Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on




НазваниеWritten Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on
страница6/19
Дата конвертации17.02.2013
Размер0.71 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   19

Complaints about bus driver behaviour

Question No: 114 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

How many complaints about bus driver behaviour towards disabled people were received by TfL in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Answer from the Mayor:

This table is attached as Appendix L.


In late 2008 TfL updated its complaint management computer system and introduced a new, streamlined coding system for complaints. The new processes reduced the total number of ‘codes’ applied to a complaint, giving TfL the ability to give weighting to the principle aspect of a passenger’s complaint, and so more accurately report on the issues of most importance. In the years 2007/08 and 2008/09 multiple codings could be applied to a single complaint, and each were reported. For this reason, the number of reported complaints received in 2009/10 are reduced.


In preparing this report TfL considered there to be a number of potential complaints disabled passengers might have about the behaviour of bus drivers. These were: ‘Vehicle moved off too quickly’; ‘Securing wheelchair’; ‘Poor dangerous driving’; ‘Insufficient time to Board/Alight’ and ‘Discriminatory behaviour’.


TfL does not record whether a passenger making a complaint has a disability, so they cannot isolate whether the complaints reported were specifically made by passengers with disabilities. The table therefore records the number of complaints made within the above categories from all passengers.


*

Unpaid congestion charge

Question No: 115 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Please publish a table showing the cumulative amount in unpaid Congestion Charge and Penalty Charge Notices that is now owed for each embassy or diplomatic mission in London.

Answer from the Mayor:

The table attached as Appendix D provides details of the total number of unpaid charges for each Embassy and an estimate of the total value of unpaid charges and penalties arising from non payment of the charge by each Embassy.


I am disappointed that some Embassies continue to refuse to pay the charge even though TfL and the Government’s position on this matter is clear and consistent. However, it is pleasing to note that some 74% of Embassies pay the charge on a regular basis as they are required to do.

As I have indicated before, I am keen to get all Embassies complying with the scheme as they should.


Lewisham crossings

Question No: 116 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

You failed to properly answer my question (3048/2009) about the Tiger’s Head and the Courthill Road junctions in Lewisham which I asked in October 2009. Following the immense delays in ensuring there are improvements in pedestrian safety at these two specific junctions at Lewisham, and also the significant direct representations that have made to you by Assembly Members, local councillors, Lewisham Council and members of the public, I would like to ask again whether you yourself would be willing to join me and look at these dangers that presently exist at these two junctions?

Answer from the Mayor:

In my answer to MQ3048 / 2009, I said that TfL would contact you to discuss this issue. As I understand it, the Director of Integrated Programme Delivery within TfL Surface Transport met you on 3 November 2009 for a discussion. As experts and highway authority for this junction, it is correct that TfL discusses this with you on my behalf. Should a site meeting still be required, please let TfL know.


*

Courthill Road and Lewisham High Street junction

Question No: 117 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

I was concerned to receive correspondence from a constituent in Lewisham who sent to me a reply he had received from TfL (ref 1005477621) about the junction of Courthill Road and Lewisham High Street. It was stated that TfL had no record of an accident that took place on 28th April 2009. Can an explanation be provided as to why TfL had no information about this accident considering the reference to the accident in my former question about the same junction (Question number 2438/2009) and also the extensive media reports about the accident such as http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/4327894.LEWISHAM__Pedestrian_struck_by_truck/. As Chair of Transport for London are you satisfied that the collection of data about the pedestrian accident rate at junctions is as accurate as it should be?

Answer from the Mayor:

The data for road traffic collisions occurring on the public highway and resulting in personal injury is routinely collected by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in accordance with the national reporting system (commonly referred to as Stats19). Such data is then provided to TfL in monthly batches to add to the database for London.


TfL receives this data retrospectively, and in some instances it can be some time after a collision has occurred. In this instance, TfL did not receive the Stats19 data for the collision referred to, until December 2009.


Accordingly, it would not have been on the TfL database and available for analysis at the time of the previous correspondence and Mayor’s question, although TfL engineers investigating the junction were aware of the collision from their investigations and the media reporting.


*

Reduction of Service Levels of Bus Routes

Question No: 118 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Please list how many bus routes have had their level of service reduced as part of service reviews, broken by route number, since you took office in May 2008. Please list the number of journeys lost and number of miles by route number.

Answer from the Mayor:

Since 1 June 2008, service has been reduced on the following routes:


  1. Reduction of 142,821 kms or 8% of the previous service

81 Reduction of 3,661 kms or less than 1% of the previous service

176 Reduction of 155,304 kms or 9% of the previous service

213/N213 Reduction of 71,236 kms or 5% of the previous service

E2 Reduction of 186,252 kms or 15% of the previous service

E3 Reduction of 109,272 kms or 6% of the previous service

ELW Reduction of 44,178 kms or 19% of the previous service

H32 Reduction of 9,634 kms or 1% of the previous service


Each review took account of the relevant factors, including ensuring that adequate capacity continues to be provided on the network.


This list excludes temporary alterations to schedules during, for example, roadworks. Alterations to route alignments also occur. These may change the total combined frequency of routes along individual sections of the network. For example route S2 was withdrawn and new routes 425 and 488 were introduced. The changes listed have occurred as a result of the ongoing network review process, which helps ensure that the network remains up to date and that the available funding is distributed optimally.


*

Reduction of Service Levels of Bus Routes

Question No: 119 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Have any bus routes had their level of service reduced other than as part of a formal service review since May 2008? If so please list which routes, and when the decision was made.

Answer from the Mayor:

All permanent changes to the bus network, including frequency changes, arise from formal reviews.

*


Waterways (1)

Question No: 120 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

What progress have you made on encouraging the use of London’s Canals and Waterways, excluding the Thames, for passenger transport?

Answer from the Mayor:

My draft replacement London Plan and draft transport Strategy both positively promote the use of waterways for passenger transport. However, the main focus for this is the River Thames, where there are real opportunities for attractive and viable services.


Away from the river Thames, vessel speeds are very low – limited to 4mph on the canals and there are the additional obstacles of locks. This means that such waterways have very limited appeal as passenger transport routes. There is more interest in providing tourist/ leisure services and there are some niche opportunities for freight on such waterways but my focus for water passenger services must remain on the key passenger opportunities on the Thames.

*


Waterways (2)

Question No: 121 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Has TfL undertaken studies to investigate the potential for passenger services on the Grand Union Canal between Willesden and Paddington/Camden?

Answer from the Mayor:

Please refer to my answer to question MQ120 / 2010. TfL is undertaking no such studies and has no plans to do so at this time.

*


Waterways (3)

Question No: 122 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Is the transport by river and canal of spoil and building materials pursued wherever possible within projects undertaken by the GLA and its Functional Bodies? What steps have you taken to encourage similar practice by the private sector?

Answer from the Mayor:

Construction Logistics Plans are being promoted to improve the sustainability and safety of transport operations associated with construction sites. Where use of water transport is operationally and economically feasible, it is actively considered and employed by the GLA and its functional bodies.


The DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension utilised the River Thames and more recently Crossrail has committed to use water freight to remove 5 million tonnes of excavated material from London. Work continues within the Olympics site to exploit water freight opportunities. Water freight remains crucial for developments associated with Canary Wharf and the London Plan requires new developments close to navigable waterways to maximise the use of water transport for bulk materials. A recent example of similar practice in the private sector was the removal of demolition material from Chambers Wharf by barge. Other future development projects have already indicated that they will use the river for construction material.


TfL works with the Boroughs, developers, industry and navigational authorities to promote the use of the Blue Ribbon network and has contributed funding towards water freight infrastructure such as Powerdays Wharf and Three Mills Lock.


*

Waterways (4)

Question No: 123 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Keeping in mind the environmental benefits of river transport, what progress have you made on encouraging the use of both rivers, as well as canals, for freight haulage purposes throughout London?

Answer from the Mayor:

TfL continues to work with GLA bodies, the Port of London Authority, British Waterways and industry to identify and implement water freight opportunities in both new sectors as well as established freight sectors such as aggregates. The River Thames remains the busiest inland waterway in the UK accounting for 47% of all UK inland waterway movements and substantial volumes of London’s aggregates and waste streams are moved by the river, which presents opportunities being pursued by TfL and the PLA.


TfL has also jointly funded a British Waterways’ Sustainable Transport Project Manager post for two years which will develop freight opportunities associated with the canal network. Work is focussed on niche streams, predominately for waste and aggregates. This includes working with waste authorities such as the North London Waste Authority and individual companies. One such company, McGraths, recently submitted a planning application for a new wharf, as well as assessing the feasibility of using Cody Dock as an aggregates wharf. This work is also helping to identify reasons why companies are not actively considering water freight within their supply chains.


As an example of how effectively the river can be used for freight, Crossrail will be using the river to move excavated materials from tunnelling for the project, out of the city. At least five million tonnes of materials from the project will be moved on the river Thames over the next five year. This will keep the equivalent of over half a million lorry movements off London’s busy roads. To support this commitment a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by Crossrail and the Port of London Authority in September 2009.


Crossrail will maximise the use of water and rail for the transport of excavated material, and estimates that on a tonne per kilometre basis, 85 per cent of the transport of the material will be by rail and water only.


*

Jubilee and Metropolitan Line Closures

Question No: 124 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Can you explain why on occasions the Metropolitan and Jubilee Lines both have to close at the same time in the Wembley area? What can be done to reduce the number of times that both lines are closed?

Answer from the Mayor:

The Jubilee and Metropolitan line tracks run alongside each other between Finchley Road and just north of Wembley Park. In certain areas, particularly between Neasden and Wembley Park, there are numerous points and crossings which control the movement of both the Jubilee and Metropolitan line trains, with each line crossing the path of the other at various points. In addition, both lines access the depot at Neasden. The new Jubilee line signalling therefore needs to interface with the existing Metropolitan line signalling in these areas.


Tube Lines request the closure of the Metropolitan line as well as the Jubilee line, if they believe that the work they are doing requires it. The extent of the closure required depends on the exact nature of the work that Tube Lines needs to undertake. For example, if Tube Lines needs to carry out work on Jubilee line infrastructure, for safety reasons it may not be possible to run Metropolitan line trains at the same time. Alternatively, if testing is being undertaken on shared sections of track, it may not be possible to continue to run Metropolitan line trains whilst this testing is being conducted.


London Underground (LU) continues to work closely with Tube Lines, to ensure that they are able to maximise their use of closures. However, LU is also under an obligation to provide Tube Lines with the closures that they request, as set out in the access code under the PPP contract.


It is extremely disappointing that the upgrade of the Jubilee Line has been delayed by at least 10 months despite Tube Lines having had around 125 closures, when they originally predicted only 50. Because of Tube Lines' failure, Jubilee Line users will suffer months more full or part-line closures until the autumn.


*

Neasden Station

Question No: 125 / 2010

Caroline Pidgeon

Will TfL consider opening the Neasden Station platforms on the Metropolitan Line when the Jubilee Line is not running?

Answer from the Mayor:

TfL has considered the possibility of stopping Metropolitan line trains at Neasden station when there are closures on the Jubilee line. However, this is not something they are planning to implement because of the cost of bringing the platforms and subway at Neasden station up to standard for passenger use.


In order to be able to stop Metropolitan line trains at Neasden, work would be required to repair the uneven platform surfaces and edges, and remove vegetation. Additional lighting, signage and CCTV would also need to be installed.


There is no longer an access route to/from the northbound Metropolitan line platform to the ticket hall. Customers would be required to exit via the Jubilee line platforms and a subway at the north end of the station which is currently only used by staff. The subway requires substantial work before customers would be able to use it, including lighting, signage, flooring and wall surfaces.


This means that the overall cost of implementing this would be much higher than was the case at Willesden Green, with benefits to local customers only being realised on weekends, when upgrade work does not necessitate the closure of both lines.


Furthermore, Neasden station is only one stop away from Wembley Park, where the Metropolitan line already stops, and two stops away from Willesden Green, where the Metropolitan line now also stops during these closures. This means that the overall benefit of slightly shorter journey times for Neasden customers would be far outweighed by the disbenefit to through-customers, who would experience greater journey times, and greater potential for delay.

*

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   19

Похожие:

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconAppendix 1 London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) 12 December 2007 Transcript – Question and Answer Session

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconWritten Answers arising from the Plenary Assembly Question and Answer Session with Transport for London

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconSection 1 Analytic Question Answers

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconIdentify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconApologetic Questions and Unapologetic Answers

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconVerb “to be,” present tense with subject pronouns – p. 4 “To be” with yes/no questions and answers – p. 5

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconAlmost any experiment teaches us something, but not always necessarily what we expected. And it may raise more questions than it answers

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconThis page will contain the questions and answers asked by Computerji/Amitabh Bachchan in kbc4

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconThe following questions were raised in discussions on the Internet during the course of the last year (1996). The answers offered here were either provided at

Written Answers to questions not answered at Mayor’s Question Time on iconAnswers exercise 1: time chart


Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
lib.convdocs.org


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
lib.convdocs.org
Главная страница