Agenda item

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director Environment on the Transport Strategy Review.

An Officer stated that The Tranpsort Strategy was adopted in May 2019 with a three-year review scheduled at the point of adoption. The review commenced three years later, but due to the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, the review period was extended. This allowed for more engagement, for patterns of work to become more stable, and to collect data accordingly. The strategy was a 25-year plan up to 2040 and was a framework for decisions going forward as well as providing the overall direction which tied into other objectives such as Destination City and the City Climate Action Strategy. The significant changes had been considered by the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee and public engagement on the proposed changes had taken place.

The Officer outlined the main changes as follows:

-        The vision to be more inclusive, with inclusion embedded in all proposals.

-        The use of the terms ‘wheel’ and ‘wheeling’ to specifically acknowledge the use of pavements and other pedestrian spaces by people who used wheelchairs, mobility scooters and other wheeled mobility aids. These terms had been adopted by other bodies such as Active Travel England and the suggestion had come from mobility aid users.

-        Regarding charging of road users, TfL was working to bring together the congestion and ULEZ changing. This would allow more flexible and area specific approach which could give the City the framework to reduce traffic more effectively in certain areas.

-        To make streets fully accessible, an accessibility tool was used to help with design. This was being updated to make space and streets more accessible and would be applied to all projects.

-        It was anticipated that the legislation around the use of e-scooters could change and it was expected that e-scooters and e-bikes would be included in the infrastructure set up for cyclists. If this was the case, they would be included on the highway under the same rules i.e., not permitted on pavements.

-        In relation to air quality management, two zero emission zones were previously introduced in the City. These zones alongside ULEZ, have been effective in bringing down nitrogen oxides. Officers now considered it no longer necessary to introduce distinct zero emission zones, and the air quality team supported this. Hotspots would still be monitored and dealt with accordingly. It was also stressed that there was a new duty to look at smaller particles PM 2.5 and those were better addressed by overall traffic reduction and were still affected by electric vehicles.

-        On the issue of freight, it was noted that there had previously been a strong commitment to introduce a consolidation centre with the Corporation’s support. Having conducted extensive research and a detailed study with the City Surveyor’s team this was now no longer recommended, but there needed to be a focus on how to enable effective last mile delivery. The consolidation upstream was dealt with by the market but the last mile delivery required work with the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), neighbouring local authorities and with Transport for London to provide the right locations and infrastructure.

The Officer stated that many elements of the Strategy would not change and the approach outlined would provide the framework to deliver against the City’s objectives over the next 20 years. It was proposed that a five-year review cycle would be introduced. The Officer stated that Appendix 7 of the Officer report set out the framework for how decisions would be made and highlighted the hierarchy of need for space and access. This would provide those people who were walking and wheeling priority in terms of space considerations, and it would make it explicit that pedestrians and those wheeling would take priority over others.

The Chairman assured the Committee that the document would go out to public consultation and was not the final version, therefore Members had the opportunity to raise any issues. The Chairman added that it was important to be as consistent as possible with the rest of London. He stated that although the 15 mile per hour speed limit was no longer included, there was still a commitment to vision zero, and although it was recognised it was a stretch target, it could be used to reduce the figured of those killed or seriously injured (KSI's). The Chairman reinforced the point made by Officers on the hierarchy of need for space, as the largest number of people who use the streets were pedestrians and people who were wheeling, and this needed to be prioritised.

A Member welcomed the options for mobility and agreed that all the improvements were important. It was noted that the City of London was starting from a good base as other places did not have the infrastructure, however, there were still improvements to be made.  The Member commented that a black spot in terms of lack of accessibility, was Leadenhall Market.

A Member expressed disappointment regarding the pushback on the 15 miles per hour but understood the move. A Member raised the point that there was good statistical evidence that suggested reducing speeds from 30 to 20 miles per hour saved lives and prevented serious injuries and asked if there was further evidence to suggest that reducing this from 20 to 15 miles per hour had commensurate impact. Officers explained that if a collision occurred, the lower the speed in which it occurred, the less severe the consequences of the collision. Officers had collated evidence and stated this could be shared but there were few places in Europe with speed limits of 15mph so evidence of the difference in severity of collisions between 20mph and 15mph was limited. An Officer stated the thinking around the 15 miles per hour speed limit at the City was to reinforce the point around the City being a place people where people should drive and ride at slow speed. However, the Department for Transport were not supportive of introducing 15mph limits which meant that this was not an option. Consideration had been given to implementing 15mph advisory signs in particular streets, however, this had been discounted and the focus now was on how the City could reduce speeds using other measures such as behaviour change

A Member raised concerns that Destination City was only referenced superficially in the report. He stated that the report referenced London Underground trends from Monday to Friday but did not address weekend footfall, and if the aim was to make the City a weekend destination, this should be included, along with predicted future footfall and plans for this. The Member also stated that there were timed traffic restrictions which were relaxed over the weekend in favour of vehicles and there was nothing in the report to suggest this might need to be re-addressed in the future with increasing weekend footfall. The Member stated that workers from offices were able to dispose of their rubbish in offices and use the toilet facilities there, but other visitors did not have that option and as part of Destination City this should be addressed. The Member reported that Kings Cross was also a business destination where weekend footfall was the same as their weekday footfall. The Member expressed concerns over how the document was disjointed in relation to Destination City.

The Chairman stated that there were many strands and cross-cutting activities involved in Destination City. He stated that the visitor numbers to viewing galleries were impressive. However, regarding the Transport Strategy specifically, more needed to be done as visitors needed to travel to the City. The Chairman asked if more could be done in this document to support and elevate the role of transport in Destination City. Officers explained that the Environment Department was committed to Destination City which was a corporate priority. It was about brand, awareness and events. There would be a one-year review on the policy. The Officer stated that in relation to street cleansing, this would be a matter for the Port Health and Environment Services Committee. Officers also added that the Strategy enabled growth of the City, both as a visitor destination, a place to work and a place to live. It was explained that the proposals delivered against multiple objectives and outcomes and therefore each objective and outcome was not referenced each time. An Officer stated that the Transport Strategy sought to make the streets and public spaces more attractive places to walk, cycle and spend time, which was fundamental to the success of the City as a business destination and as a visitor destination. On the point raised regarding weekend data, the Officer stated that the document was a snapshot of the data and data suggested that tube entry and exit data was a reasonable proxy for footfall. The data suggested numbers were slightly above where they were previously at weekends with 300,000 on Saturdays and 250,000 on Sundays. Footfall was higher in the week with midweek peak at 700,000. Transport was always planned around the busiest times and could be adopted as necessary on a project-by-project basis. On the time restrictions, most of these applied on weekdays with Bank being from 7am-7pm and others such as Cheapside being 24 hours a day.  These would be monitored and adjusted accordingly taking nto account footfall and traffic levels, and whether they were proportionate to traffic levels.  Evenings would also need to be taken into account if they became busier, and timings would be adjusted accordingly to reflect that. The Strategy provided the framework for what would be delivered, and how it would be implemented on a project-by-project basis, which might vary over time. The Member asked for the document to reflect the Officer’s explanation in more detail and explain for instance, that street timing closures would be adjusted in response to changes, particularly if numbers of visitors were to change because of Destination City.

A Member stated that the anticipated demographics of visitors should be included in the Strategy e.g., it was anticipated that more families with children could be visiting in the future.

The Chairman suggested that Officers could refer to the Transport Strategy supporting numerous corporate objectives at the start of the document. The Officer agreed and stated this could also be made clearer on the consultation materials. He added that Members were seeing a partial version of the strategy which set out the changes, however the version that would be submitted for adoption would be fuller and with more context. Officers also agreed to look at the wording surrounding Destination City. The Officer stated that the proposals in the Strategy around monitoring data collection would be used to inform decision making and it was important to reinforce that a data and evidence led approach was taken, which could mean changes over time.

On the issue of ensuring street cleansing, a Member commented that she recognised that work was being done to achieve this, particularly on obtaining more funds to support more street cleaners. The Member however, disagreed with the rating of this issue as green, as this meant no change. She requested this be amended as there was room for substantial change. The Officer stated the proposal referenced the aspiration to have a high standard of cleansing, which is why the statement had not been changed.

A Member stated that the City was different from the rest of London, it had narrower roads and pavements and was busier, and therefore she requested that the 15mph speed limit be kept on the agenda, so it could be pursued in the future if changes made it appropriate. An Officer stated that this was being looked at in more detail in the action plan. She further stated that collectively, there was an opportunity to look at more appropriate speeds for streets that need street management for cycling as well as driving. This could be through street design or advisory speed limits. The Chairman stated that the main focus would be on behavioural change.

A Member stated that constituents continued to raise the issue of black taxis accessing Bank Junction and this was not only just about accessibility, but would also impact on Destination City. An Officer explained that a case-by-case approach was used to assess schemes and the Bank Junction review was a separate exercise which was underway. The review was ongoing and there would be an update report on that to the Planning and Transportation Committee in November. A Member commented that taxis were not as accessible as the bus network and there was a need for a good bus network especially early in the morning and at night to ensure the City was accessible for visitors. Another Member commented that taxis were important for individuals with restricted mobility, the evening economy and in addressing safety concerns.

In reference to cycling numbers increasing, a Member commented that many offices provided cycle racks. He asked for more consultation on the location of on street cycle parking. Officers explained that on street cycle parking, work was being done to identify locations to accommodate regular cycles and e-scooters and e-bikes. Planning colleagues were also assisting with securing cycle hub locations through the development process.

A Member commented on the pier at Swan Lane and asked if installing piers at other locations along the River Thames was being considered and whether this part of the consultation could be expanded as the river was important in terms of last mile deliveries. An Officer stated that work was taking place with the Port of London and neighbouring boroughs to find locations for river freight.

A Member welcomed the chapter on river use. She stated that there could be difficulties in aligning fares for passenger services as she understood they were not subsidised by TfL. The Member queried how operators would be encouraged to reduce fares thereby encouraging more people to use the river and how accessibility would be improved, as she had concerns regarding congestion with lots of people trying to get on and off boats.

A Member commented that she would welcome the long-term redevelopment of Tower Hill station as this was always at capacity and the station needed expansion especially considering the alignment with Destination City and with the station being a key gateway into the City. Officers would consult TfL to see where this was on their list of priorities.  The Member stated that the list of priorities should also reflect the number of hotels in Tower Ward and consider visitor numbers as most hotel users arrived by public transport.

A Member raised concern around accessibility in relation to pavement licences narrowing pavements. She also stated that it was easier and quicker to walk around the City rather than drive and she suggested that promoting more passageways could make walking around the City easier. She stated that there was an opportunity to signpost these passageways with the history of the City which would enhance navigation as part of Destination City. She also commented on the importance of sites where activities could take place. Officers stated the importance of pedestrian permeability and reminded Members of all the schemes that had been granted in line with the local plan policy to deliver new routes. The examples given were 55 Bishopsgate, 85 Gracechurch, 55 and 70 Gracechurch 2-3 Finsbury Avenue and 120 Fleet Street. These schemes would all introduce new capillaries and alleyways.

An Officer stated that many of the comments raised by Members were covered in the strategy. Officers would ensure that the detail of the strategy was delivered and stated that Officers were working hard to deliver the accessibility of projects.

The Chairman asked about whether input had been sought from other departments. Officers explained that work had been undertaken with other teams across other teams on the detail of the Strategy.  Data was being collected on numbers of visitors, target numbers and demographics and more data would be collected to feedback on the work being undertaken.

A Member asked for more information on the installation of new electric vehicle charging points, which was to be updated every five years, including the use of electric vehicles split across freight, vans and cars as well as use of charging infrastructure and whether it would be possible to accelerate the installation of charging in 2025 considering the latest figures. Officers explained that they wanted to try to future proof this proposal as well as being cautious given that it was a fast-moving area. They had installed seven rapid chargers, with one on street and six in car parks. These were being well used but it was noted that these were not easy to implement en masse due to the electricity network constraints. Members were informed that the 50 chargers in car parks had been upgraded. Members were informed that there were visibility issues and the location of chargers needed to be promoted. In terms of the Corporation fleet make up, work was taking place in relation to zero emission vehicles and predictions for future demand. There was also a residential need as there was no residential on street parking. The Officer stated that electric taxis, private hire and freight vehicles usually did not need charging when they were operating their businesses as they mainly charged at their depots. However, there was a need to have provision for them to top up their charge though.

The Chairman stated that he had received complaints from residents regarding the usage of electric charges in the car parks as those parking had to pay parking charges as well as electricity charges. The Chairman asked if this was discouraging their use. Officers confirmed that residents paid to park in the car park in which they were charging and had to be a member of the scheme that facilitated the recharging process. Officers also added that they had switched contractors. They had undertaken a large-scale notification about the change and as only two people raised this as an issue, they did not believe this was discouraging use. It was also a standard approach in many car parks elsewhere. The Officer advised that the City previously absorbed the electricity costs but they were now being offset.

A Member commented on the importance of up-to-date street signage. An Officer explained there were strict guidelines on street signage to ensure consistency across the country. Officers recognised that changes required effective signalling, and where there was a mix of users, signage should indicate those with priority. Temporary signage could also be used where appropriate. Officers were also working with Destination City on a wayfinding exercise to complement the legible London signs, which were implemented across the City n 2021 and were designed to be consistent across London.

A Member suggested the importance of wayfinding and a joined-up approach to enable people to find the many hidden treasures in the City. Officers stated that discussions were taking place with the Destination City team. This involved looking at legible London signs and map wayfinding system as well as phone maps. The Chairman stated the priority was around helping people on foot find interesting locations in the City. He asked for clarification regarding the use of smart phone map providers and how the City engaged to ensure that the City’s key locations were shown on their platforms. An Officer stated that he would need to seek a response from Destination City. He stated that there was flexibility in relation to wayfinding signs. Legible London was a tool, but other ways of encouraging people to explore and find hidden parts of the city without requiring lots of extra signage was also important to avoid extra infrastructure which would reduce the space available for those walking and wheeling.

A Member commented on St Paul’s gyratory in terms of making sure a children's playground and facilities were there for children to use which would help encourage families into the City. Officers recognised that the St Pauls gyratory provided a good opportunity for this and they were looking into the design for that space. There had been discussions with City Gardens colleagues and with the Parent/Carer Forum about play facilities and overall inclusive facilities too. This would be considered by the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee in more detail in due course.

The Chairman commented that Tower Hill Gardens had a closed children's play area which was run down and needed work, that money was being allocated to this and the work should be a priority. A Member stated tha play equipment would be used by resident families and would also encourage visitors to use these facilities too. The Member stated that policies should be employed, and funding prioritised, to encourage visitors from the Tower of London into the City by improving accessibility, linking up open space and telling the City’s history.

A Member stated that there should be a note in the consultation to clearly explain the use of the term ‘wheeling’ as otherwise, there could be comments to the consultation which were based on a misapprehension of what the term meant. Officers agreed to include an explanatory note and provide examples.

A Member raised concern regarding two-dimensional signage of elevated places as without sufficient signage, elevated spaces would not receive the number of visitors they should and would not be fully utilised. Officers explained that they had been in discussions with their planning colleagues recently about this and there was an aim to find a standard that was clearly recognised.

A Member commented on e-scooters and e-bikes being abandoned and covering concrete seating areas. An Officer stated that work was taking place with providers of scooters and e-bikes to ensure that customers abandoning cycles were fined. The City was also providing spaces for e-scooters and e-bikes to park, so there was a legitimate place for them which was clearly marked. Furthermore, work was taking place with the police on anti-social behaviour issues and a report would be submitted to the Police Authority Board.

RESOLVED – That Members

Approve the draft changes to the Transport Strategy for public consultation (Appendix 5 of the Officer report);

·       Note that the following documents would be published alongside the consultation:

o   Summary of progress on delivery of the Transport Strategy (Appendix 3 of the Officer report)

o   Transport in the City - data summary (Appendix 4 of the Officer report)

o   Transport Strategy Map Pack - recommended revisions to figures and maps - September 2023 (Appendix 6 of the Officer report)

o   Transport Strategy review Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 8 of the Officer report);

·       Approve the Proposed approach to managing traffic movement and access for consultation (Appendix 7 of the Officer report); and

·       Note the approach to stakeholder engagement to inform the review of the Transport Strategy (Appendix 2 of the Officer report).