Agenda and draft minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Public Transport Liaison Committee meeting held on 20 January 2022 be agreed.

No interests were declared

The questions submitted by Members, Councillors and guests were discussed.

The transport organisations provided written responses that were also considered by the Members. As well as the written responses provided, the transport representatives, local amenity groups, members and guests advised as follows:

Question 1: The TfL representative (Representative) stated that, he would refer any questions received at the meeting, back to the relevant parties within TfL for response.

Councillor Walsh advised that during his time as a Member of the Public Transport Liaison Committee (PTLC), he had to submit a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to TfL, in order to obtain the response currently under consideration. TfL subsequently refused Councillor Walsh’s request on the basis that providing the data, may enable crime. Councillor Walsh detailed various breaches of the red route enforcement and the consequent impacts on his ward.

Councillor Walsh informed Members that there existed a contradiction between the public perception regarding the onus of responsibility for the public highway, between TfL and the local authority.

Members were advised by Councillor Walsh that the majority of routes going through wards were the responsibility of TfL.

Councillor Walsh described the impact of the lack of enforcement by TfL on local amenities and businesses.

Councillor Walsh requested that TfL provide a report regarding red route enforcement in time for the next scheduled PTLC meeting. Councillor Walsh stated the data information could be provided by ward, borough or TfL’s own categorisation.

The Representative reiterated to the Committee that he would take all questions received from the meeting, back to the relevant parties at TfL.

The Representative then advised Councillor Walsh and the Committee that in order to obtain the answer under consideration, he had contacted the TfL enforcement team. The TfL enforcement team advised the Representative that the data provided was available at borough level.

The Representative advised the Committee that by working in consultation with the local authority transport officers, it would be possible to be delve further into the data and be more specific, with regard to pinpointing the red route enforcement locations of concern for Councillor Walsh.

The Representative advised Members and guests that in regard to the red route enforcement in the context of the A21 walking and cycling scheme, TfL were aware of the issues highlighted, which had been flagged to the enforcement team and a response was pending.

The Representative also informed Councillor Walsh and Members that he would bring Councillor Walsh’s request for a red route enforcement report, back to the relevant TfL team.

Councillor Paschoud supported Councillor Walsh’s submitted questions and advised Members that persistent breaches of the red route enforcement were not just an issue for Councillor Walsh’s ward.

Councillor Paschoud noted the impacts on his own ward and that the TfL’s website ‘Streets’ provided inadequate means by which residents could contact TfL to report issues.

The Committee were advised by Councillor Paschoud that he believed the TfL red route enforcement data should be public information and he too would be interested in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The questions submitted by Members, Councillors and guests were discussed.

The transport organisations provided written responses that were also considered by the Committee. As well as the written responses provided, the transport representatives, local amenity groups, members and guests advised as follows:

The Chair outlined the 2 bus related questions received that were addressed to Stagecoach and Transport for London and were submitted by Councillor Hilary Moore (Labour), representing the Grove Park ward.

Question 1: Councillor Moore expanded on her question and discussed the negative impacts on residents who had to use a temporary 261 bus stop that was placed on Burnt Ash Road, parallel in location to the 261 bus stop on Baring Road that was out of use due to Thames Water works. Councillor Moore noted the negative travel impacts experienced by service users using the temporary route, particularly for those with mobility issues. Members were informed by Councillor Moore that in some instances, due to accessibility concerns, some services users had discontinued their use of the 261 route.

Councillor Moore informed Members that the information circulated by Thames Water to local residents regarding the water works and the expected impact on the 261 bus route was scant and inaccurate.

Council Moore advised the Committee that the temporary bus route was not workable and suggested a ‘hail and ride’ service would be more appropriate.

The Members were advised by Councillor Moore since future Thames Water works were possible, adequate consultation between the service provider, LBL and residents should be in place, when alternative temporary routes were to be planned.

Councillor Krupski acknowledged Councillor Moore’s concerns and advised that they were noted. Councillor Moore was assured by Councillor Krupski that when Thames Water works resumed in the future, LBL would be more proactive in engaging with TfL and ensuring adequate numbers of temporary bus stops were installed along the 261 route.

Councillor Krupski enquired if TfL would be able to install a ‘hail and ride’ service along the 261 route, in the instance that in the future Thames Water recommence works along Baring Road.

The TfL representative (Representative) advised Councillor Moore that he was not in a position to comment on the temporary 261 bus route in place during the Thames Work works and he would relay her comments back to the TfL bus operations team.

The Representative acknowledged the concerns raised with regard to consultation and engagement with the local community, regarding the 261 bus route service changes and advised he would relay the concerns back to the TfL bus operations team.

The Representative also advised that he was not in a position to comment on the possibility of ‘hail and ride’ services and would refer the suggestion back to his TfL bus operations team for response.

The Stagecoach representative (Representative) acknowledged Councillor Moores concerns and assured the Committee lessons were learned and that in partnership with TfL both organisations would investigate how best to accommodate 261 service users, going forward whenever works were underway.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Krupski acknowledged the Sydenham Society’s concerns raised under Item 4 and advised that at present within the LBL there were capacity issues due to the extensive cuts experienced and that the Plan would require amendment.