a) TfL response to Covid (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
b) X26 Bus to serve Waddon (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
c) The replacement of Selsdon Road Rail Bridge and the effect on bus services 403 and 412 (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
Minutes:
a) TfL response to Covid (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
The TfL representative presented slides on the TfL response to Covid, which were shared with the Panel after the meeting.
This presentation outlined the severity of the impacts, including loss of life of colleagues, and how service delivery would be effected going forward, particularly from a financial position due to the loss of income. The presentation covered the challenges of the huge drop in passenger numbers, the next steps to encourage people to return to public transport and TfL’s work to banner consistent, up to date and clear safety messaging.
The TfL representative told the Panel that for any further information on these subjects they should visit their website.
School Services
The TfL representative said they were working with schools and the DfE to help match capacity and demand and were working hard to ensure children were getting to school on time. There were designated non-schools services for adults who were unable to retime their journeys, which supported social distancing and safeguarding measures. There were also other initiatives to promote other modes of travel for students to take to school. The feedback had been positive and there was constant monitoring of how the network was operating to try and to move capacity to high demand areas.
11-15 and 16+ Zip Oyster travel
The TfL representative stated that under 18 free travel remained valid for all school children, but the government has asked TfL to temporarily suspend free travel for 11-17 year olds as part of our funding agreement with them. TfL were discussing the implementation of this with the Government and other boroughs. This change would bring a large administrative task for TfL and the local authority.
The London Travel Watch (LTW) representative stated that London Councils had concerns about withdrawing the concessions and were working on counter action against the withdrawal; he asked whether Croydon Council could follow a similar resolution to other London boroughs, like Lambeth, by supporting child poverty action campaigns to stop the move and help low-income family children. The withdrawal would particularly effect Croydon’s demographic.
The Chair stated that there would be a significant number of children in the borough effected by the decision to withdraw, at approx. 90,000 passes. Withdrawing the Zipcard would make life hard for many families, particularly in the midst of Covid financial pressures, whilst trying to encourage people to use public transport.
The TfL representative stated that they could recommend and provide a contact for anyone who wanted to write a letter to the government to support retaining the current zip card arrangements, adding that the decision was ultimately theirs.
The ESTC representative stated that the system needed to be further checked because if withdrawn, the cost of a pupil travelling to school over 3 miles transfers to that borough. The TfL representative stated that free journeys to school or college were over 2 miles for those aged between 10-17 years. This was less distance if the young person had a social worker, held an EHCP, attended a PRU or a free school and did not have a safe walking route to school and were not mobile enough to walk.
The Head of Transport responded that local authorities have a duty to cover young people’s transport if their journey was more than three miles, or if they have special educational needs, a disability or limited mobility. The admin burden of withdrawing Zipcards would fall on local authorities and TfL.
Councillor Degrads asked who would be eligible for the under 18 free travel card in the proposals and it considered low-income families. The TfL representative responded that she did not know the detail of this, but the DfT would be conducting a public EIA in due course.
London Streetspace and the Walking and cycling response
The TfL representative stated that there was t £30m government funding for local authorities to introduce schemes to change how people travelled around the city. The scheme as a whole was to introduce Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), temporary strategic cycle lanes/routes and space for social distancing, including school streets.. The Streetspace Plan aimed to ensure streets could cope with increased demand for walking and cycling and to avoid a damaging car-led recovery from coronavirus. Following surveys, 51% agreed with the implementation of LTNs and of them being implemented longer term subject to consultation and 81% of people agreed that walking and cycling were good for London.
LTW compiled a ‘Have your say’ guide to provide residents and users with a step-by-step guide on to how to evaluate LTN schemes without bias. This guide should be promoted to ensure residents were informed on the process. LTW would be engaging with London boroughs to analyse the impact schemes would have on disabled people and how their needs could be accommodated, further stating an EIA should be completed.
The LTW webpage regarding London Streetspace could be found on the following link: https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/activetravel
The ESTC representative stated that they were not opposed to reducing traffic, however the lack of consultation was a cause for concern. There needed to be more consideration for equalities, as there were examples in London where taxis were not allowed to use roads in the schemes, for example areas in Lambeth, which meant reduced mobility for some users and additional taxi fares to circumvent those routes. The TfL representative replied that she would feedback those comments to her Lambeth counterpart.
The Head of Transport stated that the strategy strove to encourage people who were underrepresented amongst cyclists, such as members BAME groups, children, older people, and women. Fear of road danger was the main reason given for people not cycling and the Streetspace schemes sought to make safer quieter space for cycling and walking.
The following was discussed:
The LTW representative stated they supported TfL’s introduction of more 24/7 bus lanes and suggested that Croydon should follow suit to implement those on more borough roads. The Head of Transport responded that they were looking to make bus lanes 24/7 on a key route in Croydon and were currently working on designs.
The ESTC representative told the Panel that since meeting with the Programme Manager from Planning and Strategic Transport there had been some positive changes to bus routes, including Routes 12, 405 and 412 which used Park Street as a temporary stop. There was also not a temporary stop on the high street, which would benefit from turning into a permanent stop in future. Route 433 was supposed to observe the Park Lane stop however often missed the stop; therefore bus flags should be introduced.
The ESTC representative raised concern over older students failing to wear face coverings when leaving schools and using bus stops. He said that he saw this issue around tram stops, particularly on Church Street, and he had been contacted by a residents association about similar issues. He asked if there could be any checks made by TfL to address this. The London Trams representative replied that they were checking trams, particularly in the East Croydon area but they would follow up with additional attention to Church Street. He added that it must be remembered by all that there were residents who were exempt from wearing a mask.
Councillor Degrads asked if young people were liable to fines, and if so, would their guardian be responsible for this, adding that monitoring should held with discretion and only hold accountable genuine cases of noncompliance. The TfL representative responded the aim was to penalise people wilfully not following the rules. TfL had written to all schools to ask students to wear masks on public transport. The TfL representative stated that they would find out if parents or guardians were liable for fixed penalty notices to young people in the event of not wearing masks.
In response to the Chair stating that the situation was a moving picture and TfL should be mindful of increasing cases alongside their drive to increase ridership. The London Trams representative responded that TfL’s plans did have provision for a second wave and all modes of transport were preparing for different types of lockdown. TfL would be prepared to respond from lessons learnt in the spring.
b) X26 Bus to serve Waddon (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
The TfL representative told the Panel that the Leader of the Council and TfL’s Director of Public Transport Planning met Cllr King the Cabinet Member for Transport to discuss a planned consultation on bus route changes and the prospect of Route X26 making a stop a Waddon, given that 9000 house would be built on Purley Way was raised. The case was still to be discussed and TfL would pick this up with the Head of Transport outside of the Panel.
c) The replacement of Selsdon Road Rail Bridge and the effect on bus services 403 and 412 (TfL – Michelle Wildish)
The ESTC representative stated that a shuttle bus needed to be planned to be provided to the area whilst the works were being planned. The TfL representative replied that they had contacted Network Rail asking them to update TfL on their plans over the winter period so they were able to plan for alternative bus provisions for transport users, which they would communicate to residents as early as possible.
The ESTC representative asked if there was a prospective date for the additional buses on Route 405. The Arriva London representative stated these would be on the road in approximately one week and they were also introducing new buses onto Route 202.