Evidence base for Proposed changes along the A20 between New Cross and Lewisham

Waiting for an internal review by Transport for London of their handling of this request.

Dear Transport for London,

I write in relation to your proposed changes along the A20 between New Cross and Lewisham (https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a...). You state that these proposals aim to "reduce the potential for delays to journey times for all road users".

Please could you provide me with the following information on which your proposals are based:

1. evidence of the amount by which removal of the pedestrian crossings are expected to speed up road traffic, including assessments of existing road speeds on the relevant parts of the A20, and assessment of other factors affecting road traffic on the A20;

2. evidence for your conclusion that replacing the two crossings near St John's Vale with one crossing will help commuters get to St John's station;

3. evidence of your assessment that having only one crossing close to St John's Vale will be adequate for the existing volumes of pedestrian traffic at peak times (in particular start and end of school hours);

4. any assessments of the additional time that pedestrians will require in order to cross the road caused by the reduction in the number of pedestrian crossings in your proposals;

5. assessments of the safety implications of reducing the number of crossings in terms of increased likelihood of pedestrians crossing the road due to the reduced number of crossings and increased distances to reach the crossings;

6. assessments of the implications for safety of cyclists of the removal of crossings, in particular where cyclists are seeking to turn right into minor roads;

7. assessments of how the removal of existing cycle paths complies with the draft London Cycling Design Standards, and how it will impact on the Mayor's Cycling Vision 2013 to have more people cycling.

I would appreciate it if this information could be provided well before the 1 November deadline for consultation responses in order to inform my response.

Yours faithfully,

J Overett

FOI, Transport for London

Dear J Overett

TfL Ref: 1178-1516

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 29 September 2015.

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 provided to you by [due date]. 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 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

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

Yours sincerely

Jasmine Howard
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your reply. Could you please complete the square brackets which your template contains?

Yours sincerely,

J Overett

FOI, Transport for London

Dear J Overett,

TfL Ref: 1178-1516

Thank you for your further email received by us on 1 October 2015.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you; a response will be provided by 27 October 2015.

Kind regards

Jasmine Howard
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear J Overett

 

TfL Ref: 1178-1516

 

Thank you again for your email received by TfL on 29 September 2015.You
have asked for information about our proposed changes along the A20
between New Cross and Lewisham. Your request is being considered under the
terms of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs).

 

Unfortunately because of its complexity, we have been unable to resolve
your request within the initial statutory 20 working day deadline. This is
because we are in the process of finalising our response.

 

To enable us to fully consider your request, in accordance with the EIRs
we have had to extend the deadline for providing a response to 40 working
days from the date we received your request. The amended date for a final
response is now 24 November 2015. We are working hard to ensure that you
receive a response before this date. 

 

I apologise for the delay and any inconvenience this may cause you. If you
have any queries or would like to discuss your request, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response, please read the attached
help-sheet entitled ‘Your Right to Appeal’

 

Kind regards

 

 

Jasmine Howard

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

TfL Ref: 1178-1516

Thank you for the reply to my request. I disagree that this is a complex request since it is simply asking for some of the evidence on which the proposals which are out for consultation were based. If there is such evidence then it should be easy to provide it (or at least some of it) during the period set for consultation. I would therefore ask for my request to be subject to an internal review regarding the extension of the deadline.

Yours sincerely,

J Overett

FOI, Transport for London

Our ref: IRV-056-1516

Dear J Overett

Request for internal review

Thank you for your request for an internal review which was received by Transport for London (TfL) on 28 October 2015.

You have stated that you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act

The review will be conducted by an internal review panel in accordance with TfL’s Internal Review Procedure, which available via the following URL:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/doc...

Every effort will be made to provide you with a response by 26 November 2015. However, if the review will not be completed by this date, we will contact you and notify you of the revised response date as soon as possible.

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

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Information Access Adviser
Transport for London
[TfL request email]

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

2 Attachments

Dear J Overett

 

TfL Ref: 1178-1516

 

Thank you for your email received by us on 29 September 2015 asking for
information about the proposed changes along the A20 between New Cross and
Lewisham as mentioned in the consultation section of our website.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can
confirm that we hold some of the information you require. Your request is
as follows:

 

I write in relation to your proposed changes along the A20 between New
Cross and Lewisham
([1]https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a...). You state that
these proposals aim to "reduce the potential for delays to journey times
for all road users".

 

Please could you provide me with the following information on which your
proposals are based:

 

 1. evidence of the amount by which removal of the pedestrian crossings
are expected to speed up road traffic, including assessments of
existing road speeds on the relevant parts of the A20, and assessment
of other factors affecting road traffic on the A20;

 

Our primary outcome for this scheme is to smooth traffic progression, we
therefore do not require speed assessments during the design process.
There is an expected improvement to journey time along the A20 of between
four and eight per cent.

 

There are currently five pedestrian crossing facilities located within
600m of each other. Rationalisation of these crossing facilities will
allow us to manage the TRLN more effectively in this area.

 

As detailed in the consultation plans we are proposing to consolidate two
crossings into one, close to the St John’s Vale junction, with the
intention of continuing to assist access to the station. The location has
been identified to help a greater number of commuters from the south east
direction due to the higher number of residential properties within this
area.

 

 

 2. evidence for your conclusion that replacing the two crossings near St
John's Vale with one crossing will help commuters get to St John's
station;

 

The proposed crossing facility will be provided close to the St John’s
Vale junction with the intention of assisting access to the station. The
location has been identified to help a larger number of commuters from the
south west direction. Commuters from the north west of St John’s Vale will
have slightly further to travel but this is negligible, whilst the
crossing outside of the College will be retained to assist commuters from
the north west of Tressillian Road.

 

Commuters from Tressillian Road will have slightly further to travel to
reach a pedestrian crossing however, a crossing will continue to be
visible. We therefore anticipate the signal crossing facilities will
continue to be used. The crossing outside of the College will be retained
to assist commuters from the north west of Tressillian Road. The St
John’s Vale crossing has been designed to accommodate the anticipated
pedestrian flow based on pedestrian numbers during the school term time.
The proposed crossing is wider than either existing crossing, will have a
larger pedestrian waiting area and be adequate to accommodate the greater
pedestrian numbers. When using a pedestrian crossing no additional time
will be required to cross the road.

 

 3. evidence of your assessment that having only one crossing close to St
John's Vale will be adequate for the existing volumes of pedestrian
traffic at peak times (in particular start and end of school hours);

 

The St John’s Vale crossing has been designed to accommodate the
anticipated pedestrian flow based on a survey undertaken during the school
term time. The proposed crossing is larger than the existing crossings and
will have a larger pedestrian waiting area. We expect these increases in
size to accommodate the anticipated pedestrian flows of the new crossing.

 

We are not proposing to remove cycle paths, we are however amending the
existing cycle facility to accommodate the new crossing points, which is
shown in the plans provided on the original consultation webpage.
Paragraph 3.4.11 of the Draft London Cycling Standards, which is attached
indicates that traffic lanes greater than 4m wide allow for safe
overtaking of cyclists.  In the proposals this approach has been
preferred, as there have been reports that suggest vehicles encroach into
sub-standard cycle lanes less than 1.5m wide, thereby adversely affecting
the cyclists sense of safety.

.

 4. any assessments of the additional time that pedestrians will require
in order to cross the road caused by the reduction in the number of
pedestrian crossings in your proposals;

 

When using the pedestrian crossing no additional time is required to cross
the road. The time taken to get to the crossing depends on where the
pedestrian is approaching from but the net impact is considered to be
negligible. Please detail any specific documents that you wish to review.

 

 5. assessments of the safety implications of reducing the number of
crossings in terms of increased likelihood of pedestrians crossing the
road due to the reduced number of crossings and increased distances to
reach the crossings;

 

Site observations have been made during peak times, to identify the
desired routes taken by pedestrians. This shows that people, in almost all
cases, only cross at the pedestrian crossings. The proposed crossings have
been located on the observed desired routes and will facilitate access to
the shops, side roads, schools and the railway station. We expect
pedestrians to carry on using the crossings due to the traffic volumes on
the A20.

 

 6. assessments of the implications for safety of cyclists of the removal
of crossings, in particular where cyclists are seeking to turn right
into minor roads;

 

We appreciate that the pedestrian crossings stop the traffic momentarily
which may allow some vehicle manoeuvres. However, we do not locate
pedestrian crossings with the aim to facilitate right turning traffic and
therefore this is not considered during the design.

 

 7. assessments of how the removal of existing cycle paths complies with
the draft London Cycling Design Standards, and how it will impact on
the Mayor's Cycling Vision 2013 to have more people cycling.

 

As mentioned previously, we are not proposing to remove cycle paths, we
are however amending the existing cycle facility to accommodate the new
crossing points. The proposals show a slight improvement in provision. 

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for any 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

 

 

Jasmine Howard

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear J Overett

IRV-056-1516

I am contacting you regarding your internal review request concerning the extension of a further 20 working days under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). This review has been carried out following your email of 29 October 2015.

Where a request is made under regulation 5 of the EIR and where a public authority reasonably believes that the complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is impracticable to comply with the request within the 20 working day timeframe, they may extend the period of 20 working days to 40 working days as referred to in the provisions in paragraph (2) of the EIR.

Whilst the panel understand that you were keen to receive the information you requested as soon as possible, in this instance the information you sought was considered voluminous in nature and it was reviewed and agreed by a manager that an extension under the provisions of the EIR was appropriate. This was clearly communicated to you in our email of 27 October 2015 with a new advised response date of 24 November 2015.

We believe you have now been provided a full response to request FOI-1178-1516 today (23 November); however we do not consider that this necessarily represents the end of the internal review process. We consider that it would be appropriate in the context of this request to offer you a further internal review of the content of the response if you choose, even though you have already exercised your right to a review in view of our extension under EIR.

Therefore, if you are not satisfied with the final response that we have provided to FOI-1178-1516 please contact [TfL request email]

If you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date (IRV-056-1516) you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, at the following address:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk).

Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Information Access Adviser
Transport for London
[TfL request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you for the response to my request and to the request for internal review. I am not satisfied with the internal review which states that a response was not possible within the standard timescales because of the voluminous nature of the information sought. As can be seen from the reply eventually provided, the material was not voluminous, and indeed no evidence of the type requested was provided, merely further assertions with no underlying evidence.

I therefore request provision of the underlying evidence for these statements, as originally requested.

Yours sincerely,

J Overett

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org