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:
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.
| 
