|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to introduce similar obligations to those in Scotland on highway authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent ice or snow making roads unsafe in winter. 
Mr. Spellar: We are continuing to consider the legal position on the winter service provided by highway authorities in the light of the House of Lords judgment last year in the case of Goodes v. East Sussex. The judgment was that there was there was no duty on local highway authorities under the Highways Act 1980 to prevent ice from forming on highways.
Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council properties in London have rents above £100 per week; and how many he estimates will have target rents above £100 per week under the rent restructuring proposals. 
Ms Keeble: Information on the number of council properties in London which have rents of over £100 per week is not collected centrally. We are considering proposals for tackling the potential problems associated with properties which have very high target rents under the reforms.
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 32W
Ross Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the incentives he provides for people to live in town centres; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Keeble: Government planning policies (particularly PPGs 3 and 6) provide incentives by encouraging authorities to prepare town centre strategies, and to promote high quality, safe, attractive developments and places. Planning policies also encourage the provision of a wide range of housing types and sizes in urban areas, so as to meet the requirements of the whole community, including those in need of affordable housing.
PPG3 (Housing) gives priority to re-using previously developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites. This significantly increases the attractiveness of town centre locations to residential developers.
To support the redevelopment of vacant and under-used space over shops and other commercial premises, Budget 2001 introduced 100 per cent. capital allowances for owners and occupiers for the costs of creating flats in these locations for letting, enabling them to obtain up-front tax relief on their spending.
In addition to these national measures, there is plenty of locally targeted activity sponsored by English Partnerships and the regional development agencies. In the centre of Newcastle the city council, English Partnerships and the One North East Regional Development Agency have provided incentives through the "Living Over The Shops" project, supporting creation of new flats in upper floors of commercial buildings. The aim is to double the population of the Grainger Town area of the city centre by 2003. Yorkshire Forward is working with city of York council to redevelop land behind the city's railway station as 'York Central', a mixed use development creating jobs and nearly 3,000 new homes, to provide a new business district for the historic city.
Encouraging people to live in town centres is not just about housing, but also about the services and facilities they will find there. In Manchester city centre for instance the North West Development Agency has invested £1 million to enable the conversion of eight derelict railway arches into a vibrant leisure and retail development at Deansgate Locks.
The renaissance of city centres has taken on its own momentum. Again in Manchester, following the substantial investment by the Central Manchester Development Corporation and the North West Development Agency, new developments now take place without public subsidy, and market-led growth continues. Manchester's city centre population has grown from 300 in 1998 to an estimated 6,000 in 2000.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contingency plans are in place for the London Underground in the event that PPP is found not to be value for money. 
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 33W
Mr. Jamieson: The Government have consistently made clear the PPP arrangements for the modernisation of London Underground will only go ahead if they provide value for money and the safety arrangements are accepted by the Health and Safety Executive. If the modernisation plans were not to proceed, we would expect that London Underground would transfer to Transport for London in its current form.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the annual average excess waiting time for passengers buying a ticket at the 10 stations on the London Underground with the greatest excess waiting time in (a) each year since 1997 and (b) for each month of 2001. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU). LU monitors Ticket Purchase Time at ticket offices as part of the "Journey Time Metrics process". The excess time for ticket purchase is the queuing time experienced when purchasing a ticket at a ticket window. LU have provided the information, set out in the following table, for each full financial year since 199798.
|Year||Excess time (seconds)|
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 34W
lost passenger hours were incurred by each of the shadow infrastructure companies of the London Underground in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) each month of 2001. 
|Infraco||Lost customer hours (full year)|
BCV = Bakerloo, Central, Victoria and Waterloo and City lines.
JNP = Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines.
SSL = District, Metropolitan, East London, Hammersmith and City and Circle lines
(c) Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the (a) basic pay rate and (b) average annual earnings of London Underground (i) drivers and (ii) station staff in each year since 1991. 
|Year||Train Operator annual salary||Train Operator average annual earnings||Station Supervisor Annual salary||Station Supervisor average annual earnings||Station Assistant Annual salary||Station Assistant average annual earnings|
(7) @£19,250 made up of basic pay of £13,324 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(8) @£18,131 made up of basic pay of £11,879 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(9) @£10,214 made up of basic pay of £7,057 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(10) @£20,116 made up of basic pay of £13,924 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(11) @£18,948 made up of basic pay of £12,414 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(12) @£10,673 made up of basic pay of £7,374 + unsocial hours and Sundays
(13) Not available at this time.
1. Average annual earnings are not available for 199192 or 199293 because the systems to calculate these were introduced in 1993.
2. Train operators average earnings figure based on both train operators and instructor operators.
3. Station supervisor group includes four grades of staff.
4. The annual salary shown for station supervisors is the maximum contractual sum that could be earned.
5. Station assistant group includes two grades of staff.
6. The annual salary shown for station assistant staff is the maximum contractual salary for the lower ranking station assistant grade. The maximum contractual salary for the other grade is about £2,T00 a year more.
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 35W
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which London Underground stations where new escalators have been installed within the past 10 years, these escalators have had to be taken out of use because of defects where the resulting closure was for a period of longer than one week; and who the manufacturers concerned were. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 13 November 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU). LU does not hold the information requested in a readily available form, and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date re-signalling of the Central Line was completed; how many signal failures on the Central Line there were in each month since the re-signalling was completed; and which company did the work. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The majority of the re-signalling of the Central Line was completed in November 1998, but some features remain to be delivered. There are still two sites, Woodford and Ealing Broadway, where Automatic Train Operation (ATO) has to be fittedthis is planned for completion in December 2001. Automatic Train Regulation (ATR) is still to be fitted to the signalling control system and this is due by spring 2002.
|Year/month||Number of signal failures causing delay|
The work was carried out by Westinghouse Rail Systems of Chippenham, Wiltshire, (formerly Westinghouse Signals) a subsidiary company of Invensys
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 36W
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if any train sets in use on the (a) Central, (b) Jubilee and (c) Northern lines of the London Underground have, in any month during the period since they were purchased, failed to achieve their original contractual requirements in terms of mean distance between failure; and what the relevant contractual figures are. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Yes. Both Central and Jubilee Line trains have had months during the period since they were purchased where they failed to achieve the original contractual requirements in terms of mean distance between failure. The contractual figure for the Central Line is one failure attributable to the manufacturer every 25,000 kilometres. The comparable figure for Jubilee Line trains is 12,500 kilometres.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average annual mean distance between failure of trains on each line on the London Underground for (a) each year since 1996 and (b) each month of 2001. 
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what, for each line of London Underground, was the average number of failures of (a) points, (b) signals and (c) trains in each year since 1997; and what the targets for improvement for each line are in the first five years of the public-private partnership. 
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 37W
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 38W
|Service disruptions due to train failures:||199798||199899||19992000||200001|
|Jubilee and East London||1,239||2,376||1,722||1,709|
|Metropolitan and Circle (Circle and Hammersmith)||2,170||1,380||1,568||1,463|
|Metropolitan and Circle (main)||1,238||1,065||1,047||1,247|
The PPP contracts incentivise the infrastructure companies to minimise the number of failures from points, signal, trains and other assets. The companies will be paid more for better performance and be penalised for causing delays. The penalties relate to how many passengers are affected by any delay, and there is no ceiling on the level of the penalties. This level of penalty will provide very strong incentives to improve the reliability of the infrastructure.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the London Underground weighted annual (a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for (i) each year since the inception of these measures and (ii) each month of 2001. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 13 November 2001]: On (i) London Underground (LU) have provided the information in the table showing scheduled journey time and excess journey time collected as part of their "Journey Time Metrics" process for each full financial year since 199899. Annual data are not available before 199899.
|Scheduled journey time||35.56||35.58||35.58|
|Excess journey time||6.46||6.55||7.45|
|Total journey time||42.02||42.13||42.83|
(14) Full year
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what average annual percentage of peak hour trains ran on each line of the London Underground in (a) each year since 1996 and (b) each month of 2001. 
(a) London Underground have provided the information set out in the table showing the percentage of peak trains operating in each full financial year since 199697, taking account of all cancellations, including thosesuch as security alerts and passenger actionwhich are outside their control.
|Waterloo and City||95.3||99.6||97.7||99.3||97.3|
|Hammersmith and City||93.5||96.9||96.4||95.9||93.8|
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 39W
his Department has to increase the number of CCTV cameras in stations and train carriages on London Underground. 
Mr. Jamieson: Under the plans for a publicly run, privately built Tube, there will be improved CCTV in every station, monitoring exits, ticket halls, platforms, passageways. As trains are replaced or refurbished, CCTV will also be introduced in every train carriage.
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ask London Underground to install the moving block computerised system in order to replace current signalling systems. 
Mr. Jamieson: The Tube modernisation plans are based on infrastructure contracts for maintenance and renewal, which are output driven. As long as key improvements, such as shorter journey times and improved reliability, are made to London Underground's strict specifications, the method of achieving them will be a matter for the infrastructure companies. Moving block signalling is one possible option.
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many rolling stock failures have been reported on (a) the Jubilee Line and (b) the Northern Line in the past month. 
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains are run on (a) the Jubilee Line and (b) the Northern Line by London Underground. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|