Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. The
aim of this inquiry was to identify at an early stage emerging
problems and areas of concern in Olympic transport planning. It
is relatively early in the process of preparing for London's Games,
and we did not therefore expect to find final delivery structures
in place and fully operational. We did however wish to satisfy
ourselves that planning for the Games was as far advanced as possible.
What we have found is set out in detail in the following paragraphs.
(Paragraph 2)
Management and funding
2. It
is obvious that without excellent transport the Olympic and Paralympic
Games will be at risk of failure. London's reputation as a leading
world city will depend largely upon its ability to ensure that
appropriate transport infrastructure is in place for the Olympic
and Paralympic Games by 2012. The Government and the Mayor of
London are the ultimate guarantors of the Games, including essential
transport improvements and provision. We expect them to see that
these are delivered to specification and to time. (Paragraph 24)
3. The Olympic transport
budget will be a matter for the Olympic Delivery Authority and
the successors of Interim Olympic Transport. We expect then to
implement excellent financial planning systems and to ensure sound
stewardship of public money. This does not however absolve the
Government from responsibility for overseeing carefully the financial
health of the Olympic transport budget in the coming years. We
expect it to be fully alert to problems and to step in quickly
where difficulties arise. (Paragraph 40)
Planning for Olympic Transport
4. Transport
planning for London's Olympics appears relatively well advanced.
We congratulate Interim Olympic Transport and LOCOG for this achievement.
But there must be no slackening in pace if progress is to be maintained.
(Paragraph 42)
5. World class transport
planners for the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising
Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) must be appointed transparently
and without delay. The organisational structures created within
these bodies need to be focussed appropriately on the task of
completing transport arrangements for the Olympic and Paralymic
Games efficiently and effectively. We wish to be assured that
the recruitment of transport related staff in Interim Olympic
Transport and LOCOG is proceeding to plan. (Paragraph 43)
6. Transport arrangements
designed for members of the International Olympic Committee and
other members of the 'Olympic Family' must be flawless. (Paragraph
48)
7. Unless traffic
in London falls by 15 per cent during the Olympic Games the Olympic
Route Network will be congested and Olympic athletes and others
may be delayed. It is not clear to us how this reduction can be
guaranteed. Interim Olympic Transport needs to assure us that
their assumption of traffic decline in London during the summer
is rigorously worked out and realistic. (Paragraph 51)
8. Interim Olympic
Transport needs to come forward with a system of traffic prediction
that will allow the road systems in London to cope well with future
local traffic pressures and, most importantly in this context,
the influx of Olympic and Paralympic visitors. We would like to
be assured that Transport for London and Interim Olympic Transport
are drawing on the most sophisticated traffic control systems
available world-wide in making arrangements for traffic control
in 2012. (Paragraph 53)
9. we are concerned
that the road space available to the public as a result of catering
for the Olympic Route Network may be reduced substantially. It
will be vital that the disruption to public transport is minimised
(Paragraph 57)
10. One hundred kilometres
of public road will be reserved for transport for the Olympic
Family. We reiterate our concern that could constrain the travelling
public. We expect the Olympic planners to do everything possible
to ensure that the public is not inconvenienced. There appears
to be uncertainty about how the interaction between the dedicated
Olympic Route Network and bus lanes will work. In the absence
of clear demarcation there will be confusion. Interim Olympic
Transport needs to clarify this without delay. (Paragraph 59)
11. We are delighted
at the stress which has been laid by the organisers of the London
2012 Olympics on public transport from the outset. We now expect
to see a detailed and workable plan created for co-ordinating
the different transport modes in a way that serves the many thousands
of visitors, and the local population, efficiently and effectively.
(Paragraph 62)
12. Too many UK railway
and Underground stations are dirty and unpleasant. As a major
'gateway' to the Olympic Park, we expect Stratford Regional station
- and all stations serving Olympic spectators - to be operated
to the highest degree of efficiency possible, and for the quality
of decoration, cleanliness and levels of staff assistance and
security to be uniformly excellent. We would like an assurance
from LOCOG and Interim Olympic Transport that this will be the
case. (Paragraph 64)
13. According to Interim
Olympic Transport, LOCOG, and the Mayor of London the 'Javelin'
train will accommodate 25,000 passengers per hour, but the Association
of Train Operating Companies' evidence suggests a figure of 12-14,000.
This discrepancy must be resolved quickly. (Paragraph 69)
14. We accept that
there may be rare occasions on which a 'Javelin' shuttle train
will need to carry standing passengers. But we wish to be assured
by ATOC and Interim Olympic Transport that this will be the exception,
not the rule. (Paragraph 70)
15. We are concerned
that the capacity at Stratford International station could be
severely stretched, and that there may be the potential for dangerous
platform overcrowding. We expect this point to be checked very
thoroughly, and for the Government and Interim Olympic Transport
to provide complete reassurance that there will be sufficient
exits from the platform to ensure swift and safe transit for Olympic
and other passengers. (Paragraph 71)
16. It has been estimated
that each 'Javelin' shuttle train could stand at the station for
between three and five minutes while passengers alight and board.
It is possible, therefore, that the actual journey time could
be longer that the seven minutes estimated and the hourly frequency
lower than anticipated. We would like Interim Olympic Transport
to check carefully and tell us the length of time trains will
stand at the stations and whether this will have an adverse affect
on the anticipated frequency of the 'Javelin' shuttle. (Paragraph
73)
17. The Government
must assure us that the tests planned for the Hitachi trains will
be sufficiently robust to guarantee their operational effectiveness
by 2012. (Paragraph 74)
18. The large numbers
of pedestrians who are expected to transit Stratford International
and Regional stations must be able to move smoothly and safely
into the Olympic Park. We expect there to be close liaison between
Interim Olympic Transport and the Stratford City developers to
ensure that these routes will be adequate to accommodate the large
numbers of pedestrians predicted for the Games, as well as being
adaptable for the legacy environment. We would like to be assured
by the Government that planning is in place to cover these points.
(Paragraph 76)
19. There will be
increased pedestrian activity during the Games. We recommend that
all Olympic transport plans and developments take as full account
as possible of the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. It will
also be essential that well-designed pedestrian routes, and good
information and signage is put in place to ensure the safety and
comfort of pedestrians and cyclists. (Paragraph 81)
20. We expect those
responsible for Olympic transport to be alive both to the sensitive
natural environment in London and other Olympic locations, and
to the wellbeing of participants and local residents, when designing
access arrangements for the various Olympic venues. Interim Olympic
Transport should tell us how this will be achieved. (Paragraph
82)
21. We have evidence
that transport links to ExCel, an important Olympic venue, are
under considerable pressure now. Interim Olympic Transport needs
to examine and tell us whether the capacity of the Dockland Light
Railway is sufficient to accommodate the predicted passenger flows
at ExCel during the Games and, if not, to come forward with proposals
for additional transport. (Paragraph 84)
22. We expect the
Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) and Interim Olympic
Transport to produce an integrated event and rail travel ticketing
system for the Olympic and Paralympic Games as a priority, and
to set out a timetable for implementation. ATOC and the Olympic
transport planners need to rise to this important challenge. (Paragraph
89)
23. Estimates for
numbers of spectators attending sailing events at Weymouth and
Portland vary between 5,000 and 15,000. This uncertainty needs
to be resolved quickly to allow adequate transport provision to
and from the sailing venues to be made in time. We expect Interim
Olympic Transport to resolve the numbers in cooperation with Dorset
County Council without delay. This is a busy holiday area in August
and local transport infrastructure is likely to be under pressure
in any case. (Paragraph 93)
24. Arrangements for
spectators to watch sailing events afloat and in safety appear
not to have been made. These now need to be planned in conjunction
with Dorset County Council. (Paragraph 95)
25. The proposed Weymouth
Relief Road, cited by Dorset County Council as necessary for Olympic
transport, did not however feature in the London Olympic Candidature
file. This uncertainty must be resolved, and we look to the Department
to take the lead in doing so. (Paragraph 97)
26. The 2012 Games
are London's Games. But not all activities will take place in
London. Where this is so, it is vital that the Olympics transport
planners, the relevant local authorities, and the Government act
effectively in concert to ensure that suitable transport provisions
are made. The Government needs to assure us that appropriate structures
are in place to achieve this. (Paragraph 98)
27. The Disability
Rights Commission (DRC) told us that "the 2012 Olympics provide
an historic opportunity to dismantle major transport barriers
to disabled people's participation" in life in London and
beyond." We agree wholeheartedly. (Paragraph 99)
28. Full consideration
must be given to those with disabilities in all aspects of planning
for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including transport. We
expect the Government to give consideration now to the appointment
of a member of the Olympic Delivery Authority Board who is a "disabled
person who has a representative mandate to speak for a full range
of disabled people", as suggested by the Disabled Persons'
Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). (Paragraph 103)
29. We welcome the
intention of Transport for London (TfL) to invest in audio-visual
announcements on the buses in London by 2009 in good time for
the Games. There must be no slippage in this timetable. Audio-visual
announcements will assist not only people with disabilities but
also strangers to London. (Paragraph 106)
30. Outside London
only 30 per cent of the national bus fleet is even wheelchair
accessible and audio visual aids are rare. Olympic organisers
must ensure that all the buses serving Olympic venues outside
London are wheelchair accessible at least. Buses used for Olympic
venues however should not be provided by removing them from normal
routes to the disadvantage of local residents, but should be provided
additionally to the normal complement. (Paragraph 107)
31. Audible and visual
information systems are not mandatory under the current Public
Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR). Where buses
to Olympic venues outside London meet the PSVAR this will be on
a voluntary basis. This is unacceptable in the 21st century. The
Government must amend the PSVAR to require the provision of audio-visual
announcement on buses. (Paragraph 108)
32. Glasgow has put
in a bid for the Commonwealth Games in 2014, and there are plans
to bid for a Deaf Olympics in London in 2013. Improvements in
accessible transport outside London will increase the opportunities
there to host international sporting events. We look to the Government
to lay the groundwork for disabled access to future major sporting
events throughout the UK. (Paragraph 109)
33. Consultation on
the part of the interim Olympic Transport Authority with the Disabled
Persons' Travel Advisory Committee (DPTAC) will be needed at an
early stage to determine the design of the pedestrian routes from
transport hubs to the Olympic Park to enable these to be fully
accessible. (Paragraph 110)
34. We commented earlier
on the need to ensure proper pedestrian access to Games venues.
DPTAC must be involved in this work. (Paragraph 110)
35. DPTAC knows what
works for people with disabilities and must be consulted on the
design of the Games Mobility Service. Mr Betteridge of DPTAC said
"we are sitting on lots of information which could be being
used right now but we are not being asked for it." This is
nonsensical. We expect the Government and the Olympic transport
organisers to start listening to DPTAC now. (Paragraph 112)
36. Manufacturers
must ensure that the size of all wheelchairs are suitable for
transport by train. The design of trains need to take account
of passengers using wheelchairs. Good co-operation between manufacturers
and train operating companies will be essential if this is to
be achieved. In its response to our predecessor committee's report
'Disabled People's Access to Transport: A year's worth of improvements?'
the Government indicated that it proposed in 2005 to commission
research into the "issues surrounding the carriage of scooters
by public transport…including rail". We would like the
Government to tell us the results of this research now. (Paragraph
115)
37. Regardless of
the actions of manufacturers the train operators must adopt a
common and fully transparent approach by 2012 to allowing electric
wheelchairs onto their services. We also wish to know what arrangements
are to be taken by the train operators to carry wheelchairs of
foreign manufacture which may not conform to UK standards. (Paragraph
116)
38. Our predecessor
committee noted last year the importance to people with disabilities
of consistency amongst train operators in permitting wheelchairs
on their rolling stock. The evidence we have received suggests
that this has yet to be achieved. We now want the Association
of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) and the train operating companies
to tell us when this will happen. (Paragraph 117)
39. New EU legislation,
requiring airport operators to provide a service at airports,
and during aircraft boarding for passengers with disabilities,
and requiring airlines to provide certain facilities for those
with disabilities whilst on board, will have been implemented
in the UK well before the 2012 Olympics. This is good news. The
Government needs to ensure that these provisions are applied promptly,
and to monitor carefully how the new legislation works in practice.
(Paragraph 122)
40. Our evidence from
organisations with disabilities is that "mainstreaming"
access provision for the sector on public transport is the policy
which should be adopted by the Olympic Games organisers. We expect
Interim Olympic Transport to take full account of this in its
transport planning. (Paragraph 124)
41. There is a potential
conflict between the present pattern of lorry deliveries in London,
which exclude night time deliveries, and the requirements of Olympic
transport, which may necessitate them. We expect the Mayor of
London and Interim Olympic Transport to consult widely about any
changes; and in coming to a decision to weigh carefully the requirements
of the Games and those of local residents. (Paragraph 127)
42. The Government,
police, and security forces must spare no effort to ensure that
effective security is put in place for the Olympic sporting events,
wherever these take place in the UK. We are pleased that early
planning against terrorist and other threats to the security of
the Olympic and Paralympic Games is underway. But there is no
room for complacency. The security of the Games will be complex
and the agencies involved need to communicate well in order to
operate effectively. (Paragraph 131)
43. We were given
evidence of poor liaison between the Olympic bid team, the Metropolitan
Police, and the Department for Transport's Transport Security
and Contingencies Directorate on one occasion. We want an assurance
from the Government that there will be no repetition. We will
keep transport security for the Games under close watch. (Paragraph
133)
44. The Government
must guarantee that the security budget for the Games will be
sufficient to take all necessary measures to ensure the safety
of the spectators and participants. We expect the Government to
have drawn up a detailed security budget for the Games by the
end of 2006. (Paragraph 134)
Related transport schemes
45. The
solution to 'bridging' the distance between Stratford International
station and Stratford Regional station by the Docklands Light
Railway seems clumsy at best; at worst it may be ineffective.
A rail link seems to us most unlikely to have been what was originally
envisaged when the Secretary of State placed a condition for a
mechanised link in the Transport and Works Order covering Stratford
International station. We want the Government to examine this
issue again and to arrive at an imaginative and practical solution.
(Paragraph 145)
46. The announcement
on 8 February 2006, after we had finished taking evidence, of
the Government's decision at a cost of £63.5 million to fit
out the new Thameslink station for operational use by the end
of 2007 was welcome. Our view had been that completing the new
station would be essential to the success of Olympic transport,
and we pressed the Minister on this when she gave evidence to
us. This decision will help ensure a safe, comfortable and speedy
transit for passengers going to the main Olympic Park at Stratford
in east London. Writing to us the Secretary of State agreed "As
well as improving the interchange at King's Cross St Pancras,
the new station will provide better access for passengers who
use the Olympic Javelin service on the CTLR from St Pancras to
Stratford during the 2012 Olympic Games." We are pleased
that the Government was persuaded. (Paragraph 149)
47. Evidence from
Transport for London (TfL) was that the Jubilee Line capacity
increase would be "45%". Tube Lines - responsible for
delivering the increase under the London Underground Public Private
Partnership contract - told us this would be "over 40%".
We require complete clarity on what additional capacity is planned.
TfL and Tube Lines now need to confirm to us the agreed figure
for Jubilee Line capacity increases. (Paragraph 152)
48. Tube Lines and
London Underground should guarantee that the improved signalling
on the Jubilee Line planned for 2010, and on the Northern Line
for 2011, will be fully operational in time for the Olympic Games
in 2012. (Paragraph 156)
49. If the construction
of Crossrail proceeds in the run up to the Olympic Games, the
Government must ensure that there are no adverse financial and
construction implications for the successful completion of planned
Olympic transport works. (Paragraph 160)
Olympic 'legacy', construction and materials,
railway lands
50. The
Thames Gateway offers an opportunity for the Government to reap
a double benefit from the expenditure of taxpayers' money on London's
2012 Olympic Games: once for the Games, and once for the Gateway.
The Government should explain how this will be achieved. (Paragraph
165)
51. The key participants
in the Olympic and Thames Gateway projects, the 2012 Olympic Games
organisers, the Government, and the local authorities, must not
let the opportunity slip of ensuring that the significance for
both projects of each infrastructure decision in the Olympic Transport
Plan is weighed carefully. This offers an opportunity for those
responsible for both projects to demonstrate good governance and
management. We expect the Government to ensure that the appropriate
level of cooperation takes place. (Paragraph 169)
52. We look to the
Government to ensure that transport schemes integral to the Thames
Gateway are not diminished in the run up to the 2012 Games, and
that the integrity of transport planning for the Games is guarded
carefully. (Paragraph 173)
53. We are pleased
to note that the Government seems to be fully alive to the importance
of attracting those with appropriate skills to work on the Olympic
project. Not all jobs will be able to be filled by those presently
skilled. There will be a training agency within the Olympic Development
Authority. This is the right approach. The agency must be set
up at the earliest opportunity and must cast its net throughout
the UK. We wish to know when it will be operational. (Paragraph
177)
54. Addressing London's
transport inadequacies should be taken fully into account wherever
possible in devising transport solutions for the 2012 Games. The
Government and the Mayor of London must demonstrate real leadership
by taking a positive view when considering how imaginative planning,
or relatively small amounts of additional resources to agreed
projects, could provide wider local benefits. This is no time
for narrow thinking or 'penny pinching'. (Paragraph 182)
55. Many people in
east London have no access to Stratford by rail. For people in
these areas the sole transport access to jobs in the Olympic Park
is currently by bus. When we return to consider the Olympic Transport
Plan in future we expect to find that the Lea Bridge station has
been reinstated. Meanwhile, Transport for London must review its
bus routes from Stratford to ensure that people in all parts of
London which are poorly served by rail have access by bus to jobs
on the Olympic project. (Paragraph 183)
56. Given the willingness
of all parties to the principle of using the rivers where possible
for transport construction material, the Government needs to ensure
that London's water links are closely examined and used wherever
it is sensible to do so. (Paragraph 192)
57. By laying stress
on river and canal transport, and providing proportionately modest
extra funding where this is required, the Government will realise
benefits to London, the Thames Gateway, and the Olympic project.
We invite it to explain how it will rise to this challenge. (Paragraph
193)
58. Rail must be used
for the transport of construction materials for Olympic sites
wherever it has the capacity to do so, especially where the alternative
is transport by road. Possible constraints on the use of rail
mean that it is all the more important that the potential in London
offered by river and canal for barge transport of construction
materials should be tapped fully. We expect the plans of the interim
Olympic Development Authority (ODA) to reflect an imaginative
and sensitive approach to the movements of construction material
for the Games. The Government and the interim ODA should tell
us how this will be achieved. (Paragraph 198)
59. The Government
should have anticipated that public land passed by it to the developers
at Stratford might have been required in future for the Olympic
Games. While the lands were passed to London and Continental Railways
in 1996, London's intention to bid for the Games is also of long
standing. If the Government had inserted appropriate reversion
clauses into the agreements on this land, then there would have
been no question of paying the developers to acquire land formally
in public ownership, as has happened in this case. We are very
disappointed that the Government has demonstrated so little acumen
and foresight. (Paragraph 203)
60. Similar transactions
are likely in future. The design requirements for the Olympics
Park will require to cater for unusually large flows of people,
while the Stratford City developers' requirements will be focussed
upon the needs of the local population and leisure visitors. These
requirements are distinct. We are concerned that London &
Continental Railways and its partners are in a strong bargaining
position vis-à-vis the Olympic Development Authority to
extract further compensation for construction tailored to the
requirements of the Olympics. We expect the Government and public
authorities concerned to take a close interest in all such transactions,
and to ensure the proper stewardship of public money. (Paragraph
204)
Conclusions
61. The
2012 Olympic Games will be good for London. The hard work must
now start to ensure that transport for the Games is fully adequate
for competitors, officials and visitors. Transport is the key
to a successful Olympic Games. It cannot be allowed to fail. (Paragraph
205)
62. It is early days
in organising for the Games. The relevant legislation remains
to be finally enacted in Parliament. The main Olympic organisations,
including the Olympic Transport Authority, are yet to be set up
or are running in 'shadow' form. Key appointments are pending.
(Paragraph 206)
63. Although good
work on transport planning has been completed, the range of activities
required to flesh out the provisional Olympic Transport Plan,
and to ensure the necessary Olympic transport links are completed
on time, is extremely extensive. We have detected relatively little
sense of 'pace' in the Olympic project as yet. Our impression
is that the Olympic organisations have yet to gel with the wide
range of organisations in the public and private sectors so that
the Olympic project can conclude successfully in 2012. This will
need to happen quickly. (Paragraph 207)
64. Meanwhile, we
have identified above a range of specific and frequently highly
complex problems which will require to be addressed by those responsible
for Olympic transport infrastructure and services in order to
ensure a successful Games. When we return to this subject we expect
to find that these are being tackled successfully. (Paragraph
208)
65. Hosting the Olympic
and Paralympic Games in 2012 will leave a lasting legacy in London
and elsewhere. We need to ensure that this legacy is a positive
one. It was not within our remit to quantify the likely economic
affect of London's 2012 Games on the UK as a whole. We support
the Games. But we are clear that Olympic transport must not be
bought at the expense of important transport projects elsewhere
in the country. The Government must ensure that there is no reduction
in transport budgets for projects outside the South East and that
the benefits of the Games are enjoyed throughout the UK as widely
as possible. (Paragraph 209)
66. The Games offer
an unparalleled opportunity to make public transport more accessible
both in London and elsewhere for the longer term. This opportunity
must not be missed. The Olympic authorities, and especially the
Government, must also look beyond the Games to the legacy needs
of London's transport. The specific focus on Olympic delivery
must be properly coordinated with the development of other transport
projects needed in the Thames Gateway area. (Paragraph 210)
67. Travelling into
London must become a pleasant experience if the Olympics are to
succeed. This will be an uphill task. We look forward to following
up this inquiry in the period to the opening of the XXX Olympiad
in London in 2012. (Paragraph 211)
| 
