Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


APPENDIX 10

Memorandum submitted by the Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom

  In response to the Transport Committee Press Notice inviting the submission of written memoranda on the delivery of an Olympic Transport Plan, ITS United Kingdom, is pleased to provide comment on the concerns raised by the Transport Committee on the provision of a transport system that is able to cope with the enormous challenge posed by the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

  The Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom, known as ITS United Kingdom, is a not for profit organisation dedicated to promoting the use of ITS technology in the UK and promoting UK technical expertise and systems overseas. Our membership consists of around 150 organisations working in the transport field to promote the use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), which employs modern developments of mobile Information Technology and communications technology to assist all modes of surface transport. We are fortunate in having membership from both public and private sectors and from academia. We are funded entirely from the subscriptions of our members and therefore can independently represent the interests of the whole membership spectrum in this rapidly developing field. A complete list of our Members is attached to this Response.

  In particular we would like to respond to the specific issues raised by the Transport Committee as follows:

"What level of funding will need to be directed at transport improvements? Will the Government's Spending Agreement with the Mayor provide adequate funding? What role will the private sector play in delivering this infrastructure? Will funding be diverted from other transport projects? "

  We are concerned that the level of funding required should not be under estimated for the delivery of a transport plan of this scale and complexity. If we look at general trends in the delivery of public sector Transport Plans, such as Local Transport Plans, we can find evidence of under estimation of the true costs of a Transport Plan or Scheme. Through experience gained capital costs are now less likely to be under estimated but revenue requirements to maintain the operation of systems and services in the short, medium and long term are frequently neglected.

  The Transport Committee should be aware that the delivery of the Olympic Transport Plan will inevitably involve working in partnership with the private sector. This relationship must be managed so that both commercial benefits and a holistic view of transport integration are considered and implemented. The Olympic Transport Plan needs to ensure that there is consistency over the next seven years so that there isn't a siphoning off to suit short-term gains and that provision is made for the years following the Olympic Games to ensure that the benefits of the plan to London are locked in and best value is delivered.

  ITS (UK) has an established structure of Interest Groups to help address these issues in a collaborative forum. It has representation from academia, consultants and the systems industry, from transport civil servants, and from the police as well as good links to national security groups. ITS (UK) can act as an "honest broker" on these issues and advise on future transportation requirements and benefits may well prove highly beneficial to all parties in the short, medium and long-term.

"How will the transport projects needed for the Games fit into an integrated and long-term transport plan for London? Will the transport legacy be appropriate to the needs of east London in the next two to three decades? "

  Any transport project needs to embrace what will benefit London. Whilst this will affect TfL's view it should not concentrate on their requirements exclusively as there are broader transport issues that will affect and influence transport infrastructures surrounding Greater London, and indeed beyond, up to and including air travel to London.

  Likely future travel needs of residents and workers in east London must be researched and taken into account when designing transport projects for the Games; not just the movements of athletes and spectators over the short period of the actual Games.

  In the longer term the aim will surely be to secure not just London's transport system but London itself. The public transport system is just part of the public space. Hence, for instance, the development of the Oyster Card as a payment card accepted by an increasing range of London retailers.

  The Olympics will provide a high profile target that will require particularly intensive security provision. However, much of this will be of long-term value to London anyway, and the approach should be to ensure that the Olympics transport systems build as much as possible on London's own strategic implementation, rather than duplicating investment.

"What effect will the Games have on security, congestion, overcrowding, air quality and emissions in London? What impact will there be on transport in the interim? "

  While intelligent transport systems and services cannot be anything other than a part of the answer to securing a successful Olympic Transport Plan, we believe they have a potentially significant part to play. The key will be to ensure that the organisation and processes during planning, procurement, implementation and use fulfils the requirements of both the transportation systems and the security services.

  Recent terrorist incidents demand high levels of security on the transport infrastructure (particularly at transport hubs—eg Stratford Station—multi-modal hub), however, this needs to be balanced against the essential free-flow of travellers attending events at the Olympic Venue and Village.

  Oyster has shown how a transport systems initiative (in this case a benign one, of Smartcards for travel payments) can begin to have value outside the transport system. Because the Olympics will have a more concentrated security operation, it has the potential to lead London-wide developments.

  Security technologies will be used to screen visitors to the Games (smart tickets, offender recognition etc), to track and guide their movements, and to facilitate information to and access by the emergency and security services. The high profile of the games and the unified management will make these things relatively easy to implement and relatively acceptable to the public. With the Olympic transport services and transport corridors as a testbed, it will be easier to extend these on a wider basis.

  Given the comments made previously it will be essential to begin planning, establish policies and working relationships, and set a programme of technical research and demonstrators early on. Only in this way will London itself be able to have a clear long-term perspective within which the Olympics facilities can be set.

  Traffic growth will continue to rise in the years leading up to the Olympics and congestion, along with associated issues such as air quality and emissions, will need to be tackled. Technical solutions are available in the form of improved traffic management and control systems pioneered and demonstrated by the DfT's Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) programme. The Olympic Transport Plan should build on this research and demonstration platform to develop the level of traffic management required along with a suitable infrastructure on street. The Traffic Management Act 2004 provides TfL with the necessary legislation to achieve the traffic management requirements of the Olympic Transport Plan.

  In the interim, there will be disruption to existing transport systems caused by works associated with the Games. This needs to be carefully managed to minimise the impact on local residents and businesses.

"What lessons for transport can be learned from the experiences of other Olympic cities? "

  Sydney and Athens Olympics were widely regarded as successful. Both Games ensured that there was dedicated transport infrastructure simultaneously available to people attending the Games and also to residents and visitors attending those cities for other reasons. The two requirements went "hand-in-hand". Conversely analysis of the 2002 Salt Lake City Games identified problems regarding travel to, from, between and access/egress to both the event venues and host city.

  Consideration of plans for Winter Games 2010 and the involvement of ITS (Canada) would indicate that there are lessons to be learnt from previous events and potential best practice to adopt. Dialogue with fellow ITS organisations regarding previous and future Games equivalents may prove to be a highly useful exercise as a means of gathering "best and emerging" practice. ITS (UK) has existing Memorandum of Understanding with numerous International ITS organisations and, as such, can help facilitate this process. The 2006 ITS World Congress will be held in London and provides an ideal opportunity to develop an understanding of lessons learnt from previous hosts of events on this scale.

  As far as technology is concerned, there is likely to be little to be learned from other Olympics as the characteristic time of technology developments is shorter than the four years between games. However much may be learned in terms of what challenges the transport system faced, and where investment in transport technology can potentially offer cost-justified benefits.

"What might be in the Olympic Transport Plan? "

  The Olympic Transport Plan should incorporate several tiers:

    —  Strategic;

    —  Management;

    —  Operational, and

    —  Tactical Options

  These should include "Disaster Recovery" to incorporate all aspects, ie emergencies, incidents, malfunctions, utility operations etc.

  Within these tiers the Olympic Transport Plan should covers issues such as access and egress to the event, travel facilities for competitors, officials, VIPs, spectators and those not associated with the games that need to carry on with "business as usual".

  The Olympic Transport Plan should incorporate:

    —  Technologies regarding vehicular access such as Road User Charging, Car Parking systems

    —  Multi-modal transport options—DLR, buses, tubes, cycle, cars, lorries, waterbuses, etc. Consider innovative methods of passenger transport to and from the Games that do not interfere with other public.

    —  Access to/from North/South of Thames—limited river crossings

    —  Policing (broadest sense of definition)—Security/Congestion—Police (Met Police and British Transport Police)/Street Wardens/NCP

    —  Integration with Local and Capital transportation requirements pre, during, and post Games

    —  International/national and inter/intra-city travel requirements—airports, roadways, railways, and waterways.

  The key to the delivery of mass transit solutions within the constraints of the infrastructure and air quality requirements will be interchanges between air, car, rail, bus and tube. Data from various information systems already exists however, to date, these have not been integrated to provide a complete travel solution to assist the traveller and provide confidence on their journeys through these interchanges. Examples of added value through the integration of data might be:

    —  Detailed interchange information via PDA or SMS could be provided, for example "at the top of the escalators turn left to exit market `Oxford Street'"

    —  Information about the sport they are travelling to as well as alternative routes and other updates could be sent in real-time to mobile, PDA or Sat.nav (where relevant).

    —  Specifically tailored travel plans from home to the stadium could be included with tickets.

    —  Budgetary requirements are unknown at this stage but information systems are considerable cheaper than structural changes to interchange points.

  As a fundamental service, transport for the Olympics will rely heavily on existing provision, both by TfL in and around London as well as by other local authorities and their supply chains: public transport operations, network management authorities, systems providers, etc. It is unlikely to be valid for the Olympics Delivery Authority to implement any major transport infrastructure, so most of its transportation will be arranged either through partnership and persuasion (for public sector bodies) or under contract (for private sector organisations).

  On security matters, the Plan should describe the security policies, the procedures and systems that will be put in place to fulfil these policies, and the mechanisms by which the transport security system is integrated with the key stakeholders: the Olympics operations, the transport system in London and elsewhere, and local and national security organisations.

"Will the Olympic Delivery Authority have the necessary powers, funding and expertise to plan and deliver the transport infrastructure and services required? "

  It is likely that the ODA will be provided with the relevant powers and funding, however what they will lack is the relevant independent advisory expertise on how to plan and deliver the appropriate transport infrastructure. Furthermore they are unlikely to be aware of emerging technologies that will be available or commonplace when the Games take place in 2012. It is highly likely that a number of leading companies will seek to be awarded lucrative contracts, but are likely to exploit current (but by then obsolete) technologies. ITS (UK) can provide active support in providing independent advice and appropriate steerage to relevant areas of expertise.

  The key will be to ensure that the ODA has, either itself and through liaison with TfL, sufficient management resources to ensure a coherent system is provided. This should, we believe, include someone with special responsibility for Olympics transport delivery, who will be able to make all the necessary links. ITS (UK) and its members will be happy to help this individual on technology matters.

  Consideration should also be given to the effect delivery of the Olympic Transport Plan may have on the transport industry and the supply chains within it. Presently it is acknowledged that there is a general skill shortage in the Transport Industry and it is unlikely that this position will improve in the run up to the Olympics. Local Authority Transport Plans already place significant demands on the transport industry and, if the present 5-year LTP cycle continues, will be in the process of delivering LTP3 (2012-17). Given that Local Authorities have their own transport performance targets to achieve this may have an adverse affect on the ability of the industry to meet all of the demands placed upon it. The key issue here is to consult with the industry and potential suppliers as early as possible and to ensure that steps are taken to provide the Olympic Delivery Authority access to sufficient expertise and resource.

  In conclusion, the Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom through its interest groups, members and industry links is ideally placed to provide independent expert advice throughout the process of delivering the Olympic Transport Plan and welcomes further opportunities to assist the Transport Committee in this process.





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 16 March 2006