Geoff Claxton, Chairman, LOTAG Group 1

Head of Transportation & Traffic Management

London Borough of Redbridge, Lynton House,

255-259 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1NY

Direct Line: 020 8708 3670 Fax: 020 8708 3970

27th October, 2000

MEETING OF LOTAG GROUP 1 (TRANSPORT WORKING GROUP)

HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM A, SERPLAN OFFICES AT

14 BUCKINGHAM GATE

WEDNESDAY 27^TH SEPTEMBER, 2000

1.

ATTENDANCE:

The following were present at the meeting:-

Chris Smith; Peter Wardill; John Barkley; John Couch; Ross Hendry.

2.

Mike Freestone; Alex Williams; Paul Douglass; Chandra Raval.

3.

3.1

The meeting welcomed Chris Kershaw and Chris Mallam who gave a presentation on bus shelter issues. This followed a similar presentation to the ALG which included LOTAG representatives.

3.2

The presentation covered the London wide position in relation to bus shelter provision, progress on the installation of shelters and the issues to be considered in the future following the Hillingdon court case.

3.3

LBSL were concerned that some Boroughs interpretation of the court case could lead to "cherry picking" by contractors acting for commercial reasons thus affecting the future funding and maintenance of non-advertising shelters.

3.4

LOTAG wished to provide Boroughs with a best practice guide in conjunction with ALG which would offer best value and protect their own statutory position whilst recognising LBSL powers.

3.5

LT’s Adshel Partnership would terminate in early 2005. LBSL wished to prepare an options paper by mid 2001 and wished to consult with all interested parties. LOTAG were invited to give its views by mid January 2001. The Chair said this would be discussed at the next meeting in November.

3.6

4.1

The Minutes of the meeting on the 24^th May 2000 were agreed. Martin Low commented on item 6.1 and the terms of reference for the School Crossing Patrol Working Group.

4.2

The meeting on the 19^th July, 2000 had been cancelled due to a security alert.

5.

MATTERS ARISING

5.1

FOR ACTION – CHAIR

6.

TAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

6.1

The minutes of the meeting on the 12^th May, 2000 were noted.

6.2

FOR NOTING

7.

ROAD SAFETY ISSUES

7.1

Mark Raisbeck reported that SCA was being released for consultants to produce a code of practice. It was hoped to have initial results by the Spring 2001.

7.2

Kensington and Chelsea were willing to act as lead Borough for this work. However, there was a need to ensure co-ordination between the discussions that were taking place on targets, management and strategy.

7.3

Ross Hendry reported on the pan London meeting of stakeholders to consider Policy.

FOR ACTION – GRAEME SWINBURNE

8.

GLA/TFL ISSUES

8.1

LOTAG representatives had attended a liaison meeting on traffic signal control issues. The minutes would be circulated. Traffic signal timings were an issue.

 8.2

 Roger Khanna reported that Borough views on LIP guidance would be sought through LOTAG before Christmas. Chris Martin commented on the potential conflicts in the legislation which required all measures in the plan to be implemented when this depended on the level of funds provided.

8.3

John Barkley reported on the integration seminar. Advice would be produced. There would also be a dialogue with Boroughs on interchanges. Initiatives had been aired with the Mayor such as the South London Metro and this would be taken forward by working together.

 8.4

LOTAG views on congestion charging had been agreed at the policy meeting. Chair to arrange for response as soon as possible.

FOR ACTION – CHAIR.

9.

LBI/LBPN

9.1

Gordon Hayward reported that consultants would produce route implementation plans (RIPS) by 2^nd October, 2000. There was concern about the expenditure profile being in the last quarter. Concern was also expressed about the ability to complete whole route implementation plans (WRIPS) in time. The remit was to implement the programme by March 2002. It was necessary to only sign up to what was deliverable in time. Concern was also expressed about the quality of some consultants and the TCSU’s ability to deliver.

9.2

All households on and in the vicinity of LBI routes would get a letter from the Mayor about improvement to services.

9.3

Discussion took place on guidelines for bus stop clearways. It was generally felt that these should be designed for what is needed rather than blanket 24hr restrictions. Overall it was essential for Boroughs to deliver.

9.4

FOR ACTION – ALL BOROUGHS.

10.

CCTV

10.1

New London Local Authorities Act, 2000 placed the liability for the contravention of a bus lane on the owner of the vehicle. Came into effect from 20^th September 2000, when Pilot Boroughs recommenced enforcement.

10.2

The Camera Enforcement Users Group met on 5^th September with 21 boroughs represented. CCTV bus lane enforcement will be rolled out by 8 more boroughs in 2000/2001 and a further 12 in 2001/2002. It was noted that where boroughs do not have cctv control rooms discussions are taking place for joint ventures with neighbouring authorities. The next meeting of the Group will be on 7^th November 2000.

10.3

The LLA 2000 also enables the use of cctv cameras for enforcement of parking restrictions. A demonstration project is being arranged with the first meeting of interested boroughs being held on 21^st September 2000. A further meeting is to be held on 16^th October 2000. Work is taking place on "re-jigging" the existing bus lane cctv enforcement code of practice to cover the new powers. Enforcement is expected to commence by mid June 2001, although some boroughs are expecting more rapid start up of operations.

10.4

Bexley indicated that they will use cctv for bus lane enforcement but will not be using it for yellow line enforcement yet.

10.5

FOR NOTING

11.

LCN

11.1

There was some discussion regarding the Mayor’s suggestion that the LCN shoud be taken over by TfL. Views were requested including in writing to TfL direct.

11.2

It was noted that staffing for the LCN was stretched and the possibility of setting up Sector Consultants, similar to the LBI was discussed, with each borough taking on staff specifically to deal with the LCN.

11.3

Doubt was expressed that the LCN could be run by TfL. This is a partnership project between boroughs, with schemes mostly on Borough roads.

11.4

FOR ACTION – CHRIS HAMSHAR.

12.

ENGLISH HERITAGE

12.1

It was agreed that Gordon Hayward would write to English Heritage to invite them to a future meeting. Mark Raisbeck confirmed that K&C have appointed Colin Davis, one of the authors of the document, to advise on streetscape issues.

12.2

FOR ACTION – GORDON HAYWARD.

13.

ORBIT STUDY

13.1

Volunteers were requested to lead on this project for LOTAG and to liaise with GOSE and SE Region of TAG.

13.2

Issues and problems papers are to be prepared by November with options being developed for wider consultation.

13.3

FOR ACTION – CHAIR AND MARTIN LOW

14.

LEAD OFFICERS AND WORK OF SUB GROUPS

14.1

FOR ACTION – ALL MEMBERS

15.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

15.1

LoTAG website (www.lotag.com) now operational with agendas and minutes of meetings.

15.2

There was a discussion regarding the skills shortage and need for recruitment of staff to deal with expected increasing expenditure on transport. It was agreed that there should be no reason for not appointing staff to deal with the London wide LBPN and LCN projects, as they can be funded via these capital budgets.

15.3

It was also suggested that each LoTAG Member should nominate a deputy to attend meetings if they could not attend, so that as many boroughs as possible are always at the meetings and as a way of assisting in the development of more junior staff.

16.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

This will be followed by a visit to the Tram Depot, nearest tram stop Therapia Lane (from 2pm to 4pm), including a ride on a tram, a presentation on the planning and implementation of Tramlink and a tour of the depot and control centre.