lanes for this traffic.

JS: If everyone travelling in migrates to the tube, then there will be real problems. Historically, people don’t move from cars to buses but some people will move from tube to bus, freeing up space for people to move from cars to the tube. What will begin to happen is that people will use their imagination and there will be a huge rise in bikes and scooters and perhaps one or two on bicycles.

CW: What worries me is that there won’t be much effect. Most people who have to drive in are tradesmen who will cough up or they are rich, or they will put funny things on their number plates. I have a car (I mainly bike) but have only driven in to central London outside the congestion charging times for the last 25 years or so. I’m afraid that the scheme just means lots of money for Ken Livingstone.

Floor: There was an amnesty in Milan when a scheme was introduced there for the first two weeks.

NG: There was a piece on this in the Guardian. I believe there should be an amnesty here for 6 weeks.

Floor: I’m a technician working on links to the DVLA for the congestion charging scheme and see no problems. It will work well.

At the moment, we are tackling the effect and not the cause. We still try to shift to many people in Central London. Now we don’t need messengers rushing around as we have phones, faxes, etc. but we are still building more and more office buildings in central London

Going back 50 years, used to get cheap ticket before 6:30am or 7:00am, I’m amazed that this isn’t been done to spread demand

CW: The c2c railway company running services from Essex to Fenchurch St actually do that.

NG: Decentralising: The London plan is looking at the growth in London and that we will absorb a city the size of Leeds (700,000) and the population will go back up to 8 Million, the same as just after the second world war. Six sets of econometricians contributed and all are saying is that 75% of the growth in jobs is going to be in Financial and Business Services. These are concentrated in a band from Heathrow through central London to Docklands and we are extending it Eastwards. We think that the back office functions will go to outlying areas like Kingston and Barnet.

RR: I think that Merton is strong in this respect in that we have the most people who come here to work in the evening. For this to work we need to strengthen transport links, e.g., Wimbledon to Croydon Tramlink: 44% of these people use it to go to work. Encourage people to move from car, 16% were car drivers and 3% car passengers, therefore, 19% reduction and it is encouraging employment in an area like Merton. And for that employment to be near existing transport facilities. That is the big perception that we have on the London Plan: the lack of additional transport is a concern.

Q2: Given the widespread concerns that public transport will not be able to cope with the increase in transport due to congestion charging and that the aim is to increase cycling by three times, should there be more emphasis on cycling?

JS: I was speaking six months ago in Havering, very much an outer London borough. Many commuters drove to the station or right into central London. The crucial thing was was there another way of driving to the station. No way would these business people take a bus, because the perception was that they were unreliable and that they did not have control over their journey but what they were interested in was cycling in to the station, because they had control. I think that the bicycle has an important role, initially shorter journeys and then perhaps longer ones. People need to be safe: there should be a mix of cycle lanes and lower speeds, and that when they come home the bicycles will still be there!

NG: There is encouragement for bicycles, and there has been lots of money given to Merton.

RR: There is a lot of money being given to Merton by TfL specifically for using Wimbledon Station as a hub as well as improvements for through routes: a report went to committee last (sic) week.

CW: I’ve been cycling around London for 35 years. I am a member of the national cycling strategy board and to meet the target of trebling cycling over the next 10 years will be a very difficult battle to win. The main battle is cultural. When I started there wasn’t a single cycle lane, apart from the one next to the Great West Road, and that was soon closed. There are more cyclists in London although nationally there is a decrease but in Copenhagen there is a massive increase. Buses there have big platforms, for double buggies and bikes. Bikes are marked on doors of buses and trains.

NG: There are perception problems. For instance the local boroughs put up signs at crossings and they say ‘cyclists dismount’. No cyclist is ever going to dismount. It is like saying to people that they should get out of their cars and push them. Some cycling groups campaign for showers and lockers with their employer. This is giving the wrong impression because after a few weeks most people won’t get a sweat.

Floor: When are the cycle racks going into City Hall? as I cycle there and there are no racks. Response: There will be soon (Merton Cycle Campaign).

Biggest reason that people won’t cycle is safety: the little cycle lanes on the edge of the road and the cyclist have to swerve out into middle of the road as they are clogged up with parked cars. Please do something about this RR. The report referred to is that cycling is the most dangerous form of transport.

CW: The BMA did a survey that proved that cyclists live longer, maybe have a risk when cycling but it is a risk worse taking. The more cycling you have the safer it will be.

Floor: In Merton you have one of the first cycle tracks in St. Helier up to Rose Hill dating from 1932 and I haven’t been able to use since 1948 because of parked cars.

NG: What about segregated cycle lanes.

RR: Yes, there is a segregated one in Raynes Park: it was an early one. Based on a survey. Will take up St Helier with TfL. People are concerned about safety and cycling and the levels of congestion. Green markings are there to assist. There are a lot of design considerations and some areas are difficult to get a cycle lane all the way through. Enforcement is one point.

Floor: What about the negative impact on bus users in Wimbledon town centre: this wasn’t even mentioned in the report that went to Merton committee this week?

RR: There will be consultation. Nothing will be done without a full understanding of the consequences of the decisions made.

NG: I don’t think that we are being radical enough at all. I think that there should be public transport streets. Somehow we should create the advantages of a grid system. Croydon Tramlink cost £200 Million, and love to have extensions. However, guided buses also have their own tracks, far more cost effective but not as sexy. And cars, not just one person per car. Congestion charging alone will not do it; we have to be more radical.

Floor: Any benefits from congestion charging, not see any breakdown of benefits. What is it going to be spent on? Not much on the tube: delays are up 15 minutes.

NG: The benefits will be £130 Million in the first year and we will know where it will be spent from what the mayor is going to say when the congestion charge is being launched. Traffic is static in inner and central London and going up considerably in outer London. He plays his cards close to his chest and the latest he’s said on this I've read in a newspaper. He’s going to spend it on road safety, and on buses. Business wants it on road maintenance. The Government has reduced the TfL grant by over £125 Mio over the next two years. It doesn’t work if half our money is taken away due to income from congestion charging.

Likewise on the tube, Bob Kiley has found a very good manager to run the tube. But if we are going to run the tube then we have the money to run it. Once investment goes in then capacity will have to go down for a while whist work is carried out. I think that it is important that we get on with running the tube. But if there is an appeal then it will not be but there will be a funding shortfall. After 2006 we need a letter of comfort as the level of subsidy goes down dramatically.

Q3: Merton Council is pledged to pushing forward the existing Tramlink and the East London Line. Neither of these issues are promoted much in Ken's London Plan, but there is a massive increase in housing development. Is Ken playing politics or is Merton’s message not getting through.

RR: It is a very visionary plan. Most of it is in jobs in central and east London. In Merton the requirement is 6,800 new homes by 2016: that’s over 400 a year. Densification around Colliers Wood and Wandle Valley. Tube arguments don’t impact beyond Wimbledon, therefore, Tramlink is important. One plan is taking the Wimbledon Tramlink to Sutton by ranching off at Morden and down St. Helier Ave. A Sutton branch would extend through the centre of Mitcham and on to Tooting Broadway. The benefits achieved from Wimbledon to Croydon could be the same here. There will be a decision this Spring and we’ve passed the first hurdle. I’m disappointed that there’s not a great mention in the London plan. The mayor is not in control of the overall funding, e.g. Thameslink 2000, will now be beyond 2008 and the ELL is being put back. Crossrail 2 (the old Wimbledon to Hackney line) is also being put back. There is the London Metro idea, the idea of increasing frequency on train times to 10 minute frequency then people can just turn up and go like Tramlink: without needing to look at a timetable.

JE: Who is going to decide.

RR: Overall it is a decision for TfL with the operators and we want to make it work.

NG: I will do everything I can to back the Tramlink extension. There is a misunderstanding on the plan about what it is do to. It is an overarching plan for the next 15 years and there will be regional frameworks within the sub regions. The London Plan is the plan of plans and the transport plan should have been done after it. There will be a specific transport plan in March and set out in much more detail what flows from the London Plan. There is not a good enough vision in the London Plan on transport in outer London: not a proper integrated vision.

JS: I’m glad to hear what NG has been saying. I’m most concerned about the emphasis on central London and lack of emphasis on outer London. This is where the traffic problems are going to be. The greatest problem is in orbital journeys across south and north London. Whilst I understand some of the arguments on job growth in central London, if too much money is spent here, then there may not be much money left for the transport goodies in outer London. Crossrail is very expensive and unless it is done privately, then will there be enough money left.

CW: It really worries me that Crossrail is stymied again. And we can have a few on the go at the same time. The tram links that Ken Livingstone has put forward and the Strategic Rail Authority has scrapped the funding programme for improving stations and bicycle facilities and that is the climate that RR will have to operate in. I do not think that Ken Livingstone is playing politics and despite what the Government is trying to pretend in reality investment is being cut back.

Floor: Of course, there are the lightweight trams that Danny Brunt proposed a few meetings ago.

Danny Brunt: This is an orbital mini tramway (Wandle Valley Light Railway) linking Morden, Mitcham and Colliers Wood (Abbey Mills) and a second one linking Raynes Park and Wimbledon. We were late tonight as a tram was vandalised. This is not a problem with my system as they can be pushed around to depot by a following tram. The cost is £80 Million with a depot at Mitcham on derelict land. It is a people shifter with a frequency of every two minutes. Each unit has the capacity of a double-decker bus.

RR: There have been discussions with Merton Council

Floor: Additional modes are fine, like to see more competition. People are buying more cars than ever. We spend £35 billion in tax on petrol, etc. Transport means transport not just public transport.

Q4: Traffic lights that stay at red longer and at green for very much less time are just some of the things that indicate that Ken Livingstone is committed to a war against the motorist. Or are the lights going to be reversed after congestion charges are introduced to prove to everyone that the congestion charge scheme is working?

NG: I’ve sat in many a meeting on this traffic light problem (with Derek Turner, LU) and especially because of Trafalgar Square, Shoreditch and Vauxhall Cross. However, this doesn’t account for all of them. There is a cycle for each set of traffic lights. What he has done is take the phase for the pedestrians that used to be 13 or 19 seconds and taken time from the motorist. I cut my campaigning teeth on a junction at Archway to have an all red phase. All accident statistics are worse where there are not all red phases. At Wood Green there were bad accidents and got them changed. However, at the next junction still haven’t managed to change them. The crossing phase is 18 seconds and a man got killed. We got longer times for pedestrians and then don’t understand why don’t we have a decent phase for the motorist. But Derek Turner states that people will jaywalk and people won't wait. However, in other cities people learn to be patient and that there is a balance.

Floor: In Paris, on green, cars don’t stop. What about flashing amber lights.

JS: Gives a whole new meaning to Red Ken. We did a study of pedestrian phases in Lambeth. The phase for pedestrians is very small and older people were very deterred from crossing. On the car, your figures are absolutely right. In London, we essentially do need to reduce the number of cars on the road. Secondly there is the potential for doing this in London. We still have rail bus and underground networks that are intact. Compared to many cities outside London there aren’t these comprehensive networks there any more. It is possible by energising the networks we have already got. I don’t advocate building more roads around London. Ultimate aim is to reduce the need to travel. Therefore, more people living nearer where they work and socialise.

RR: I agree that reducing the need for travel and increasing the mix in a given area. Merton is linked to central London, 80% of people going in are there to work: a small change will have a big impact.

CW: There isn’t any truth (article in New Statesman) in Ken Livingston trying to make it look good but the three schemes were being got in to get them in and out of the way. I take these on trust and as they were planned anyway. The Evening Standard never managed to get any evidence for its assertion neither could the Tory group on the GLA.

St. Mark’s Church Hall, Wimbledon
Friday 11th October 2002
The Future of the District Line under privatisation.

Panel:

Paul Godier – Managing Director: London Underground (PG)
Jerry Gold – London Transport Users Committee (JG)
Elizabeth Howlett – GLA Member Merton / Wandsworth (EH)
Charles Nicholls – District Line Bid Director: Metronet Consortium (CN)
Chair: John Ellison

Chair: Before we discuss District Line, how does the Panel view the future of London Underground management itself when Mayor Livingstone takes over in April, given his recent support for militant strikers, his repeated criticism of his own management as “knuckleheads and his intense opposition to the PPP scheme?

EH: Ken Livingstone will put up fares by three times the rate of inflation, with over £5 Billion pounds for the staff and tie the hands of the private operator – I’m afraid for me that’s electioneering. Improvements could have started a year ago, but he bankrolled the unions and now they are helping him.

JG: It is not evident that a very substantial pay rise is necessary to recruit and retain London Underground drivers. They are paid the same if not more than main line drivers around London. It is worrying if the money involved is moved away from investment.

CN: My Company is shortly to enter into a contract with London Underground to serve its customers for the next 30 years. At some stage Transport for London (TfL) will take over the organisation and management of this contract. My Chief Executive has talked with Bob Kiley and Mayor Livingstone and we are sure he will get the job done.

PG: The advantage of being a knucklehead it that you are thick skinned. My job is to focus on you the customer. Two things. Industrial relations are a difficult balance between rewarding our staff and investing for the future. We believe that a very good level of pay for tube workers is a just case. We put forward a good settlement in the circumstances. But we are trying to break the annual cycle (of strikes). We don’t need third party involvement on every occasion. What the mayor has done is to undermine industrial relations, when we had moved towards consultation without strikes. The mayor and Bob Kiley (his Underground supremo) now believe that the battle is over and they are working with my management team to ensure an orderly hand-over. The job is awesome. But the prospect of a very real agreement is there to put in place customer service agreements so that we are world class in everything we do. I have offered my services to assist Bob Kiley. (He would not speculated on whether the offer would be accepted).

Floor Q1 David Marsh: What are the improvements for the PPP that London Underground Management envisage for the District Line and what is the timetable proposed for those changes?

CN: From Sept 24th next year there will be refurbishment of two trains at a time costing £70 until all trains are done. The first prototype for new trains appears in 2008 for Circle and Metropolitan Lines. The first new train will be in service in 2009, then a train will be delivered every 1½ weeks over the following six years. Within the first 15 years we will have replaced 95% of the track, and provided a completely new signalling system. The service will be devastatingly improved: more trains, smoother and faster – 15 years is a long time but you will have a new service.

Floor: The District Line is the last in the network to be replaced. Why not more sooner?

PG: We have had under investment, and something has to fall behind. I commute every day on the District Line: I know what problems you have. What you may not know is that Railtrack owned the branch down from Putney Bridge. We offered to take it over and have spent a lot on signalling and drainage improvements that are the big problems on this section of the line. The rolling stock, it is only 25 years old - their working life is at least 40 years.. First, the carriages will be gutted and refitted with in-car closed circuit TV. The PPP team will put a lot of effort in to improve services. The reward is for a reduction in customers delay. At off-peak there is not much incentive (for that), but at peak time there are big incentives for Metronet to minimise delays.

JG. I think that compared to the other lines, the District is pretty average. The rolling stock is middling in age, and the silver ones that go through to the City are the most reliable on the network, though this is not true for the Edgware Road and Circle stock. Charles Nicholls says that in the peak now they run trains every two minutes, 30 per hour. To carry the increased traffic, they need to carry the 40 per hour achieved in the 1950’s but this is not possible today. I hope they can achieve 36-37 per hour but there is no specific evidence of this in the PPP documentation.

David Marsh: Why not introduce quickly an integrated all-day fare – as off-peak Travel Cards’ provide – between SW Trains and the District Line thus relieving present ticketing problems at the Wimbledon interchange?

PG: All responsibility for setting fares was passed to TfL and the Mayor in summer 2000. You may have noticed the funny little yellow discs on the ticket gates. These represent a revolutionary step forward to electronic ticketing. All bus and underground staff are now using one of these – far preferable to sticking a ticket in the machine. For example, you put £10-50 on the card and every time you pass through a gate then it debits the fare and can reload automatically from your bank account. Thos will definitely be introduced some time next year, but we must await the results of the trial first.

Floor: The signalling on this section of the district line comes under control of Network rail. How can you improve the service here?

PG: We subcontract control back to Network rail as the signalling cannot be split for operational reasons, but it is run on the basis of how we want to run it. If they want to run diversionary trains then we accept these on their behalf.

CN: We are paid to deliver, the costs involved are some £9 Billion. If we deliver what we promise then we make £2 Billion and that is discounted. If we do not deliver than we incur a huge thumping great loss. We are replacing the signalling as quick as we can.

Floor: Will there be closure of the route: temporary closure and blockades?

CN: Our plans to replace the signalling and trains only involve closure at weekends and nights as submitted in our bid documents.

Floor: What provision for the rising water table, cf. the problems encountered at the new British Library, as industry is not now extracting ground water. How stable are the foundations?

PG: The risks apply mainly to the deep lines, but we are working with the Government and the water Utilities on what we can do. It is a major Metropolitan issue that will impact the basements of houses and office buildings, etc. We don’t want to take on the mantle for the whole of London.. It is not a major problem at the moment and I don’t think you need to worry about it.

Floor: The Mayor’s plan suggests that London’s population will grow by 700,000 over the next 15 years. 700,000 people in your capacity planning?

EH: 700,000 more people is equivalent to a city the size of Sheffield but this won’t happen if Crossrail 1 and 2 don’t come on stream. And the congestion charging will lead to an extra 15% on the LU at peak times: quite frightening..

JG: PPP is not intended to be a solution to the current congestion or fixing the future growth but it is about fixing the current problems. Better signalling and new trains will allow more trains to be run, and then 15-20% additional capacity will be unlocked. It will keep pace with the current plans but not roll back the high congestion currently faced.

Chair: Are we not really facing the results of a total failure to plan our transport services over the long term?

PG: Five years ago I would have thrown up my hands in despair, now we have the focus that TfL brings. They have the power and if they bring money to the table then with the institutional blockages broken, things can get done.

EH: £1.635 Billion is total TfL expenditure, of which £l Billion comes from Government, therefore, it is Government funding. The rest of the money comes from the fare box.

CN: Metronet is planning on increasing the service pattern on the busiest section of the District Line from 17 to 34 trains per hour, all of the way through the service. Over the last few years, the peaks have flattened out and demand is now throughout the day. We are also offering London Underground an option where we can put an extra car on each train on the Circle line, immediately increasing capacity by 17% and we will be having this discussion over the next few months.

Floor Q2 Tim Miles: Can the panel explain why the Government felt entitled to force privatisation onto London Underground against the clearly expressed wishes of those who used the service?

PG: I’m for fixing the tube and providing a decent service for London. This is not privatising the tube. All the services you see at the station are in the control of LU and my team. What we are putting in the private sector is the maintenance and the renewal of the infrastructure. In the past 60% of this work was done in the private sector – all we have done is package this up in one parcel.

JG: The reason it has gone through is that there has never been any debate on the issue, and the Government ignored even debate from their own back- benches, due to their massive majority. We will never know the alternative.

CN: The day after the contracts are signed, £3 Billion comes into our bank account and we can get on with it.

EH: In New York, only 50% comes from the bond with 50% from the New York taxpayer, our mayor can only raise charges, and is not allowed taxation.

Floor Q3 Peter Cargin: Would the panel not agree that the number of District Line trains gong to Wimbledon is appreciably lower than those to Richmond and Ealing and how do they suggest regulating that problem?

PG: How would this question have gone if I was in Richmond or Ealing? Half of the trains go to Wimbledon in the peak, i.e., seven to each branch. There are 16,000 users by West Kensington and 20,000 up from Wimbledon. To apportion trains according to relative demand, there should be more trains to Wimbledon. But with antiquated controls at Earls Court you need a simple and recurring pattern. If you set up a more complex solution, then you would not be able to maintain the service. At end of September we introduced a new timetable for the Sub-Surface lines and simplified it so that trains are not now terminated at Parsons Green when there are delays. Given that the depot is at Ealing for operational reasons at the end of the evening so more trains go there.

EH: Why would Wimbledon suffer reduced capacity when I see trains from Earl’s Court to Olympia with just six people?

Floor: What about people with some disability. It is very difficult for them to use the Underground system. Very few people with freedom passes can use the system easily. How can you make it more accessible to disabled?

Floor: Where in PPP is there the provision to cope with all these (extra) people and provide adequate air conditioning to cope with the inevitable overcrowding.

CN: Every single refurbished carriage will have two areas where either wheelchairs or pushchairs can be placed: with tip up seats. The ends of carriages will protrude offering better access to the platforms. There will be increased visibility of the doors and many other improvements to help all passengers.

JG: Air conditioning is horrendously expensive to achieve for deep tube lines. However, it should be possible on sub surface as they are close to the surface. The considered judgement of engineers is how effective would it be when the doors are opening every two minutes. Ironically, it is needed most when the trains are stopped and the power is down. And whilst back up batteries last for two hours in practice they fail much more quickly than that on networks where this provision exists.

CN: For London Underground we have offered it to provide it for District Line trains. However, it takes 15% of available power and then the trains go more slowly. Train frequencies would then drop below 34 per hour. It is a huge dilemma,

The Forum Floor voted on the six main priorities for the District Line which emerged from the debate, with all attendees given two votes.

Signalling / reliability of services: 43 votes
Increased frequency / new routings: 23 votes
Access for mobility impaired / disabled:14 votes
Refurbished / new trains: 4 votes
Better ticketing arrangements: 4 votes
Improved station facilities: 0 votes