Rail Prospectus Consultation
Department for Transport
Date: 16th March 2016
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposals
contained in your Rail Prospectus, which we very much welcome.
Please find our response below.
A new approach to rail passenger services in London and the
South East - DfT / TfL / Mayor of London (January 2016)
1. Do you agree with the principle of a partnership to better
integrate the specification of rail passenger services across
London and the South East?
supports the principle of a partnership between the DfT
and TfL to better integrate the specification of rail passenger
services across London and the South East. We recognise the
importance of achieving the right balance between suburban
stopping trains and longer distance fast trains on London’s
congested rail network. This partnership should assist in meeting the
needs of both while also making improvements to suburban train
frequencies to meet the needs of London’s growing population and
economy. We also welcome the commitment to give local authorities
and other partners more of a say in the specification and
management of rail services.
The improvement of suburban rail services is a key element of
as this would help us get people out
of their cars and onto public transport.
desire for Tramlink, Crossrail 2 and bringing the London Overground
to Sutton. These services are all interrelated and will raise the level
of public transport accessibility and connectivity considerably.
does not have any Underground services and has missed out on other
major rail investment in recent years, including the proposed Crossrail 2
service which will not serve
.
. Therefore the proposed improvements to heavy rail
services,
, are crucial to support the
borough’s growth plans and enhance connectivity and accessibility for
residents and businesses.
2. Do you agree with the principles that the partnership will work
to? Are there any specific issues that have not been captured?
supports the principles that the partnership will work to which
will improve services and stations both for existing passengers and
projected future growth. However, in terms of funding, it should not
necessarily be seen as essential to reduce the cost to the Government
and taxpayers. The railway performs a wider social and economic as well
as transport function and should be seen as a public service to be funded
largely by taxpayers, as with roads, rather than largely by fare payers.
The UK already has some of the highest rail fares in the world and it
would be unfair to expect passengers to foot more of the bill for the
railways cost. A recent report from London Travelwatch (Living on the
Edge December 2015) highlighted the impact of high public transport
fares on low paid workers living in outer London. We therefore strongly
support proposals to fully integrate London’s suburban rail services with
TfL’s zonal fares system. We would also support the wider roll out of
Oyster outside London to places such as Epsom. It is important that the
fares structure incentivises off-peak travel through lower fares off peak,
including contra-peak flow at peak times.
We support the idea of unlocking development value in transport land
and stations, and making best use of private sector funding wherever
possible, to reduce the burden on the fare and tax payer. However,
transport improvements should be seen as being desirable in their own
right rather than being entirely development-led.
In summary, the principles of the partnership should ensure that the
passenger is put at the heart of rail planning and operations, and that
targets and operational convenience do not work against passenger
interests.
3. Do you agree with the proposed governance arrangements?
supports the proposed governance arrangements which
would involve transferring responsibility to TfL for inner suburban
services. Some clarity is required as to where the boundary of
responsibility between TfL and the DfT would lie, as
is served by
both inner and outer suburban services. Indeed, we consider the
terminology of inner and outer suburban services to be somewhat
misleading.
is considered to be an outer London suburb but is
served by so-called inner suburban services as well as those ‘outer
suburban’ service from outside Greater London. ‘London’ and ‘Country’
services may be better terms.
As well as giving local authorities greater input into service specification,
the South London Partnership, which represents a number of south
London boroughs, should have a say, as well as bodies such as London
Councils and the London Assembly.
A forum should be established that brings together London Boroughs and
neighbouring counties to ensure a joined-up approach to managing both
inner and outer suburban services.
4. What form do you propose the input from local authorities and
LEPs could take?
Local authorities should be able to contribute to the franchise
specification and timetabling as well as decisions regarding infrastructure
in their areas. They should be consulted closely at all stages of the
process, as well as on on-going investment and operational management
issues.
5. Do you agree with the safeguards for transfer of inner suburban
services to TfL as set out here?
The council supports the safeguards set out such as there being no
detrimental effect on fares and no adverse impact on frequency and
stopping patterns. Indeed we would expect to see all lines and stations
benefit from these proposals, including the Thameslink loop line and the
Epsom Downs line. Whilst welcoming potential new routes such as to
London Bridge, we would not want to see existing route patterns lost,
particularly the stopping services between Sutton and Victoria via
Hackbridge. Requiring Victoria-bound passengers to interchange at
Streatham would incur a journey time penalty unless frequencies are
enhanced close to Underground levels, and these trains may already be
full, forcing passengers to stand at peak times.
On the Sutton to Victoria line via Hackbridge, Carshalton station serves a
substantial residential area as well as Carshalton FE College, three
secondary schools, the Council's Denmark Road offices and visitors to
heritage, theatre, leisure and recreation attractions in Carshalton.
Hackbridge is a major growth centre, with up to 750 new homes soon to
be built on the former Felnex industrial area opposite, as well as new
homes on the industrial site next to the station. In addition Hackbridge
station currently serves significant commuter traffic from a wide area due
to it being in zone 4.
It is important to recognise the existing travel patterns that people have
established and based their life decisions on. Furthermore journey times
should not be adversely affected, and where possible improved through
better timetabling and stopping patterns.
The document seems to suggest that longer distance services will be
given priority over local stopping services. In order to increase metro
frequencies as proposed, we would expect to see sufficient paths
allocated for local inner-suburban services.
Extensive consultation should be carried out before any final decisions
are made on route and service specifications.
Provision also needs to be made for any increase in Freedom Pass costs
that might accrue to London Boroughs with TfL takeover of rail services
in London.
It is important that sufficient funding is provided to TfL to enable the
proposed service and station improvements to be made as well as
beneficial changes to the fares structure.
Our main aims are for frequency (at least 4 per hour on all lines),
reliability, comfort and high quality services including decent stations,
modern rolling stock and renewed signalling and infrastructure to
increase the speed of services, and reduce delays.
6. Are there other outcomes you might expect to see achieved?
We would expect Sundays to have a similar level of service to Saturdays
and would expect that sufficient drivers are recruited to ensure that
Sunday services can be fully resourced. Boxing Day services should also
be introduced as standard.
It is important that station staffing levels are maintained and where
necessary increased, and that stations are staffed from first to last train
to ensure passenger safety and provide assistance.
We trust that you will take these comments on board and we look forward
to working with you on these proposals.
Yours faithfully,