APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by Mr Ian Charie
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 This evidence is submitted by Ian David
Charie. I have professional qualifications in Town Planning and
Project Management, and am a full member of the Royal Town Planning
Institute. I have worked in the town planning, development and
project implementation field for over 15 years, 11 of those in
London, and from September 1988 until March 1998 was Development
Planner at the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)
responsible for planning, development and project work within
both the Tower Hamlets and Newham parts of Docklands.
1.2 I have a strong general personal and
professional interest in the Dome. I am a keen supporter of the
proposal and take an interest in any major such project, especially
one with such a close physical proximity to and relationship with
the Docklands area. More importantly, I became closely involved
with two particular aspects of the transport initiatives associated
with the Dome; firstly LDDC was the planning authority responsible
for granting the planning consent for the Cable Car project on
the northern side of the river, and I was the lead LDDC officer
responsible for progressing the proposal with the promoters Meridian
Cable Cars Ltd and taking a report through to Planning Committee
to secure planning consent. Secondly, I was also the lead officer
in inputting to the Park-and-Ride strategy, similarly liaising
with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), their consultants
(Colin Buchanan and Partners) and other parties, also securing
planning consent for a Park and Ride proposal at the Limmo site,
Canning Town.
1.3 I believe I was in a pivotal position
to understand some of the strategy approach to dealing with the
all important issue of transportation access to the Dome for the
Millennium celebrations, although, importantly, without any particular
vested interests, am able to now make objective comments and statements
regarding these issues. Since my move into private sector planning
and development consultancy last May, after the time of the LDDC
coming to the end of its life in March 1998 (and having stayed
to the end) I have followed these issues with interest, although
I have no continuing professional advisory, or other, formal role
in these issues. In addition to knowing the location of the Dome
site and its hinterland (on both sides of the river very well),
I have also had a tour around the Greenwich Peninsula and Dome
sites in October 1998.
1.4 Although the remit of the Inquiry is
wide-ranging, I shall limit my involvement to those areas in which
I had a professional input during this time, or on which I have
strong professional views namely; Transport, Ticketing; the Dome
Fringe, and; Use of the Dome after 2000.
2. TRANSPORT
TO THE
DOME
2.1 In my work in connection with the cable
car and park and ride strategy, I was privy to seeing reports
prepared by Meridian Cable Cars Ltd (Traffic Impact Assessment,
November 1997) and by Colin Buchanan and Partners. I have also
read the Second Report entitled The Millennium Dome, Volume 1
Report and Proceedings of the Committee, and the Sixth Report
entitled Not Only the Dome: The Millennium Celebrations In The
United Kingdom, Volumes 1 and 2, Report and Proceedings of the
Committee and Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. I have also
actively read general and professional press articles on these
issues since they became subject to articles being written. My
evidence in the main relates to the cable car and park-and-ride
strategy.
2.2 JUBILEE LINE
EXTENSION (JLE)
2.2.1 This is clearly absolutely critical
to the success of the Dome and the Millennium Celebrations. Perhaps
it is relevant to remind ourselves that the JLE has been critical
for a long time before the Dome became confirmed, particularly
to Docklands, and that now with a "drop dead deadline"
this is an "insurance policy" for the JLE being completed
to the rest of south and east London's benefit. A fully operational
service must be operating before January 2000, including 24 trains
per hour (not 17) and with a full connecting service between Charing
Cross and Stratford, despite the project difficulties at Westminster
station. Anything less than this will lead to poor press, potential
visitor reluctance to travel and self perpetuating adverse publicity
and visitor inconvenience.
2.3 PARK-AND-RIDE
2.3.1 The decision for the Millennium Experience
to be a "non-car event" is the right one based on the
straightforward geographical isolation of the site. Anything other
would simply lead to "madness" on the roads and considerable
frustration for both regular road users and visitors in the vicinity
of the Blackwall Tunnel. The decision is also highly appropriate
as we enter a new millennium and the need to seek a sea change
in people's attitude regarding the use of the car. It is difficult
to imagine a more national and prominent event to help try and
plant the message that in these modern times we just simply can't
expect to use a car all of the time, to get to all places for
all needs. We have to hope that this is a message oft repeatednot
only to avoid otherwise inevitable disruption on the roads close
to the Dome, but also for the longer term, wider culture change
that is necessary. Publicity in this area is crucial.
2.3.2 Accepting the above then entails ensuring
the availability and appropriate promotion of good public transport
options and still making provision for those who choose, or may
have little real alternative, to undertake part of their journey
by car. Human nature for personal comfort and convenience, combined
with families with children or elderly or disabled visitors and
those living in remote areas or where travelling by public transport
is precluded by reason of cost or inconvenience will travel by
car. Everything must be done to reduce this as much as possible
at peak visitor attraction times in particular. The main point
of action here is to address the issue of cost, and this must
be linked to integrated ticketing (see below, para. 3.0).
2.3.3 Assumptions were made in the initial
park-and-ride strategy that park and ride sites should be provided
in relatively close proximity to many of the radial routes leading
towards the Dome. This strategy has now been changed to provide
park-and-ride sites further out of London, and, as a further reason,
perhaps, where existing sites can be used without large cost in
acquiring and constructing such facilities. There were flaws in
the original assumptionsin that encouraging visitors to
drive en masse to parts of south and east London, often at peak
times (both morning and evening) would still lead to considerable
congestion. However, having such facilities only very remote from
the Greenwich Peninsula area will also lead to problems of "fly"
parking in any locations where visitors could then continue their
journeys by public transport (eg close to rail, tube or DLR stations).
2.3.4 A balance is therefore needed recognising
that many will still come by car. A clear strategy needs to exist,
with very good advance publicity and certainty at the point and
time of sale of Dome tickets that an advanced Park-and-Ride Ticket
is also available. This also needs adequate contingency measures
for those for whom the message of advance booking has not got
through and arrive still hopeful of parking when at peak periods
this may well not be a possibility.
2.3.5 It is regarding these last few points
that the NMEC strategy, at the time of my active involvement with
these issues (March 1998), was not well advanced. As the local
planning authority at the time, working in conjunction with LB
Tower Hamlets as the Highway Authority, the LDDC was very aware
of the inevitable criticism at the time of future operation of
the proposed park-and-ride site that we gave consent for at Canning
Town of problems of congestion on the surrounding road network
or lack of contingency measures for overspill. As the public authorities
concerned, we sought answers for a wide range of pertinent issues
relating to operation, ticketing, marshalling and times of use
of car parks and such issues as how an effective change-over between
morning and afternoon visitors could be effected, and how a restriction
could be imposed on cars leaving at peak evening times, for example.
2.3.6 It has to be said that answers to
the above issues were not well advanced, leaving some doubts about
the potential effectiveness of such operations, manifested by
a long list of conditions remaining to be satisfied prior to the
implementation of the planning consent granted. There was almost
an attitude from NMEC of "why are we being troubled with
such issues" and a feeling of expectation of an easier ride
through the planning process than we could possibly ever have
given.
2.3.7 While I am unclear of the detail of
more recent proposals for park-and-ride, I hope more recently
there has been a sharper focus of detailed operational issues
than exercised in the pursuance of the initial set of planning
consents in the early part of this year.
2.3.8 It is a little curious that having
worked very closely with NMEC to secure an acceptable planning
consent for the Limmo site in Canning Town (close to the JLE Canning
Town Station, just one stop from Greenwich Dome station)given
that there were, at the time of consideration of the proposal,
and no doubt still are, many concernsthat, I understand
this proposal is now being taken forward in private hands. This
will mean that both the profits but also the management, have
now passed out of the organising body (ie NMEC)'s control. Whether
this proves to be the best operating regime for the year of the
Experience remains to be seen but the early seeking of planning
consents as part of a strategy, only for that strategy to be dropped
indicates some of the muddled thinking that has characterised,
regrettably, much of the approach towards the country's main Millennium
celebration.
2.4 RIVERBUS
AND PARK-AND-SAIL
2.4.1 Although a relatively small percentage
of visitors are expected to choose to travel by riverbus (some
eight per cent), this nevertheless appears to be another crucial,
and more importantly appropriate mode of travel to NME. It is
clear that this is another area where, in the beginning, there
was inadequate preparation. It has been evident from the start
that some element of public subsidy would be necessary for both
Riverbus and park-and-sail operations. Again my experience at
the time of review of the park-and-sail strategy was that the
strategy, and the funding of it, were woefully lacking. I recall
a meeting called by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in
March 1998, attended by all of the relevant local authorities
(and LDDC) who were affected by the transport to the Dome issues,
and called because of an over-riding common concern about the
lack of state of clarity of the transportation issue. As well
as general criticism of the park-and-ride strategy, there were
pleas particularly from the Leader of Barking and Dagenham, which
I was happy to support, for more consideration to be given to
the issue of public subsidy for the construction of new piers
to enable this laudable objective to be viable. I have to say
that the degree of preparedness and ability to respond to important
points of strategy by NMEC was less than adequate.
2.4.2 Afterall, it would be a remarkable
failure if Britain's major Millennium celebration, on the banks
of the river Thamesthe under-used artery in Londoncould
not secure a riverbus service (admittedly where others have failed
in the past) as an important integrated part of the transport
strategy.
2.4.3 As with previous failures in this
area, the key is in being able to offer a regular, reliable service
(offering the visitor certainty and flexibility with departures)
with a pricing structure that links the service into other transport
fares, namely the Travelcard system.
2.5 BUSES
2.5.1 Although on its own this will never
form a major element by itself of the chosen means of travel to
the Dome, I was perturbed to read of the "reason" given
by London Transport for their lack of enthusiasm for laying on
services from central London direct to the Dome on account of
the "length of the journey might vary according to the time
of day and traffic conditions." (Culture, Media and Sport
Committee Not Only the Dome: The Millennium Celebrations in the
United Kingdom volume 1, para 28).
2.5.2 Hopefully this disgraceful excuse
has been replaced by a somewhat more positive attitude from one
of London's key transport operators.
2.6 CABLE CAR
2.6.1 It was early 1997 when, at the LDDC,
we were first given a presentation regarding a proposal for a
cable car crossing to access the Dome from the DLR at East India
Dock. It immediately seemed an eye catching and imaginative proposal
worthy of succeeding. We recognised the not inconsiderable technical
and safety issues, but with a certain amount of enthusiasm, we
were able to deal with all the planning related issues (straying
into all sorts of borderline planning issues such as safety, ticketing
and operational matters).
2.6.2 Planning consent was duly granted
in December 1997 (for the northern section) and right before the
end of LDDC's planning powers then passing to London Borough of
Tower Hamlets. It is fair to say, I believe, that with searching
and rigorous questioning of the promoters, we actually helped
shape and advance the proposal considerably, particularly, as
there was a close inter-relationship with an adjacent development
site and new main road proposal.
2.6.3 It has been disappointing to read
recently of the apparent failure of the proposal to secure adequate
funding, and the seeming real risk of the project not being implemented.
This is particularly disappointing given that a cable car would
prove a significant attraction in its own right in addition to
being a significant (and certainly spectacular) way of transporting
visitors into the somewhat inaccessible Greenwich Peninsula. The
argument over likely visitor numbers, and the suggestion that
NMEC's conservative estimate of ridership levels caused funders
to back off is a sad reflection on the lack of securing a real
champion and political support for the project.
2.6.4 I am aware of a number of concerns
being expressed about the project; firstly, concern regarding
Meridian Cable Cars (the promoters) Business Plan not being robust
enough; robust enough for who? It appears to be adequate for the
Directors of the Company and their funders, until NMEC worried
the funders with pessimistic ridership figures. It is, in any
case, difficult to present an over robust Business Plan on the
basis that it has had to be prepared over one year only given
the complete uncertainty about the future of the Dome and any
question of whether there can be a case for the long term of a
cable car (see para 5.0). Given that after the Millennium celebrations
are over, the land will pass (on the south side) to English Partnerships,
a more positive commitment from that body would have perhaps been
helpful.
2.6.5 Secondly, there has been argument
over the visitor usage: if this really is an issue (rather than
a mask) it must have been possible, or perhaps even is still possible,
to secure an independent audit of likely cable car users. There
must be sufficient clarity now in terms of the transport strategy
to enable this to be done; why it has not been is frankly baffling.
It either shows a weak case or poor promotion of the proposalunless
there are other insurmountable real difficulties. Even the transport
consultants to NMEC (Colin Buchanan and Partners) have consistently
confirmed figures for use of the cable car of between 6 and 13
per cent now stating 6.5 per cent, as opposed to the derisory
and, I believe unsupported claim by NMEC that it will only carry
two per cent.
2.6.6 The important figure is the 15 per
cent actual Dome visitors that the cable car can carry (rather
than a marketing prediction), which represents a considerable
safety valve in the event of interruption to the core transport
means.
2.6.7 Thirdly, I am aware of reference to
a concern being expressed by NMEC in being reluctant to financially
underwrite the project in the case of business failure. I understand
that the promoters, and their funders and financial backers are
not seeking and have never sought, that this provision needs to
be made. If this is the case, why are NMEC peddling this line?
2.6.8 There are a number of alarming discrepancies
here. Further, there are a number of commercial issues to consider.
I have heard reference to NMEC being concerned about the loss
of sponsorship monies that they themselves may have been able
to tap into if it were not for the cable car, and also that they
see the risk of on-site spending power being lost to the cable
car through "joy-riders". Both concerns, if there is
any basis to them, represent an incredibly short sighted approachparticularly
for what is supposed to be the event of the Millenniumwhich
seems to put an over sensitivity on how the sponsorship/spending
power cake will be cut up rather than on a sensible transportation
strategy, with attendant attraction benefits to users.
2.6.9 Given that the promoters of the project
are represented through Docklands Railway Management Ltd (DRML),
that provides the credibility in terms of an existing transport
operator who is tied into this visionary proposal. It is realnot
just a superfluous frivolity that seems to be getting in the way
of the main eventeven though that is sometimes how the
proposal does seem to be being portrayed (certainly in the press)
by NMEC. It can be said that at best they are doing little to
help support the project, and at worst, are actively causing the
plug to be pulled on the proposal.
2.6.10 Within this sorry situation, it does
seem that a serious lack of a champion, particularly at political
level, has not helped in presenting the case and balancing the
issues (including resolving the three concerns expressed in paras.
2.6.42.6.6). This mayregrettablycome back
to the promoters of the proposal. However, it is also perhaps
regrettable that the Minister for Transport, Glenda Jackson, who
is in other respects showing a clear interest in all these matters
does not appear to be minded to bring the necessary support to
this proposal, and, if necessary bang the two heads together of
the promoters and NMEC. It is also perhaps disappointing that,
from the previous reports of Inquiries into the Dome, there does
not seem to have been as full a review of the cable car proposal
as with other transport initiatives.
2.6.11 Picking up the capacity point from
para. 2.6.5, it is worth reiterating that there is one significant
transport related point which needs to be made here. If the new
type of signalling system, or other elements on the JLE lead to
delays or more significant loss of service at some stage during
the Millennium year (as is perhaps inevitable), shouldn't the
organisers be looking at all possible alternatives for getting
people into or off the inaccessible Greenwich Peninsula? This
surely must be a significant consideration when adequate transport
access is so high on the agenda of making the Dome a success.
Further, it just strikes me that NMEC must be looking for some
good news about the Dome (because of course there is always much
bad press floating around) and that an announcement about the
cable car going ahead could just do that.
2.6.12 It almost appears that within this,
hopefully balanced, canter through the issues that there is "simply
something missing", another perspective or issue that must
be at the heart of this project's apparent near failure. That
could, of course be a funding deficit or other financial guarantor
issue, although this has not been claimed in public, so far as
I am aware, and the promoters claim (as one might expect that
they might do) that this is not a problem and that they have never
needed any reliance on the public or NMEC purse. It must be the
job of this inquiry to get to the bottom of why there appears
to be a near failure to enable this worthy and imaginative proposal
to proceed. Further, it must remain the hope that the submission
of evidence to this Inquiry may not still be too late for investigationif
there is the political willinto enabling this project to
succeed. Deadlines are tight, and if there is to be any realistic
chance of salvaging this proposal before it goes down in history
as the marvellous Millennium proposal that only nearly happened,
then action is urgently required.
3. TICKETING
3.1 My input to the park-and-ride and cable
car proposals confirmed the view that whatever transportation
strategy is pursued, it has to be attractive through the ticketing
process in terms of price, ease of booking and offering a complete
package of travel with visitor entry. There particularly needs
to be travel incentive packages for those far out from London
to encourage people to accept that the Dome is not just a London
attraction. The next group who will need encouragement to travel
on public transport are families, and again, discounted group
tickets need to be available.
3.2 Concessions, group discounts, repeat
visits etc. should all form the backbone of a flexible and attractive
ticketing policy. The ticketing process needs to be used, as well
as major publicity campaigns, to remind people that they will
not be able to bring cars close to the Dome, and moreover that
if they are intending to drive part way, they are strongly advised
to book an advance park-and-ride space as well. The sale of integrated
travel and entry tickets must be available at all if not the vast
majority of ticket outlet points.
4. THE DOME
FRINGE
4.1 It is important that we get the rest
of the Greenwich Peninsula right, in addition to the Dome, if
the real legacy of sustainable regeneration is to be achieved.
The Greenwich Dome underground station (which I have visited)
is, indeed, worthy of a visit, and added to thatin due
coursecould be the first phase of the Millennium Urban
Village and the convention breaking Sainsbury's store. In talking
about the Dome being a showcase of British excellence in so many
ways, it is important that the areas around the Dome can similarly
be "shown off". Provision does need to be made for casual
visitors, from the opening of the underground station onwards,
and good signage and educational/interpretative boards are critical
to this.
5. THE DOME
AFTER 2000
5.1 This is a critical issue in the minds
of the British public. There is a strong case to be made that
the wider regeneration of the area, with the Dome as a long term
centrepiece within it, would have been the right way to have approached
the redevelopment at Greenwich Peninsula, rather than as is happening
with the Dome itself actually driving everything else forward,
arguably at the expense of options for the long term. How great
it would have been to have left a wonderful legacy building for
the future, whose use and purpose was assured and which was central
to driving the process forward, with an interim use for housing
the Millennium celebration.
5.2 People will feel that the Dome project
has been a terrible extravagance of spending if there is no long
term use identified and implemented upon cessation of the celebrations.
Britain has been through this loop before with the programme of
five National Garden Festivals held every two years throughout
the UK between 1984 and 1992 and from where I gained direct experience
working closely on the 1986 Festival project for Stoke on Trent
City Council. A large number of parallels can be drawn here; the
primary aim in these cases was for the reclamation of a large
area for which traditional reclamation programmes were not likely
to prove appropriate, with the holding (in these cases) of six
month Festivals aimed at visitors throughout the country with
importance, also, placed on the long term economic redevelopment
of the sites. If parallels are to be drawn, these projects also
usually entailed an over emphasis in their preparation of the
shorter term temporary use, sometimes to the detriment of the
real long term planning.
5.3 Arguably, though, the Festival projects
that have since been analysed in terms of value for money and
achieving the longer term developmental objectives (such as at
Stoke on Trent) rather than the opening International Garden Festival
in Liverpool in 1984 where promises of turning a considerably
smaller dome structure into a sports and leisure facility for
the local community failed to be achieved and led to raised expectations
only to turn to accusations of mismanagement and misuse of resources.
5.4 The lesson to be learnt from this is
the importance of the long term. It seems inconceivable that there
cannot be a viable and appropriate use for what will be a splendid
new structure, on the riverside, with a dedicated tube station
and the hopefully, proven track record as a major, successful
visitor draw. Large space-users such as exhibition or sports use
seem the obvious candidates for the Dome. It would simply be deeply
disappointing if a real use, and user, is not identified by very
early into 2001. There is also the issue of looking at a co-ordinated
approach. By this time we will have a London mayor and the agenda
for London based priority facilities will perhaps have emerged.
One aspect of potential overlap that needs careful review is the
provision of major international exhibition space; although being
promoted by a wholly separate and credible team, the question
of whether one site rather than the other better fulfils this
need in London needs to be raised.
5.5 This could, and should, reinforce the
case for long term access to the Greenwich Peninsula, including
the cable car. It could just well be that a cable car crossing
at this point could have an enormously important role as a visitor
and even business/commuter link at this point, if a suitable long
term use for the Dome, of which it is so worthy, is found
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 That an urgent review is taken of the
background to decision making regarding the lack of support for
the proposed cable car, and that if the business, funding and
ridership cases are there, that every attempt is made to salvage
the project.
Annex
Estimates of Meridian Cable Car Patronage
When the Millennium Dome opens to the Public
late in 1999 a number of ways of travelling to and from it will
be available. These range from the conventional methods such as
the Underground (Jubilee Line) to buses and the more unusual such
as Riverbus and perhaps most unusually, at least for London, a
Cable Car crossing the Thames. The so-called Meridian Skyway will
link the East India Dock station of DLR with the Millennium Dome.
The crossing will take less than four minutes and will be capable
of conveying 2,500 people per hour in each direction. The average
return ticket price for an adult will be approximately £3.50.
It is expected that passengers using the Skyway will fall into
three main categories. Firstly, those travelling in transit via
DLR to the Dome or other activities in North Greenwich and completing
their journeys on the Skyway. Secondly, visitors to Docklands
will wish to sample this unique form of transport for its own
sake and obtain the magnificent aerial views of the area. They
will undertake a round trip from East India Dock to the Dome station,
with or without alighting and then return. Thirdly, people visiting
the Millennium Experience who undertake a round trip from the
Dome station to East India Dock, with or without alighting and
then return. These have become known as Transit, Round Trip from
DLR, and Round Trip from the Dome.
There has been some debate recently about the
likely patronage that the Skyway will have and a number of studies
have quoted firm estimates of patronage. These estimates must
be suspect unless they state the assumptions on which those estimates
have been made. Presented here are two independent views of likely
patronage should the Skyway be built.
The first view is that of DRML, the operators
of the Docklands Light Railway. DRML believe that 10 per cent
of the visitors to the Dome will travel via DLR and the Skyway.
They see this figure as strongly dependent on marketing and joint
ticketing arrangements with other transport operators. This same
approach has seen patronage on the DLR increase ahead of original
pre-franchise expectations. DRML also expect that up to 10 per
cent of its passengers will go for a round trip from DLR. This
is based on their experience on the leisure use of DLR over the
last few years and is strongly dependent on the amount and type
of marketing undertaken. They also see DLR and the Skyway as a
way of diversifying transport to and from the Dome, particularly
the cross river element. DLR knows only too well the problems
of early unreliability in new railways such as the JLE and the
Skyway would have the capacity to carry 15 per cent of the Dome
visitors in such eventualities.
The second view is that of Colin Buchanan &
Partners. CBP have been producing transport studies and projections
for a number of clients over the years. Recently they have been
the major transport consultant advising the NMEC. Their patronage
estimates like all such estimates are heavily dependent on pricing
and passenger's perception of the benefits of the mode of transport
concerned. CBP estimate that for the transit element of the Skyway
patronage could be at a level somewhere between 4 per cent and
12 per cent of visitors to the Dome, dependent on the pricing
policy, amount and effectiveness of the marketing and the level
of public interest in the Skyway. In other words a marketing-led
organisation would be able, to a degree, to control the level
of patronage through advertising and pricing. Estimates of the
number of round trips from the Dome will also be highly dependent
on how it is promoted. CBP are in broad agreement with the assumption
of 20 per cent or more visitors to the Dome taking the round trip
experience if they had the option.
November 1998
|