House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report

II. THE TRANSPORT NETWORK

5. When North Greenwich was chosen as the site for the Millennium Exhibition, it did not have a fully developed public transport network capable of delivering large numbers of people to the site in comfort.[9] During our scrutiny of the project, we have persistently sought to highlight both that such a network is an essential prerequisite for the success of the project and that much risk and uncertainty surrounded the development of such a network.[10] These observations apply above all to the extended Jubilee Line, which is expected to be used by up to half of all those travelling to the Millennium Experience.[11]

The Jubilee Line Extension

6. Mr Keith Hill told us that "I sometimes begin to fear, even in my brief tenure of office, that when I die the word 'slippage' will be found inscribed on my heart".[12] We can understand and sympathise with Mr Hill's sentiment. We will not rehearse in detail the persistent failure of London Underground to meet timetables for completion of the Jubilee Line Extension outlined with confidence in evidence to this Committee nor dwell upon the corrosive effect delays have had on the credibility of that organisation in our eyes.[13] What matters to us now is whether the Line will be fully operational in advance of and for the duration of the Millennium Experience.

7. Since London Underground abandoned its plans for a single opening for the Line and established a less ambitious timetable for phased opening, the first two phases—from Stratford to North Greenwich and then from Stratford to Waterloo—have become operational broadly in line with this revised and belated timetable.[14] When he gave evidence on 20 October, Mr Denis Tunnicliffe, Chief Executive of London Transport, expected the line to open from end to end "in the early part of November".[15]

8. Mr Tunnicliffe admitted that there was much to be done before a full service was in place. The signalling system had to be made more robust.[16] A limited weekday service had to become a full, daily service.[17] The productivity of the workforce had not matched expectations. Nevertheless, Mr Tunnicliffe said he had "high confidence" that the line would be fully operational from end to end by early November. This was partly because little remained to be achieved compared with what had already been achieved.[18] Mr Hill very much hoped to see through running from Stanmore to Stratford "within the very near future" and had "total confidence" that the Jubilee Line would be fully operational by the New Year.[19]

9. Mr Tunnifcliffe admitted that two stations would initially be excluded from the through service. Trains were not yet stopping at Southwark, but he was "reasonably confident" that this station would open in the first half of November.[20] He was less confident about the other station subject to delay, Westminster. A target had been set to open Westminster station by the end of November, but the target might not be achieved.[21] Mr Hill expected Westminster station to be open, if not by the end of the year, then "very soon afterwards".[22] He also thought that it would not be "the end of the world if Westminster is not open at the New Year".[23] Mr Hill has been appointed only recently and therefore bears no responsibility for delays. Nevertheless, it is important to note the contrast between this rather languid approach and the confident statement of London Transport to our inquiry in the Summer of 1998 that the extension would be open from Stanmore to Stratford by the Spring of 1999.[24]

10. Even if the Jubilee Line is finally open from end to end in time to serve visitors to the Millennium Dome, it is essential that adequate contingency plans in the event of subsequent failure of the line or closure of stations are in place, a matter which caused us concern at the time of our previous inquiry.[25] We have been assured that detailed contingency planning is under way, and that these plans will be rigorously tested to ensure operational readiness. We were told that contingency planning is "on schedule".[26] Mr Richard Smith, Director of Transport Strategy at London Transport, nevertheless acknowledged that implementation of contingency plans would involve "extended delays" for travellers. He also stated that further contingency planning was required for days when the Dome was open in the evening.[27]

11. Mr Hill told us that "there are already very firm plans for the most careful retrospective analysis of what went wrong on this scheme [the Jubilee Line Extension] which will be undertaken by experts so that we do learn the lessons for the future, hopefully".[28] It is not for this Committee to examine the apparent failures in the management of the project, the escalating budget, the constantly shifting timetable, but such examination should take place. Our concern is limited to the service provided to visitors to the Dome. It now, at last and belatedly, seems more likely than not that a reasonable and reasonably reliable service may be available. We are concerned at the possibility of further delays in the opening of Westminster station, both because it provides an interchange with the District and Circle lines and because it links directly two highly frequented tourist venues. We expect Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to remain exceptionally vigilant to ensure that there is no further delay in the opening of Westminster station on the Jubilee Line, that the service on the Line remains reliable and that contingency plans are thorough and thoroughly tested.

The river passenger service

12. One of the merits of the Millennium Dome project is the stimulus which it has provided to other developments which should be of lasting benefit, including the revival of a river passenger service (as distinct from excursions) on the Thames. We noted in our previous Report that licences for the services had been awarded and we have learnt since then that the operators are on schedule for delivery of their required vessels.[29] However, we were concerned to learn that the target for completion of the pier at Blackfriars has slipped from the end of November to the end of December.[30] The new pier at Waterloo is also due to be completed in December, although the existing Festival Pier can be used if there is any unforeseen delay.[31] From the beginning, it has been clear that the river passenger service would be a premium service, with higher charges reflecting its running costs and the additional attractions of a journey along the Thames.[32] This was confirmed by the prices cited in evidence: an adult return fare from Waterloo/Blackfriars to the Dome of £8.40 and a child return fare of £5.20.[33] It is vital for the long-term development of river passenger services on the Thames that the services during the Millennium year are a success. It is in turn important that river passenger services are available from the beginning of the year 2000.

Bus services

13. Several of the bus services developed or extended to serve the Millennium Dome are now operating. These include the 188 bus service between North Greenwich and Russell Square. The direct service to the Dome from central London was persistently advocated by this Committee and was for a long time stubbornly resisted by London Transport. We have been informed privately by a senior source that this service was introduced specifically in response to our pressure.[34] The first Millennium transit service, from Charlton Station to the Dome, is due to start in early December, and the second such service, from Greenwich Station to the Dome, will commence on 1 January 2000.[35] London Transport told us that the buses for the transit were being delivered and that stopping facilities were being developed "so all of those services will be in place" by 1 January 2000.[36]

The park-and-ride scheme

14. For many travellers to the Dome, the car will be the most convenient and economic form of transport. NMEC is developing five park-and-ride sites in an effort to ensure that visitors by car use public transport for the final leg of their journey to the Dome: the sites are Stratford, Wembley, Sandown Park, the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, and Swanley. All are on target to be fully operational by 1 January 2000.[37] Here again this is a facility that the Committee was the first to advocate.[38] The capacity of these car parks is greater than the 3,200 spaces which NMEC estimate will be required, and was characterised as "generous" by Mr Hill.[39] The Government was also confident that the siting of the car parks would meet our earlier concerns about provision for those visitors approaching from outside London via the M25.[40]

15. We noted in our last Report that NMEC had decided not to arrange a park-and-sail scheme from the Royal Arsenal site, believing that it could not justify the cost of developing a pier and that a boat service would supplement rather than replace a shuttle bus service.[41] Greenwich Council is now independently endeavouring to secure a pier at the Royal Arsenal.[42] Mr Hill expressed Government willingness to look carefully at these efforts.[43] We wish Greenwich Council every success in its efforts to develop a park-and-sail facility at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich. If such a service cannot be established for the beginning of the year 2000, we recommend that the Government gives careful consideration to the development of such a service in assessing plans for the use of and transport to the Dome after the year 2000.

"Informal park-and-ride"

16. The official park-and-ride sites will be available principally to visitors who book spaces in advance.[44] The advice to ticket-holders who have not made such arrangements is not to travel by car.[45] However, the Government recognises that some people will ignore such advice. Mr Hill thought that "there will be a fairly large degree of informal park-and-ride ... and perhaps one in five of visitors will do that".[46] Many will park at or near railway stations or Underground stations; London Transport thought that there would be some capacity at Underground stations, although some stations might be "under severe pressure".[47] It is almost certain, however, that many visitors will seek to park close to the Dome.[48]

17. A controlled parking zone is being established to deter illegal parking near the Dome. However, we were concerned in our previous inquiry about proposals by NMEC to permit private car drivers to drive close to the Dome and allow passengers to alight before driving on, a practice vulgarly termed "kiss and drop".[49] Throughout our consideration of these issues, we have been concerned at the stubbornness, perhaps verging on complacency, of NMEC with regard to access by private car to the Dome. We do not believe that NMEC has taken sufficiently into account the wish of drivers to take cars as near as possible to their destination, even if that destination is designated as a car-free zone. We continue to believe that problems may arise that will have to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis rather than planned for in advance.

18. Following our previous Report, NMEC and the other parties involved have agreed to prohibit "kiss and drop". Greenwich Council has promoted an order to prohibit the passage of vehicles on to the site unless they are of a prescribed type or display a valid permit. Vehicles that will be allowed access include buses, coaches, goods vehicles, taxis, authorised orange badge-holders and mini-cabs issued with an appropriate permit.[50]

19. In principle, this order—if enforceable and enforced—would represent an important step forward, but we were concerned at uncertainties about its operation in practice. Our concerns are not allayed by the serious discrepancy between the position as set out by Mr Hill and that set out by Ms Page; they must get their act together. Most of the vehicles with permitted access can be readily identified, but this is not necessarily the case with mini-cabs. Nevertheless, Mr Hill stated that "we shall have to look for firm evidence of identity and status and that will actually require the operator to supply the mini-cab driver with some very clear evidence—it cannot just be the aerial—that they are bona fide mini-cab operators ... There will have to be the clearest indication of the genuine status of the mini-cab driver before they are allowed onto the site."[51] Ms Jennie Page, Chief Executive of NMEC, gave a very different account of the operation of these rules. She stated:

"It is ... impossible for us to rely on any material information within the car of a mini-cab to demonstrate whether or not this is a locally registered mini-cab driver ... It would be invidious if somebody chose to come via a mini-cab which they had picked up locally ... which just happened to not be a mini-cab firm that we knew, for them to be denied entry to the Dome."[52]

20. Ms Page did not believe that the identification of mini-cabs would be "a very large problem".[53] We remain to be convinced about such a sanguine assessment. If it were to become known that it was possible for drivers to masquerade as mini-cab drivers and then be permitted to drop off visitors at the Dome, the car-free strategy would be undermined. We recommend that NMEC, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Greenwich Council and the Metropolitan Police hold discussions as a matter of urgency to determine methods of identifying bona fide mini-cabs at the Dome. We recommend that, even at this late stage, NMEC seek advice from other venues that have imposed a car-free régime.

9 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 34. Back

10 Ibid, paras 34-46; HC (1997-98) 818-I, paras 22-31; HC (1998-99) 21-I, paras 3-31. Back

11 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 35. Back

12 Q 53. Back

13 HC (1997-98) 340-I, para 36; HC (1997-98) 818-I, para 25. Back

14 HC (1998-99) 21-I, para 5; Back to the Dome: Government Response to the Third Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 1998-99, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, June 1999, Cm 4360, para 2; Evidence, pp 1, 10. Back

15 Q 1. Back

16 Q 1. Back

17 Evidence, p 1. Back

18 QQ 3-4, 11. Back

19 Q 65. Back

20 QQ 1, 11. Back