Agenda item

Report ES15060

Bromley’s allocation from Transport for London (TfL) for 2016/17 was £2.482 million. Ring-fenced funding would also be available to support a number of other programmes including Local Transport Priorities, Principal Road Maintenance, Bridges & Structures, the Beckenham Town Centre major scheme, and the Borough Cycling Programme.

The report detailed officer proposals for how the allocated funding for 2016/17 would be spent in order to submit a more detailed list of schemes to TfL on 9 October 2015. This report therefore sought approval to progress the recommended list of schemes. All schemes would be subject to normal consultation with residents and ward members and decision by the Portfolio Holder.

Mr Peter McBride from TfL attended the meeting to give a short briefing on TFL’s role and answer questions. He emphasised the role of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy standing behind the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) which applied the strategic objectives locally. He informed the Committee that while current funding was guaranteed there was uncertainty for the future, and the new Mayor elected in 2016 would have the opportunity to revise priorities to meet the challenges of population growth and increasing demand for transport and services. 

Members put questions to Mr McBride, raising the following issues –

·  The Chairman asked whether pricing for public transport tickets could be based on a time limit rather than per journey. Mr McBride responded that this could be looked at, but the flat rate fare system was well established and there could be implications for revenue.

·  It was suggested that a comprehensive review of bus routes was needed in the light of current and future population growth - the bus network was a quick and efficient way to respond to new development. However, members felt that the process of altering routes was too complicated. Mr McBride stated that consultation needed to include not only the public but also the operators, and changes to routes could affect viability. There was an overall subsidy on bus services, recognising their important social and environmental benefits.

·  A Member suggested that better coordination was needed between bus services in London and those in Kent – this had been talked about but nothing much had actually been done. It was suggested that the Public Transport Liaison meetings would be a suitable forum to encourage this coordination. 

·  Members asked what TfL was doing to encourage walking. TfL did have a behaviour change team, and LIP funding was used locally to fund cycling, education campaigns and measures around schools. Mr McBride also pointed to the Legible London programme and to the Bromley North Village improvements, which had brought life back to the streets.  Officers confirmed that the Council had been very successful in building relationships with schools and all schools had travel plans. The Chairman emphasised the need, at a time of intense pressure on budgets, for the Committee to be assured that these measures were really providing value for money and successfully changing behaviour. 

The Committee considered the report and raised the following issues –

·  Councillor Kevin Brooks asked whether there was scope to look at introducing controlled parking zones in Penge – this could be considered for next year’s programme.

·  It was noted that the proposed capital expenditure in 2016/17 on station access schemes was to improve interchange between buses and trains, and make stations more accessible for disabled people. There was scope for Members to make suggestions.

·  Members noted the proposed congestion relief schemes – in particular, it was intended that officers would present a package of measures for junctions in the Penge/Anerley/Crystal Palace area. 

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree that:

(1) The programme of schemes for 2016/17 contained in Enclosure 1 to the report be approved for submission to Transport for London; and,

(2) The Executive Director of Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, be authorised to make post-submission changes to the programme to reflect necessary changes to priority, potential delays to implementation following detailed design and consultation, or other unforeseen events.