APPENDIX 43
Memorandum submitted by London Olympic
Watch
I write this Memorandum of evidence to the Transport
Select Committee on behalf of London Olympic Watch, an ad hoc
group composed of representatives of many local community, amenity
and residents' groups in the five affected London Boroughs which
will be predominantly hosting or affected by the successful bid
to host the 2012 Olympiad in London. The construction phase of
the Olympic Games will take many years, and the subsequent remediation
and so-called "legacy" in the post-Olympics phase will
take many years more. Naturally, local residents have many fears
and concerns as to how this will affect them and their environment
and quality of life.
Our attention has only very recently been drawn
to the Transport Select Committee's request for written memoranda
on Olympics-related transport matters, issued in July of this
year. We were initially informed that this should be submitted
by Friday 16 September 2005; but were subsequently told that contributions
should be submitted by 12 October; and then this week we were
told that the due date was 12 September. Due to this confusion,
we are aware that this submission may be submitted after the deadline,
and therefore humbly pray that you will accept this our submission
on transport issues (in the event that this it is received after
your official deadline), and that you will endeavour to ensure
that its contents be placed before the honourable Members of the
Select Committee when Parliament reconvenes on the 10 October
2005, and please also accept our apologies should this submission
be late.
We understand that the Transport Select Committee
has asked for comments on six points. The first relates to the
level of funding for transport improvements and the role of the
Mayor for London and the private sector. Other than noting that
this may affect taxation levels charged to all London residents,
we have no comment except to reiterate that there are grave concerns
about the overly wide-ranging and dictatorial powers which appear
to be given to the GLA under Clause 32 of the London Olympics
Bill (although these do not relate specifically to transport issues),
which we intend to raise at a later date with the appropriate
Standing Committee.
The second relates to how transport projects
needed for the Games will fit into an integrated and long-term
transport plan for London, and the appropriateness of the transport
legacy. Having attended many consultation sessions organised by
"EDAW" and "f-l-u-i-d" during the bidding
process, it was obvious that the Olympics Zone masterplanners
themselves had little if any input into public transport developments
that might have been included within a plan had public transport
not been under the control of the private sector. Furthermore,
we feel that this issue has been hopelessly inadequately dealt
with in the London Olympics Bill, which seems concerned almost
exclusively with roads access to the various sites, particularly
during the event and in the construction phase—which is
probably the most important to local residents who are again facing
enormous amounts of heavy traffic movements during building works
running concurrently with the CTRL and the massive Stratford New
City developments.
We are naturally concerned with the effect hosting
the Games will have on security, congestion, overcrowding, air
quality and emissions in London, and on the effect on transport
generally in the interim. We hope that there will be further consultation
in Parliament and elsewhere on these issues. This lack of engagement
is a serious omission from the point of view both of residents
of the Lower Lea Valley and of the many people who regularly use
the area for recreation (whether on foot, bicycle or by water)
or those who travel to work here on foot or by bicycle and whose
journeys are certainly going to be disrupted. However, again,
other than noting possible effects on taxation levels to be charged
to residents of London, we do not propose to address this issue
in the present response to your Committee, other than to ask that
there be full and transparent public consultation upon any proposal
to close or restrict access for reasons of security to the navigable
waterways and "towpaths" of the River Lea Navigation
or the Bow Back River system during the construction and post-Games
phases of the 2012 Olympiad, and that adequate, appropriate and
safe alternative cycle and pedestrian routes should be provided.
Whilst there are indubitably many lessons for
transport to be learned from the experience of other Olympic sites,
we likewise do not propose to comment on these in detail herein
as our primary concern is with the immediate effects of actual
proposals upon our own communities.
The Transport Select Committee asks "What
might be in the Olympic Transport Plan" and here we have
several comments to make, both about what is and what is not in
the Plan as presently set out in outline, which we duly adumbrate
below.
Finally, the Transport Select Committee asks
whether the ODA will have the necessary powers, funding, and experience
to plan and deliver the transport infrastructure and services
required. This, we feel, is a question for your Committee and
Parliament and our elected representatives in general to deal
with, and again we do not propose to deal with this question here,
other than to ask that a high degree of transparency (so far somewhat
lacking in the Olympics bid process, in our view) should be maintained.
WHAT MIGHT
BE IN
THE OLYMPIC
TRANSPORT PLAN
To deal therefore with the primary—for
us—question of "What might be in the Olympic Transport
Plan," we note firstly that the vast majority of the Transport
section of the London Olympics Bill deals with road traffic. Only
two short paragraphs in Clause 15 (Office of Rail Regulations)
deal with rail issues—and in a completely unsatisfactory
manner. Additionally, there is no mention of what might happen
to the two large bus garages in the area. There is also, crucially,
no mention at all of air travel (a significant contributory factor
in greenhouse gas emissions and thus global climate change, and
also a major means by which international visitors to London for
the Games might be expected to arrive), nor of public access to
the many navigable waterways of the Lower Lea Valley or the role
that could be played by water freight in Olympics site construction.
Clause 8 of the London Olympics Bill deals with
the Olympic Transport Plan, but says nothing specific about amelioration
of the impact of traffic during the construction phase or post-Games
phase on local communities, who have already suffered much in
recent years from the CTRL and M11-A12 Link Road construction
and associated road-building works. Are we just going to have
another load of heavy traffic and pollution dumped on our long-suffering
neighbourhoods?
We note that the Olympics Transport Plan (OTP)
is going to be published at some stage, but we are concerned that
there is no mention of consultation nor of any prospect of alteration
in whatever this is going to say. Is this democratic, transparent
or fair? We think not.
Clause 9 of the London Olympics Bill, on the
Olympic Route Network, deals with regional issues and alludes
to consultation with relevant authorities, adding that if a road
is removed from the ORN the relevant authorities are to be informed
of the change. What if a road is to be added rather than removed?
Are the relevant authorities and those communities affected not
going to be advised of a proposed change beforehand in order to
afford any chance to have a say?
We note that the Office of the Rail Regulator
is exempt from all the conditions of Clause 10 of the London Olympics
Bill, which we believe could lead to problems further down the
line. Also, paragraph 30 says that the Mayor for London has to
be "notified"—why not "consulted"? The
Mayor—whomsoever that may be over the next seven years—is
after all meant to be a directly-elected representative of Londoners
and answerable to us. It is also worrying that the ODA can require
authorities to reimburse costs relating to traffic regulation
orders to which they do not accede voluntarily (paragraph 31)—obviously
this shortfall would have to be made up from somewhere, presumably
as an additional tax burden to ratepayers, already worried about
the cost over-runs that have afflicted almost every modern Olympiad
(Athens is now known to be coming in at four times over the original
estimate, only partly due to unforeseen additional security costs).
Again, is this fair when we as resident Londoners had no say in
the matter? Similarly, Clause 11 (paragraph 32) of the London
Olympics Bill lacks specific detail—what happens if a time-expired
water-main bursts? More precise wording is necessary.
Throughout the London Olympics Bill it is clear
that there is much about the powers of the ODA but in contrast
there is very little if anything about our rights as citizens
or the ODA's obligations towards us or to Parliament. There is
no specific obligation to consider the needs or wishes of the
local population (who were never asked if we wanted our city to
bid for, let alone if we wanted to pay for, the Games in the first
place), and no stress on the need to comply with the law, for
example in the matter of Exchange Land in amelioration for permanent
removal of public open space and Common Land or of adequate compensation
for loss of commercial premises.
We would, more pertinently to your Committee,
point out that the public transport system—and in particular
the overground railways—is currently totally unable to cope
with present demand in east London. There are already serious
pressures on the local public transport infrastructure which can
only be expected to worsen during the period of the Olympiad,
particularly given the inevitable change in transport patterns
that the construction of Stratford New City will cause.
We note the planned improvement to carriage
numbers on the Jubilee Line Extension, but also recognise that
Highbury & Islington station, on the North London Line, regularly
sees dozens of would-be passengers stranded on the platform unable
to board overcrowded trains every day (including weekends), a
particularly acute problem in the rush hour periods. We understand
that Silverlink Trains are carrying out a NLL route capacity analysis,
but if this route were to be connected to the East London Line
extension at Dalston, as some have suggested (since some Olympics
events may be staged at Arsenal FC's new ground in Highbury, necessitating
extra capacity in the Finsbury Park area), any gains in passenger
capacity could easily be wiped out. These trains are only three
cars in length and the rolling stock is dilapidated and out of
date. There is no proposal at present to reinstate the second
track between Dalston and Camden Road, nor to restore the alternative
Primrose Hill via Queen's Park route (which currently operates
only during weekend engineering works). New signalling is needed
as well as longer platforms to enable longer trains. This has
long been imperative, whether or not London were to be awarded
the 2012 Olympic Games, but at least the successful bid could
provide an excuse for spending some Government money on this deprived
part of London, so let's do it!
The main hub of the transport system locally
is Stratford Station, presently served by Docklands Light Railway
(DLR), Central Line, Jubilee Line Extension (JLE), and North London
Line (NLL). These by 2012 will have been joined by the Lea Valley
Line (due to re-commence services, all but suspended in June 1985,
in December of this year) and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL).
It is just possible but seems very unlikely that a central part
of the proposed Crossrail Link (without which the Shenfield Line
could become packed to the point of collapse) might be in operation
by 2012, which would ease pressure on the overcrowded Central
Line. We have no comments on Crossrail other than to say that
it seems a better option than the Thameslink 2000 scheme. In addition
to Stratford, the JLE, NLL and C2C services also serve West Ham
(by 2012 the NLL will be operated by DLR), and in addition the
NLL serves Hackney Wick station and the DLR has a station at Pudding
Mill Lane. Many people in Waltham Forest had hoped that the initial
Olympics Site plans produced by EDAW, suggesting a long hoped-for
station or halt at Clays Lane in south Leyton (near the proposed
Olympic Village and the newly-rebuilt Leyton Orient FC stadium),
would come to fruition, but this was soon dropped from the proposals
and the new Lea Valley Line service will only apparently call
at Tottenham Hale (where there are no plans at present to replace
extra tracks or platforms) and then travel on to either Stansted
or Hatfield. The Lea Valley Line could have been a lasting legacy
and a great regeneration vehicle for the area; but sadly, not
even the Olympics Bid seems to have been enough of a jolt to get
this line revitalised, despite some interest recently in an adjacent
DLR extension to Picketts Lock.
In passing, we do wonder whether any consideration
has been given by the Transport Select Committee as to where trains
would decant passengers during the Olympic Games period in the
event of serious overcrowding or any incident in the Stratford
station area?
Our main concern, however, is that the Olympics
are being used as a spurious cover for making improvements that
local people have been waiting for—and fighting for—over
many years. The local railway system in particular cannot cope
with demand as things are, and all the now promised much-needed
improvements are very long overdue anyway. We should not have
had to wait for this to be predicated on winning the Olympic Games.
There is not even adequate signage to local stations from the
streets, stations are unstaffed, services are infrequent (half-hourly
on the Barking to Gospel Oak Line, where with better signalling
more freight trains could also be run to relieve pressure on the
over-stretched NLL) and the trains are often in an abysmal state
of maintenance and [dis]repair, especially on the NLL and Barking
to Gospel Oak Line (BGOL). The North London Line and BGOL have
been cruelly neglected for years, as have the areas where we live
in general. Local people feel furious that it is only with the
disruption and the theft of our public land for the Olympic Games
that politicians are now suddenly realising what improvements
have long needed to be made. All of this should have been addressed
years ago.
Worst of all, many of the so-called improvements
to transport being promised are apparently going to be put in
only for the few weeks of the Olympics circus itself. Instead
of being part of a lasting "legacy" to local residents,
gimmicks like the "Javelin"" service on the CTRL
(can we use Travelcards?) will only run for the duration of the
Games—and it can only carry a maximum 8,000 passengers per
hour, not the 25,000 bizarrely claimed by Mayor Livingstone recently.
Where is the long-lasting post-Olympics "legacy" to
public transport in this window-dressing exercise?
The enhanced CTRL service between Ebbsfleet
and St. Pancras will only run during the Games, serving the needs
of European day-trippers with no benefit whatsoever to local communities.
We do wonder how many people would feel sufficiently inspired
to want to spend a day in Stratford to make the trip from elsewhere
in England, let alone from Paris, Bruxelles or Lille (starting
out in the early morning and changing trains via Customs at Ebbsfleet
or St. Pancras). The first self-evident observation is that London
is indubitably already a major international tourist destination,
and it seems rather unlikely that anyone would come here from
continental Europe only for one day to watch competitive sports,
no matter how high the standard. People are far more likely to
come to London for a short break, with the Olympics being just
one aspect of their visit. London has many other attractions,
after all. It is also possible (despite the Olympics masterplanners'
assertions of how much ridership on the tube system overall drops
during the summer) that some London area residents who might normally
go away for summer holidays would remain in the capital to attend
a day or two of the Games thus adding to ridership. People coming
to London for a short break can also be expected to use traditional
tourist areas closer to the attractions of the City and West End
rather than in Stratford, and we do wonder whether the Javelin
service is really of any great benefit. Would it not make more
sense simply to stop some international trains in Stratford with
a temporary Customs post there for the duration of the Games?
The 2012 Olympics Bid was predicated upon a
base of sustainability, but we believe that in many ways what
is being proposed does not adequately uphold this, including in
the field of public transport. We are merely getting long overdue
improvements to failing and overcrowded rail systems—and
not without the realisation that this will be at the expense of
our neighbourhoods being used as road corridors for many years
as well as us losing much public open space to Olympics buildings
and to coach and car-parks (such as Hackney's free local sports
fields at East Marsh) for the mere six weeks of the Olympic and
Paralympic Games. We are sick of having ever more new roads foisted
upon us.
At the same time, we would very much welcome
the Government or GLA seizing this opportunity for making improvements
to our out-of-date, overcrowded public transport. For instance,
there are firm plans to reinstate a decent day-time passenger
service on the Lea Valley Line from December of this year, yet
no commitment at all to rebuild and re-open Lea Bridge Station
(adjacent to one of the largest concentrations of industry in
the London Borough of Waltham Forest) to link Leyton into the
growing employment centres of Stansted Airport and Stratford New
City, nor to reinstating the Hall Farm Curve linking Stratford
to Chingford. So the reinstatement of this train service, long
fought for by local people, will prove of no benefit whatsoever
to residents of nearby Clapton (LB Hackney) or of Waltham Forest.
Indeed, most of the present proposals linked
by pro-Olympics propaganda to the Games seem merely to be to press
ahead with overdue upgrades for which local residents have campaigned
for years, or are regional improvements to serve business interests
and not the needs of local people—new schemes that were
already planned anyway whether or not the Olympics Bid succeeded.
At present we do not see any legacy improvements in transport
that could be attributed directly to the Olympics Bid, and indeed
precious few other post-Olympic improvements beyond what might
have been expected without the Games. More imagination is sorely
needed!
15 September 2005
|
