Draft Lambeth Transport Strategy
Contact for information: Simon Phillips, Transport and Public Realm Strategy Manager; 020 7926 4067, email@example.com
Councillor Claire Holland, Cabinet Member for Environment and Clean Air introduced the report by highlighting the following:
· The strategy was a very comprehensive document devised in draft form for the first time on transport in Lambeth, although commissions, reports and action plans had been previously produced.
· The strategy aimed to deliver a healthier and cleaner Lambeth, despite the Council being the leader on cycling within the borough. However, the Council wanted to promote more walking and accessible public transport for residents in order to consider air pollution.
· The consultation for the strategy carried out by the Council produced significant and good responses from residents. Through those responses, for example, the Council learned that Lambeth’s own evaluation and discussions with Transport for London (TfL) around making road safety more prominent. Also, Lambeth signed up to Vision Zero that seeks to eradicate all fatal and serious road accidents on the streets of London, which would be a priority for Lambeth.
· The Council were in the process of considering those responses, aimed at developing a Transport Implementation Plan (TIP) to set out the Council’s intentions and timelines. The TIP, when published, would be made available to the Committee.
The Chair then invited residents who wished to speak on the Transport Strategy to address the Committee.
Antony Garvey, local resident, said that:
· He was trying to become involved in the Quietway implementation in Thurlow Park Ward for a number of years.
· Despite living in an area where numerous school children travelled to school, the roads were considered to be unsuitable for pedestrians and cyclists with the 20mph limit totally being ignored.
· The roads were dangerous with inadequate crossings which put children at risk and prevented them cycling when they travelled to and from school. Also, the temporary Turney/Rosendale Road junction created many years ago remained impossible for pedestrians to cross safely.
· Although funding had been put aside, issues existed regarding the Quietway plans.
· Residents had dedicated their time in the consultation process and he hoped that their efforts would be recognised.
Clare Neely, Lambeth Cyclists/Loughborough Junction Forum, made reference to comments made in the consultation response and said that:
· The LIP 3 year investment programme
The Healthy Routes Plan described as the leading programme had only been allocated 7% of the budget, despite evidence shown from TfL’s “Travel in London” report that cycling mode share in Lambeth had fallen from 5% to 4% over five years. However, evidence showed that TfL’s Healthy Routes, low traffic neighbourhood, approach was delivering real, measurable, change to cycling and walking in boroughs such as Waltham Forest and in Croydon the first school streets had delivered a 28% fall in trips by car and a 35% increase in active travel.
Traffic calming as a spending area remained an issue in Lambeth. Despite problematic roads, such rat running and high speed roads being identified, the Council tended to invest funding in further traffic-calming measures, which had no effect. Therefore Lambeth Cyclists welcomed a different approach.
· Transport and social justice
Lambeth Cyclists emphasised the importance of ensuring space for walking, cycling and public transport on all Lambeth roads to reduce transport inequality for residents should be introduced.
· Motor Traffic reduction/Car Ownership
Lambeth Cyclists welcomed an explicit statement in the Strategy that it is council policy to discourage car ownership and use.
· Motor Vehicle Parking
Lambeth Cyclists welcomed a commitment in the Strategy to ensure that the cost of parking was increased and the number of parking spaces reduced.
Councillor Jon Davies, Councillor for Prince’s ward, highlighted that:
· He welcomed the policy/previous policies, the quality of work carried out by officers and Councillor Claire Holland. However, the Council lacked the courage to implement policies and the Council needed to be bold in their approach to ensure that polices were implemented.
· Apart from the roads being filled with traffic air pollution remained an issue for the Council. Therefore, he posed the following question:
“The Council had just declared air quality measurements this month and new targets had been set by the Council to become carbon neutral by 2030. Are the actions and timescales set out in the Draft Transport Plan aligned to those targets, or would those targets need to be revised by the Council”?
The Transport and Public Realm Strategy Manager, responded as follows:
· In relation to Quietway 7, the Council are aware and frustrated with the hiatus made regarding the project. The Council realised that much needed improvements were required at particular junctions which the Council had maintained should be progressed beforehand. However, TfL believed that the whole scheme should be agreed before the project could be delivered. Despite this, officers continued to work with TfL regarding the scheme and proposals would be taken to Councillor Holland in due course to be considered.
· The Council had considered feedback received from the consultation and proposed to make changes to the funding allocation within the Local Implementation three-year delivery plan. This would be discussed with Councillor Holland in due course.
· The Climate Action Plan had only recently been adopted but when changes were being made to the Transport Strategy it would be considered.
Councillor Claire Holland, Cabinet Member for Environment and Clean Air, highlighted that:
· All strategies and polices implemented by the Council would continue to be reviewed to ensure they worked and adapted to any changes to the Climate Action Plan.
· The first pilot for Lambeth’s School’s Streets programme aimed at making journeys to school safer for pupils, would be launched at Immanuel and St Andrews CE Primary School in due course. Also, a second pilot with another school was being considered and the Council look forward to working with the school, community and parents. Following implementation of the pilot, further schools would be approached by the Council.
· She agreed with comments made by Councillor Jon Davies that a firmer approach by the Council was required to ensure that polices were implemented. However, she believed the Council did not lack the courage to implement polices but welcomed any suggestions.
· The Council implemented schemes that were not popular with residents but they were considered essential in terms of road safety and clean air. There was a need to consult and work with the community regarding other schemes.
The Chair then opened up the discussion to members of the Committee and in response to questions, the following points from the Transport and Public Realm Strategy Manager, were noted:
· The key element of the Transport Strategy aimed to tackle rat-running in local streets. Responses from the first stage consultation carried out last year showed that residents raised strong concerns regarding rat-running. It was hoped to tackle the issue through low traffic neighbourhoods. If the liveable neighbourhoods bid for Brixton proved successful, the Council proposed to reduce rat-running in Brixton and the surrounding area. It also aimed to deliver better cycling.
· An implementation plan for the Transport Strategy would be developed which would involve examining other parts of the borough where problems existed.
· A criteria had been outlined in the draft strategy which would be used to prioritise neighbourhoods, such as rat-running, schools, air quality and collision issues. The criteria was also supported in the feedback received from residents. Therefore, the Council endeavoured to work with the community and councillors to map out problematic roads.
· Following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Clean Air, the implementation plan would be developed over the next few months and funding would be available from 2020 onwards for that purpose.
· The first tranche of various electric charge points were being made available in Lambeth. Negotiations were in place to arrange for over 100 lamp column electric charge points to be implemented across the borough. Charge points would be positioned 5 minutes’ walk away in Lambeth. There was a commercial need to ensure that charge points were placed in locations where they would be regularly used. The Council had worked with charge point suppliers to identify appropriate locations. Also, work with stakeholders and councillors would be undertaken to examine other areas where charge points should be located. Members requested that the map showing locations of charge points for the first tranche be provided to the Committee when available.
· The Council would be willing to accept alternative parking solutions on estates. It was proposed that allocated funding for cycling parking from the LIP three-year plan would be made available mainly for bike hangars. The Council continued to work with colleagues on estates to determine viable ways to ensue secure cycle parking on estates could be delivered in a cost-effective manner.
· Secure motor cycle parking (ground anchors), although costly, was also being considered but a decision was yet to be determined on whether it could be funded from the Local Implementation Plan.
· Positive feedback was received from participants who attended the ‘Pedestrian Bus Days’ training delivered by the Council that encouraged vulnerable young people to use public transport. However, it was uncertain whether data on the training’s success, was available and officers endeavoured to investigate and provide an update to the Committee.
· A lot of uncertainty existed on the accuracy of data available in relation to the workplace parking levy. The Council had examined the Nottingham and Hounslow models, including other boroughs that were considering a workplace parking levy. It was felt that not enough workplaces with sufficient car parking spaces existed in Lambeth to make the scheme viable. Although some places existed such as in hospitals, the Council might exclude the levy being applied, similar to Nottingham. A decision was still to be determined on whether the scheme had potential in Lambeth and TfL had indicated it might be willing to provide funding to obtain better data to assess this. Further analysis is required to determine the level of workplace parking in the borough and TfL had indicated that it was willing to provide funding for this purpose.
· The Council were aware of the overcrowding issues that existed in Clapham Common tube station and the matter had been discussed with TfL, who had suggested that the new CrossRail 2 service would remove passengers from the congested Northern Line onto that service.
· The Transport Strategy detailed that the Council desired more trains stopping at Clapham High Street to ease congestion. It was hoped that the Mayor would be able to provide assistance.
· The Clapham Transport Users Group provided a comprehensive response to the recent bus consultation from TfL which the Council found very useful. The Council had also argued for new bus services in the east and west of the borough which were currently poorly served. The Council had also met with the Users Group to discuss issues.
· On being referred to page 27 of the agenda papers, it was noted that the statement made was to ensure that residents on housing estates had access to the same services as everyone else and how improvements to walking and cycling could be made on estates. However, the wording would be considered.
· The GLA had carried out Impact Assessments to ascertain the implications for vulnerable groups having to pay the new Ultra Line Emission Zone (ULEZ) charge to TfL. However, details regarding its impact were awaited by the Council. Although the Council supported the scheme in principle as it contributed to air quality benefits for people, there was a need to ensure that certain groups would not be adversely affected by the scheme. Therefore, the Council intended to contact TfL regarding the issue. Members also emphasised the need to consider Blue Badge Holders, who would only be exempt from paying the ULEZ charge if their vehicles were registered as disabled.
· Joint work with the Community Safety Team had been undertaken to consider violence, especially violence carried out on public transport, around school start and end times. Additional work with educational establishments and campaigners to examine would could be included in the strategy was required.
· Discussions with TfL were currently being carried out to ensure that a cycle route along the A23 for people to encourage additional cycling within the borough was delivered.
Councillor Claire Holland further highlighted that:
· A workplace parking levy had not been ruled out in Lambeth. Funding needed to be identified and the scope of the feasibility study needed to be set to take it forward.
· Accessibility to cycling and walking was essential to enable everyone to make a choice on their preferred travel. Therefore further cycling routes would be made available for vulnerable families, especially on estates. Joint work with the Council and schools throughout Lambeth regarding active travel and having bike markets had been carried out. Also joint meetings with housing and officers had taken place to discuss issues, as it was important the Strategy ensured that cycling was available to many people, including looking at innovative ways of bicycle storage on estates.
The Chair expressed his thanks to everyone who had attended and contributed at the meeting. The Chair summed up the issues highlighted by the discussion and important issues for recommendations.
1. To request details of the revised funding allocations within the Transport Strategy delivery plan once agreed, to provide reassurance that key aspirations such as the Healthy Routes Plan and the motion passed by full Council on 23 January 2019 (as amended) regarding climate change and carbon neutrality, are sufficiently supported.
2. To note and endorse the focus in the Transport Strategy on areas of high deprivation and urge officers to actively explore innovative solutions regarding bike storage, particularly for children (for example, by using/converting old pram sheds).
3. To endorse efforts to tackle rat running and reduce traffic and pollution around schools, and request sight of the Transport Strategy Implementation Plan when this becomes available to see more detail on how these and other measures are to be taken forward.
4. To ensure that a robust framework is put in place for monitoring progress against the Transport Strategy objectives and associated Implementation Plan, to include targets for emissions and carbon neutrality.
5. To request a map showing the locations of the first tranche of electric vehicle charging points.
6. To support the work being done to explore the feasibility of introducing a workplace parking levy in the borough and request to be kept updated throughout the evidence gathering and decision making process.
7. To express concern at the potential effect of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on low income groups and request further information regarding the detail of the scheme, including any accompanying impact assessments, as and when obtained from Transport for London.
8. To ensure that the business community is consulted on impacts to small businesses of the ULEZ.
9. To note the issues raised regarding violence on public transport, and encourage officers to work closely with colleagues in Community Safety to ensure firm links between the Serious Youth Violence and Transport Strategies.
10. To request qualitative and quantitative data regarding the independent travel training programme.
11. That the Transport Strategy be amended to include guidance on motor cycle parking provision and criteria for interested residents.
- 03a Transport Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Report, item 2. PDF 312 KB
- 03b Appendix 1 Lambeth Transport Strategy Consultation Draft, item 2. PDF 3 MB
- 03c Appendix 2 Lambeth Transport Strategy draft consultation report, item 2. PDF 2 MB