MEETING OF LOTAG GROUP 1 (TRANSPORT WORKING GROUP)

HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1 AT THE GUILDHALL

WEDNESDAY, 31ST JANUARY, 2001

 

 

 

1.

  

ATTENDANCE:
The following were present at the meeting:

Qassim Kazaz, Gordon Hayward, Joe Weiss, Chris Martin, Roger Khanna, Malcolm Smith, Graham Swinburne, Chris Hamshar and John Lee, Paul Stewart, Atakan Tahir, Geoff Claxton, Chris Smith, Peter Wardill, John Stone, Nick Lester, Roger Agombar, John Barkley, John Couch.

2.

  

APOLOGIES:
Apologies for absence were received from the following:

Phil Thompson and Tony Smedley.

3.

MINUTES:
3.1 The minutes of the meeting on the 29th November 2000 were agreed.
 

3.2

The Chair proposed a vote of thanks to Jeremy Evans for his valuable contribution to the work of LoTAG and wished him well for the future. This was endorsed by all members of the Group.

4.

MATTERS ARISING:
Any matters arising were contained within items on the Agenda.

5.

TAG TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
5.1 The minutes of the meeting on the 24th November, 2000 were noted.
5.2 The Chair drew attention to item 9 on road safety issues and the need to co-ordinate discussion at a national level with those in London.
5.3 Item 14 referred to a review of the disabled persons parking scheme by DETR using MVA as consultants. The Chair said that he was obtaining a copy of the document referred to. Nick Lester described the content of the review as containing two elements relating to a change to Highways rather than social services and eliminating the discretionary element. There would be national consultation in the next few months.
5.4 Item 22 referred to Keith Whiteside of Cambridge who was seeking to set up a traffic management benchmaking group but had little response. Graeme Swinburne said that he would contact Keith. John Barkley asked that the work be co-ordinated with the London Best Value Group.

6.

LONDON CYCLE NETWORK:
6.1 The Chair referred to the attached letter from TfL to the ALG concerning the future management of the LCN which had been discussed at a meeting with Nick Lester. It had been agreed that the ALG would reply that the proposals did not conform to previous discussions and that an alternative way should be discussed. A reply was awaited.
 

6.2

It had been suggested that the management of the LBI might be a useful model for the LCN. At the Chair’s invitation Gordon Hayward gave a useful description of the LBI model which clearly identified a significant role for the Boroughs.
 

6.3

Nick Lester commented that a far greater share of the LCN was on borough roads compared to the LBI. It was also considered that the LCN issue was part of a wider concern about TfL involvement in borough road matters. There needed to be a lead borough role to "champion" the LCN. It was essential that boroughs delivered.

6.4

Chris Hamshar replied on behalf of Kingston and agreed with the comments previously made. He agreed that the LCN needed a champion at borough and political level and that it may be an opportune time for Kingston to forego the lead borough role provided the transfer was conducted in a positive way. He added that in any event it may be difficult for him to provide the resource both time and staff that the LCN needed. Chris stressed that he wished to safeguard the interest of his staff.

 

6.5

Lambeth had expressed an interest in becoming the lead borough and it was with some disappointment that they had been unable to attend. The Chair agreed to contact them urgently.
 

6.6

Gordon Hayward mentioned that the lead borough would be able to put funds into the management and co-ordination of the LCN in the future as the emphasis was on doing whatever was necessary to deliver. John Couch mentioned that the switch to grants may mean that payments are made to individual boroughs and not lead boroughs. This was not considered to be a problem as it would be resolved at borough level.
 

6.7

Chris Hamshar circulated the attached diagram of TfL’s proposed centre of excellence which he had received without comment.
 

6.8

John Lee updated the Group on current issues. There was a need to agree who should attend the LCN Steering Group. The LCN was progressing well apart from staffing issues. It was anticipated that it would close to a full spend. With regard to sector consultants five had been nominated to Sector Leaders for comment. So far only Bexley had expressed some concern. Other Boroughs were invited to comment. John was requested to circulate a comparison of consultant rates through the Chair.

7.

BUS SHELTER ISSUES:
7.1 An update on the work of the Sub-Group was received from Chris Martin. Unfortunately attendance at the last sub-group meeting had been limited. A further meeting was planned with LBSL.
 

7.2

The Chair stressed the need for the Sub-group to report back with recommendations as LoTAG needed to respond through the ALG to LBSL and time was becoming tight.
8.   

LBPN/LBI:

8.1 The LBN was going well in terms of expenditure.
 

8.2

LBI which contain 27 routes was due to be completed in March 2002. LBI2 was a three programme commencing in April 2001 and contains 40 routes. There was some concern that too much work was being concentrated in central London.
  8.3 Roger Khanna stressed the need to fully re-evaluate traffic management measures involving new initiatives or where accidents started to occur following the introduction of traffic management measures. This followed court action arising from an accident at pre-signals and channelisation in London.

9.

ROAD SAFETY ISSUES:
9.1 Graeme Swinburne referred to previous concerns about co-ordination of various road safety initiatives. Since then a useful meeting had been held with the ALG. He circulated the attached paper on the latest position.
 

9.2

Nick Lester said that a report would be submitted to the ALG at the end of February.
 

9.3

A seminar on TfL’s draft road safety plan was to be held on the 6th March 2001. LoTAG had been invited to do a presentation. It was agreed that John Couch would do the presentation on both engineering and EDP.
 

9.4

Graeme Swinburne was on the Steering Group but suggested that another LoTAG representative was desirable. Chris Smith, R.B.Richmond, volunteered.

10.

GLA/TfL ISSUES:
10.1 John Barkley reported that meetings were being arranged at the highest level to discuss future arrangements with the new organisations. These would be attended by him, Gordon Hayward and Roger Khanna. Members of the Group were invited to put forward agenda items. Staffing issues and training schemes were suggested. Ideas around common training schemes, secondments etc. were floated.
 

10.2

LoTAG had been intied to participate in the LIP’s seminar which would now be held on the 16th February, 2001 due to the possible tube strike. Nominations for facilitators for the afternoon workshops were discussed.
 

10.3

Group 3 Strategy would be preparing a response on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, Group 1 would be involved.
 

10.4

With regard to LoTAG’s position paper attached to the Agenda, this was supported by the Group. It was considered necessary to make a statement and have a sharing/open agenda with central organisations. Future invitations for TfL to attend LoTAG meetings would be discussed further.
11.

FUTURE OF TAG:
11.1 The papers attached to the Agenda described possible future arrangements. Future membership categories had been simplified from previous suggestions. The code of conduct conformed to expected standards.
 

11.2

One area of concern which would be passed on was the role of major consultants in TAG matters who should share and not benefit from their involvement.

12.

LEAD OFFICERS AND WORK OF SUB-GROUPS:
12.1 The Chair confessed that he had not progressed this item but was determined to do so.

13.

TAG PRESIDENT’S SEMINAR:
13.1 This was due to take place between the 9th and 11th May in Cardiff. It was hoped to have a strong London presence.

14.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
14.1 LoTAG had been invited to participate in a workshop by the Freight Transport Association. It was agreed that Nick Lester would represent the Group.
 

14.2

John Couch suggested that any Borough responses to TfL’s draft Road Safety Plan should be copied to the ALG.
 

14.3

The Chair asked if other Boroughs had experienced problems with Youth Disorder on public transport. Paul Stewart said that problems had been experienced in Lewisham but appeared to have been solved using a multi-agency approach. John Couch said that Sunderland had produced a video for which he would provide a contact number.
 

14.4

Joe Weiss said that Taxis issues could usefully be discussed by the Group and agreed to produce an issues paper for the next meeting.
 

14.5

Roger Khanna suggested that e-government which involved a lot of transactions would be a useful future item to share information on what is happening.
 

14.6

The Chair said that through John Barkley he would arrange for a speaker on Rail Issues to attend a future meeting as this was a topic that the Group should pay more attention to.

15.

 DATE OF NEXT MEETING:
This will be held on the 28th March, 2001 at 2.00pm in Committee Room 4 at the Guildhall. There will be a presentation by English Heritage based on their "Streets for All" publication which Members may wish to refresh their knowledge of before the meeting to aid discussion.
Future Meetings:
    6th June 2001, 11th July 2001, 19th September 2001, 28th November 2001, 23rd January 2002,  20th March, 2002