We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Jerry Hewitt please sign in and let everyone know.

Canada Water Strategic Transport Study decisions

We're waiting for Jerry Hewitt to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Transport for London,

This request asks for information about decisions reported in this document that you commissioned and paid Mott MacDonald £300,000 for:

Canada Water Strategic Transport Study - Final
Forecasting Report
Document reference: 381801 | 04 | A
381801_CW_STS_Forecasting_Report_v6_Final.docx

Pleases can you inform me who made the following decisions reported in the document:

(a) Section 12.3 "HAM Highway Mitigation Package Tests" document page 185:
"Following assessment of the cycle superhighway options described in Section 11.2, the option 2 design WAS CHOSEN as the best performing design with regards to flow, delay and journey time"

Who chose and decided that option two was the best performing design with regards to flow, delay and journey time? If permitted by law please can you list their names? Otherwise who they work for? E.g. D Winkworth, E Blake, P Bahra, D Fox perhaps? Anyone from DP9? Sally Crew from LBS? Anyone working got LBS Anyone from British Land PLC or anyone working for British Land PLC? Mayor of London? Deputy Mayor? Southwark councillors?

(b) Section 13.2 "Highway Intervention Testing Conclusions" document page 196:
"Through further assessment of each option using flow and delay differences, IT WAS DECIDED that option 2 was the best performing design and also addressed both TfL and LBS policies of introducing cycle superhighway 4 and a Lower Road gyratory re-structure respectively. Because of this, option 2 was taken forward to be tested in the LTS demand model in order to capture any demand response that the re-designs are likely to incur"

(c)Section 11.2.7 "CS4 Re-designs Summary"
"Following discussions and based on results shown above, both option 3 and option 4 HAVE BOTH BEEN DISCOUNTED for policy and network performance reasons"

Who was discussing? Who decided to discount both option 3 and option 4 for policy and network performance reasons?

(d) Please can you list the policies that were used in (c) above to discount both option 3 and option 4?

(e) Please can you inform me what policy and content of the Canada Water Area Action Plan was taken into account when making the decisions listed in (a) to (c) above? I can find no reference to the AAP in the document and not reference to it's content bar consented development sites which can be ignored for (e).

This request should be quite cheap and quick to process. TfL have a team leader for the project I believe.

Why is this request in the public interest?
TfL and London Borough of Southwark provided Mott MacDonald with 4 design options for Jamaica Road, Lower Road and the A200 corridor into Greenwich and Lewisham. Re-designs for each portion of the entire A200 corridor were undertaken by or on behalf of either TfL or LBS. Decisions reduced four options to just one. There is a climate emergency and the different options have different impacts on people, animals and the environment. Southwark Council and TfL are committed to transparency, openness & honesty and residents would like to know who decided that traffic will increase in already congested and polluted unhealthy Rotherhithe Old Road (and other streets including Bush Road & Rotherhithe New Road that CWAAP specifically named to REDUCE traffic. Forms of influence, incentivisation & corruption are a very serious concern and about c£6,000,000,000 of development is build on the STS. Discounting options for reasons on policy requires the policies utilised to be made explicit. Discounting and discarding options shunts traffic from one place to another and the places have very different characteristics - the decisions shunt traffic to what is a predominately council estate areas. Already polluted and congested. And where many individuals with protected characteristic live. Shunting traffic from a wealthier area to a poorer already polluted and congested area will be of interest to many. We expect our elected representatives to make decision that affect our health, wellbeing, lives, neighbourhood and homes is we cannot - ideally - be involved in making the decisions ourselves. And "own them" as Councillor Martin Seaton (LBS Planning Committee Chair) encourages us to do.

Yours sincerely,
Jerry Hewitt

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Hewitt

 

TfL Ref: FOI-3818-1920

 

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 9 March
2020.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and TfL’s information access policy. 

 

A response will be sent to you by 7 April 2020.

 

We publish a substantial range of information on our website on subjects
including operational performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data,
governance and our financial performance. This includes data which is
frequently asked for in FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

 

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the
[2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will send
a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hewitt

 

TfL Ref: FOI-3818-1920

 

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 9 March
2020.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access
policy.  I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. You
asked:

 

 1. Please can you inform me who made the following decisions reported in
the document:

 

(a) Section 12.3 "HAM Highway Mitigation Package Tests" document page 185:

"Following assessment of the cycle superhighway options described in
Section 11.2, the option 2 design WAS CHOSEN as the best performing design
with regards to flow, delay and journey time"

 

 2. Who chose and decided that option two was the best performing design
with regards to flow, delay and journey time? If permitted by law
please can you list their names? Otherwise who they work for? E.g.  D
Winkworth, E Blake, P Bahra, D Fox perhaps? Anyone from DP9? Sally
Crew from LBS? Anyone working got LBS Anyone from British Land PLC or
anyone working for British Land PLC? Mayor of London? Deputy Mayor?
Southwark councillors?

 

(b) Section 13.2 "Highway Intervention Testing Conclusions" document page
196:

"Through further assessment of each option using flow and delay
differences, IT WAS DECIDED  that option 2 was the best performing design
and also addressed both TfL and LBS policies of introducing cycle
superhighway 4 and a Lower Road gyratory re-structure respectively.
Because of this, option 2 was taken forward to be tested in the LTS demand
model in order to capture any demand response that the re-designs are
likely to incur"

 

(c)Section 11.2.7 "CS4 Re-designs Summary"

"Following discussions and based on results shown above, both option 3 and
option 4 HAVE BOTH BEEN DISCOUNTED  for policy and network performance
reasons"

 

 3. Who was discussing? Who decided to discount both option 3 and option 4
for policy and network performance reasons?

 

 4. (d) Please can you list the policies that were used in (c) above to
discount both option 3 and option 4?

 

In response to the above four questions, the Lower Road gyratory is
borough highway and not part of the Transport for London Road Network
(TLRN), unlike Jamaica Road, for example, where works are currently
underway to implement this part of Cycle Superhighway 4 (now Cycleway C4).
Therefore all design and modelling work on the Lower Road gyratory changes
and for C4 is being undertaken by Southwark Council as a separate phase of
the work. This culminated and informed the public consultation on the
proposals last year. Further information on this is available on the
Council’s website. The London Borough of Southwark is now reviewing the
responses to the consultation before implementing any design changes to
the proposals.  Consequently, the detailed representation of C4 in the
strategic transport study work was not intended to necessarily preclude
the final design of C4 that would ultimately be implemented.

 

Please note that the primary objective of the transport study was to look
at the strategic longer term impacts (that is, 2030 and beyond) of growth
from existing land uses and new development on the local highway and
public transport networks, and how possible transport interventions,
including C4 and Lower Road gyratory changes as part of a wider transport
package, could interact with those impacts. The decisions made as to the
options for Lower Road and C4 in this area to be used in the strategic
transport study were those of Southwark.

 

A number of TfL and Southwark officers worked on the strategic transport
study as well as consultants commissioned by TfL or Southwark for the
study, design and modelling work. These consultants were working to briefs
provided by the relevant public body, providing reports on the progress or
outcome of their work, and this was information and advice and not
decisions on schemes.  

 

 5. Please can you inform me what policy and content of the Canada Water
Area Action Plan was taken into account when making the decisions
listed in (a) to (c) above? I can find no reference to the AAP in the
document and not reference to it's content bar consented development
sites which can be ignored for (e).

 

The Canada Water Area Action Plan was adopted by Southwark in 2012 and
updated in 2015, following the Daily Mail’s decision to vacate their
printworks site in the area. It provided the basis for development
proposals considered in the study. Given that it was by then several years
old, these proposals also took account of other adopted and emerging
policy documents, including the New Southwark Plan and the published
(2016) and draft London Plan (2017 versions onwards). As you will realise
specific development proposals require planning permission before they can
be implemented and as applications come forward they are considered
against the national, regional and local policy context and their expected
impacts and proposed mitigation. Decisions on planning applications are
made by Southwark although the main sites in the area have also been
subject to referral to the Mayor and to the Secretary of State.

 

I would recommend that you contact the borough directly. Their contact
details can be found at the following link
[1]https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and...

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Jerry Hewitt please sign in and let everyone know.