(Editor’s note: selected questions and answers only, and some have been edited for brevity. If any notable questions are missing let me know via the comments and I’ll update.)
In this post: Congestion Charge and the WEZ. The LEZ. Cycle safety, limits and hiring. Electric taxis and electric charging. Potholes. Road safety. Roadworks. Traffic enforcement. Coach parking. Olympic lanes. The North Circular. Gyratories and Cycle Superhighways. Motorcycles.
You promised to scrap the Western extension zone this year, but to date nothing has happened. Why is that? What have you done to remove the WEZ and fulfil your promise? — Murad Qureshi [and similar questions from Richard Tracey and Val Shawcross]
It is not the case that ‘nothing has happened’ in this matter. As you know I support the principle of removing the Western Extension but there are a number of legal processes and requirements that must first be fulfilled. Following the informal consultation that I asked TfL to hold on options for the scheme in September 2008, in which both the public and individual businesses expressed a clear preference for its removal; I included a proposal to remove the scheme in my draft Transport Strategy for consultation. I confirmed this on Monday 10 May when I formally published the Strategy following three months’ consultation with stakeholders and the public.
My new Transport Strategy, published on 10 May, contains the proposal to remove the Western Extension (Proposal 128). I have asked TfL to set in train the final stage of the necessary legal process as soon as possible. This involves TfL making a “Variation Order” to amend the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2004. This would remove the Western Extension from the zone and confirm the line of the boundary with the remaining charging zone, together with proposed changes to the remaining charging zone.
TfL published this draft Variation Order on 24 May, with a view to ending congestion charging in the Western Extension by the end of this year. As required there will be a 10 week public and stakeholder consultation. TfL will report to me on the outcome of the consultation, and I will then decide whether or not to confirm the Order (with or without modification), taking into account submissions made during the consultation. As I’m sure you will understand, these processes all take time and it is important that they are carried out properly.
By how much does TfL estimate CO2 emissions per annum have been reduced as a result of the western extension of the Congestion Zone? [and] How do you propose to compensate for the loss of the reduction in CO2 emissions that will result from the scrapping of the western extension to the congestion charge and what measures will you put in place to offset this reduction? — Nicky Gavron
Through its primary focus on reducing congestion by reducing traffic, the WEZ has delivered reductions in CO2 emissions from road transport in the zone of approximately 6.5% as a result of reduced traffic volume and change in fleet composition. Around one sixth of this impact is caused by through-traffic diverting around the zone. In the context of London’s total emissions this reduction in emissions from WEZ is very small reflecting the fact that road traffic accounts for only around 15% of overall CO2 emissions and the small portion of London’s roads that are covered by WEZ.
TfL currently estimates that the removal of the WEZ would bring about a 5% increase in CO2 emissions from road transport in the zone. Across London as a whole however, this represents a negligible increase of only 0.4% in total road transport emissions of CO2. I have already set out how I will reduce CO2 emissions across London in my Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy and Transport Strategy. Both of these show how London can deliver my 60% CO2 reduction by 2025 target, and include the removal of the WEZ as part of the baseline modelling, to ensure this is taken into account. Both strategies contain initiatives to minimise CO2 emissions by supporting a shift to more efficient modes of transport, improving operational efficiency, and to stimulate the development and use of low carbon vehicles, energy and design principles.
Will you consider setting up an additional voluntary option to the existing congestion charge registered payment that would automatically debit payments when the registered vehicle entered the zone, as suggested by a constituent? — Darren Johnson
I announced in October last year that I propose to introduce a new automated account system to make it easier for customers to pay the charge and to avoid having to pay fines if they have forgotten to pay. Making the Congestion Charge easier and fairer to pay was one of my election pledges.
The automated payment account system would mean that motorists who register with TfL for CC Autopay would be able to pay the Congestion Charge by debit or credit card. The new system would calculate the number of days a vehicle is observed within the zone and debit customers’ accounts on a monthly basis. TfL are consulting on the introduction of this new payment system from 24 May and, if confirmed, it would be introduced at the beginning of January 2011.
When in 2012 do you intend to introduce Phase 3 of the Low Emissions Zone? — James Cleverly
TfL started public and stakeholder consultation on 17 May 2010 on a Variation Order to change the introduction of this phase of LEZ to 3 January 2012. This consultation will run until 28 June and further information is available on the TfL website.
Following consultation, TfL will report to me on the outcomes of consultation and I will make a decision on whether to confirm the Variation Order, with or without modifications. Subject to this, the new date will be confirmed and publicised well ahead of implementation so as to allow vehicle operators time to take any necessary action.
What proportion of railings do you plan to remove by April 2012 and do you agree that this will prevent crushing injuries [in cyclists taking evasive action] and may save lives? — Jenny Jones
TfL‘s robust guard rail assessment process includes a full safety audit of each site which takes into consideration all users, including cyclists. Currently TfL is on target to deliver a 30% reduction in pedestrian guard rail on the TLRN by the end of June 2010. A proportion of that removed will be guard rail located on roundabouts. I agree that it is quite right that unnecessary street clutter be removed.
Your Transport Strategy repeats the well-established target of a 400% increase in cycling by 2025, but then has no further increase by 2030. Do you regard 5% of all journeys being done by bike as the maximum which can be achieved in London? — Jenny Jones
I have set out in my Transport Strategy (MTS) my aspiration to achieve a 5% mode share for cycling by 2026. The continuation of a 5% mode share for cycling after 2026 until 2031,as shown in the MTS, was assumed for modelling purposes since TfL had no analysis to support a different level. The continued 5% assumption still reflects continued cycling growth beyond 2026. This is not intended to imply that 5% is the maximum possible cycling mode share – indeed, I would be delighted to see continued growth after 2026.
What actual on road evidence, as opposed to computer traffic modelling, is available for [stating that reallocating space away from general traffic would in many cases worsen traffic congestion]? That is, what evidence is there to show that reducing road space on a long term basis has led to increased congestion? Are you aware of the extensive research into actual schemes where the road space has been reduced and congestion has not increased, but general motor traffic has reduced? — Val Shawcross
In general terms, the only tool available for judging the impacts of schemes on traffic flow is computer modelling data. Every highway authority in the Country uses this approach. TfL’s models are built using up-to-date traffic data, and in some cases it is necessary to collect new traffic data to ensure the model is as representative as possible. There is ample evidence that reducing road space creates congestion – simply look at the impacts of any set of utility works, which very often cause huge inconvenience and delay for all road users, including cyclists.
Of course, the impacts of a particular scheme will vary according to the location, but I would not wish for TfL to proceed with any scheme which traffic modelling showed would cause congestion or worsen traffic flow. I do not think it right to penalise one particular mode over another: I wish to support all forms of travel and ensure an appropriate balance is found in designing new road schemes.
Now that Transport for London has bought the rights to Oyster card, when can we expect it to be used for the cycle hire scheme? [and] Will Freedom Pass holders be able to use the cycle hire scheme for free when it becomes Oyster card compatible? [and] [H]ave you progressed at all with plans to follow the ambition shown by Paris and expand the cycle hire scheme? — Jenny Jones
Integrated transport in London remains a priority; however the cycle hire scheme will not launch with Oyster compatibility. A simple to use automated payment system with dedicated user ‘keys’ will support the London Cycle Hire scheme at launch, and following this the feasibility of integrating Oyster in the future will be investigated.
At present there are no plans for any special access arrangements for any user. This may be a possibility in the future but it is not planned as part of the initial launch. I have aimed to make the Cycle Hire scheme affordable for everyone. Customers will pay an access fee plus a usage charge. Having bought your access, the first 30 minutes of each journey is free.
Phase two of Cycle Hire is currently being investigated, and TfL is studying ways of growing the scheme. I consider the Cycle Hire scheme launch in summer 2010 to be the first phase of an expanding programme. Developing and expanding the scheme will include expanding the zone boundary and/or increasing the density of cycle docking stations within the initial area. Cycle Hire is set to be a success in central London, and by building on this success, depending on demand and working with boroughs, I plan to extend the concept to other parts of London.
Have you any plans to explore or take forward the London Cycling Campaign’s BikeGrid proposals, which would connect your Cycle Superhighways to a safe network for central London taking advantage of spare road capacity, ideal also for cycle hire users? — Jenny Jones
TfL has already met with the LCC to understand and discuss the BikeGrid concept and are continuing to work with them to explore their proposals further. The next step will be to initiate a meeting with relevant borough officers to discuss the feasibility of the proposal. This should take place within the next two months.
The “potential benefits” are well documented – that is reduction in road deaths and injuries – so why not consider 20mph on the whole CSH [cycle superhighway]? — Val Shawcross
A significant proportion of the Cycle Superhighways will be on TfL’s road network, which performs a strategic role as it carries around a third of the traffic in London but represents only 5% of the total number of roads. A blanket 20mph speed limit would impact on the ability of traffic to move around London.
TfL will continue to consider where a 20mph speed limit may be beneficial at specific locations on the Cycle Superhighways, and is currently reviewing the potential for 20mph limits on Southwark Bridge Road in conjunction with the London Borough of Southwark.
[C]an you provide a list of any detailed assessments carried out by Transport for London of the use of existing cycle parking facilities at all the tube, DLR and railways stations in London and their estimate of the further demand for bike parking at each of these individual stations? — Jenny Jones
DLR undertook a network wide audit of cycle parking facilities and usage before the development of the DLR cycle strategy, and regular usage counts at improved facilities are undertaken. A recently developed research programme (which incorporates these usage counts), will identify whether the levels of parking are sufficient.
London Underground undertook an audit and usage survey in December 2008 of all their stations. This identified that, on a network level, demand outstrips supply and TfL is seeking to address this.
London Overground has carried out survey work at its stations to establish what cycle parking facilities are currently available and to help identify potential areas for further development
No TfL assessment of cycle parking usage on London rail stations has been undertaken. Improvements at National Rail stations are undertaken in partnership with TfL when an opportunity is identified by the rail operator, and a rolling programme for this has been operating since 2005/06.
Do all 40 Dockland Light Railway stations now have cycle parking? [and] Can you outline the programme to bring all London Overground stations up to a good standard of cycle parking [and all stations up to ‘basic standard’ in terms of cycle parking capacity and security by 2012]? — Jenny Jones
All DLR stations will be equipped with cycle parking facilities by the end of Summer 2010. The new Stratford International extension stations will be equipped with cycle facilities when the extension opens later this year.
In association with TfL’s Cycling Centre of Excellence, TfL London Rail is working through plans to upgrade the cycle facilities at London Overground stations. These plans include replacing ‘Sheffield’ style stands with the more secure and customer friendly ‘Camden’ type stands. Plans for station security, which include lighting provision and CCTV coverage, will extend to cycle parking facilities. All cycle parking will be installed by April 2011.
TfL has a budget of £1.2m for improving cycle parking at stations during 2009/10. Increasing the provision of secure cycle parking facilities at stations is a key element of my Transport Strategy and TfL continues to work with stakeholders (including Network Rail) to bring cycle parking facilities at stations up to an acceptable standard. For example, in 2009, a secure cycle parking facility opened at London Bridge, providing over 400 cycle parking spaces. Moreover, TfL has developed plans to provide adequate cycle parking facilities at London Overground and DLR stations by 2012.
As set out in my Transport Strategy, TfL will also work towards implementing ‘best practice’ levels of cycle parking provision at any new station or as part of any comprehensive station redevelopment works. Regarding cycle security, TfL is the process of developing a Cycle Security Plan which tackles this issue specifically with a focus on reducing cycle theft.
Can the Mayor explain why he decided to award the £140 million cycle-hire scheme contract to a company in Canada? — Nicky Gavron
The contract to design, build and operate the London Cycle Hire scheme was awarded following an open, competitive tendering process in line with European procurement legislation. TfL and other public bodies are required by law to follow this procurement procedure and award the contract to the tenderer submitting the best bid. In this case the contract was awarded to Serco Limited, a company registered in England and Wales. One sub contractor of Serco Limited is a company called Public Bike System Canada, based in Montreal, who have operated the hugely succesful bike hire scheme in that city.
What was the total spent on cycling in 2009/2010 by TfL, excluding LIP funding? How much of this was spent on a) cycle hire and b) superhighways? — Jenny Jones
http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=31103
(Editor’s note: refer to the linked answer – formatting data is not my strong point.)
How many of the prototype eVito electric taxis do you hope will be operating in London by the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games? What is the earliest date when a production line model would be available to buy? — Jenny Jones
The prototype eVito taxi is an exciting project and one which I fully support as it demonstrates one of the many possibilities for reducing emissions from the taxi fleet. However, it is too early to say whether an affordable, full production line all-electric taxi such as this is practical or feasible for the London 2012 Olympic Games.
My team and TfL are in constant dialogue with both of the current taxi manufacturers and their partners and there have been some very interesting ideas and initiatives coming out of these discussions. This is why I specifically outlined my intention to continue to work with them to reduce taxi emissions by 60% by 2015 and to have all new taxis entering the market be zero emission by 2020. I am hopeful that through this work and the initiatives outlined in my Air Quality Strategy, significant progress will have been made in tackling taxi emissions by the time of the Games.
Can you (a) confirm that you are spending £17m on installing 7,500 electric charging points by 2012/13, and (b) detail the estimated cost for installing the remaining 17,500 charging points in the two years prior to 2015? — Darren Johnson
The £17m has been secured from national government and private partners to support electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. With additional TfL investment of some £5m, this will fund not only purchase and installation of 7,500 charge points but also provision of innovative charging trials and a pan-London scheme to allow EV users to easily access the charge points.
We expect that additional charge points will be delivered in the period 2012/13 through other delivery and funding mechanisms. As regards 2015, full costings for the 25,000 charge point target are not available yet.
By how much has Transport for London increased its planned expenditure on road maintenance for 2010/11 to deal with the urgent need to fix potholes? [and] Which Transport for London budgets will decrease, and by how much, to finance any extra expenditure on road maintenance in 2010/11? — Jenny Jones
TfL carries out regular inspections of the road network and any defects identified, including potholes, are repaired as quickly as possible. TfL’s Highway Maintenance Contractors are contractually required to repair serious carriageway defects within 24 hours of identification. The cost of this service is a fixed amount and includes allowance for a number of severe weather occurrences; it is the responsibility of the contractors to comply with the contractual requirements for these repairs.
TfL invested £14.63m in road resurfacing schemes in 2009/10; the planned expenditure for road resurfacing schemes in 2010/11 has been increased to £24m to take account of the severe weather damage and the need to maintain a satisfactory state of good repair. In addition, TfL has been allocated £764,100 by the Department for Transport to spend on severe winter weather damage; TfL is also pressing for a response to a further £810k severe winter weather claim that was submitted to the DfT in March 2010.
TfL’s highway maintenance budget covers works to roads, footways, bridges, tunnels, lighting and drainage. The TfL Business Plan allocated a capital maintenance budget of £36.7m in 2009/10 and £47.9m in 2010/11 for these assets. For 2010/11, £21.1m (44% of the budget) was originally allocated to road maintenance. However, in light of severe winter weather damage and the need to maintain a satisfactory state of good repair this has been increased to £24m (50% of the budget) for 2010/11. As a comparison, in 2009/10 TfL resurfaced 338,000 sq m of road network whereas in 2010/11 they plan to resurface over 500,000 sq m of the road network.
The overall maintenance budget remains at £47.9m; therefore to accommodate the increased investment in road maintenance a number of lower priority maintenance works on the other highway assets have been re-programmed.
[H]ave you now finalised the Transport for London budget for road safety in 2010/11? How much was spent by Transport for London on publicity and training in 2009/10 to address the problem of injuries and deaths involving powered two wheelers? Do you intend to match or increase this in 2010/11? — Jenny Jones
£21.2m has been allocated to road safety in 2010/11, although this may be subject to further refinement as priorities are reviewed following the creation of the new TfL Better Routes and Places directorate. This compares to a £20m outturn in 2009/10. Both years are quoted before any LIP funding for road safety measures in boroughs, which was £29m in 2009/10 but cannot be separately identified in the 2010/11 programme due to the reforms to the LIP process, allowing the boroughs greater discretion to identify their funding priorities.
The budget for 2009/10 was £1.6m for motorcycling publicity and training. For 2010/11 the budget is £1.5m.
When will the Mayor begin imposing fines on utility companies which dig up the road, and what will be the level of these fines? — Richard Tracey
The New Roads and Street Works Act (1991), the Traffic Management Act (2004) and the London Permit Scheme (2010) all allow for utility companies to be fined or prosecuted where they breach those regulations. I am also currently having discussions with the DfT about introducing a lane rental scheme to London, making the utilities ‘pay-to-dig’. This scheme would apply charges to those utilities undertaking roadworks at the busiest time of the day and on the most congested parts of the network.
TfL imposes fines against utility companies on a regular basis and will continue to impose those fines as the regulations allow. The level of fine is dependent upon the nature of the contravention. TfL issued 307 Fixed Penalty Notices in 2009/10.
Given the massive increase in fine revenue through CCTV enforcement, are you unreasonably targeting motorists? — John Biggs
TfL seeks to enforce traffic regulations in a fair and commonsense way to ensure traffic is kept moving smoothly and safely on the Transport for London Road Network. Enforcement is currently carried out through a mix of traffic wardens and CCTV.
Enforcement is not about raising revenue or punishing motorists. In 2009 TfL issued 155,000 PCNs as a result of CCTV enforcement. This was the lowest figure since 2005 and marks a reduction of 60% on the peak of 310,000 PCNs in 2007. The reduction is the result of improved compliance combined with a more proportionate approach from TfL.
Has the London Coach Voucher Scheme Study been completed, and what action will be taken to improve coach parking in the capital? — James Cleverly
Although the Study has been completed, TfL and the GLA need to analyse its recommendations to determine which are affordable and should be taken forward. TfL anticipates that it will be in a position to report on the findings of the Study, including what actions will be taken forward, this summer.
Will a consultation be carried out regarding the specific roads that will carry Olympic lanes? [and] If Olympic lanes are cordoned off on the approach to the Blackwall Tunnel, will TfL take measures to alleviate the inevitable congestion such as operating all 3 Woolwich Ferries during Games time and instigating discussions with the Department for Transport on waiving the tolls at the Dartford Crossing? — Gareth Bacon
Yes. A programme of informal consultation with local residents, businesses and road users will be carried out over the Summer of 2010. A formal statutory consultation will be carried out through a Traffic Regulation Orders process later in the year.
The Blackwall Tunnel will be open to all road users during the Games. TfL is working to ensure the reliability of traffic flows through the Tunnel during the Games period and this should benefit all road users. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is working with TfL and the Highways Agency on the development of the Olympic Route Network. Part of this work is to ensure the smooth running of the Games while minimising disruption to Londoners. TfL will continue to run the normal Woolwich Ferry service and is looking at enhancements where possible during this period.
Can you confirm how residents living close to the North Circular Road will be consulted before the redevelopment of the road and surrounding area takes place? — Joanne McCartney
TfL has already undertaken a consultation for all schemes making up the A406 Environmental Improvement project. For example TfL writes directly to local residents and businesses affected, has held regular meetings with local authorities and schools and held a number of public exhibitions. For example a public exhibition was held between 18 – 20 March at the local Trinity-at-Bowes Methodist Church and Community Centre, at which local people could view the design of the scheme with TfL staff. No further consultations are planned.
By what process will TfL ascertain that replacing a gyratory system with 2-way traffic would represent an improvement? — Victoria Borwick
TfL would employ its business management process to ascertain the merits of replacing a gyratory system with a two-way traffic system. This involves producing a business case which examines the relative benefits to all road users as well as the effects on the urban realm and the local community. TfL would undertake modelling of the effects of any proposals developed, and would need to carry out extensive traffic surveys to ensure its models were as representative as possible. TfL would also seek the views of stakeholders through public consultation.
A TfL spokesman [said last month]: “Where it is beneficial for all road users, TfL is keen to remove one-way gyratory systems along the TfL road network.” When can we expect the Archway [and the Stoke Newington Gyratory, and the Highbury & Islington Gyratory] to be made two-way? — Jennette Arnold
- TfL commissioned a feasibility study, which was completed in November 2008, to investigate the options for returning the currently one-way [Archway] gyratory to two-way working, together with improvement of the general public realm. Early assessments revealed two options with a viable business case, which were costed at c. £10-£12m depending on which option is selected. However, TfL has no capital funding to implement this work and therefore this scheme is dependent upon regeneration and redevelopment of a sufficient scale to generate enough development funding to implement the scheme. There is currently no prospect of any such development and TfL has suspended further design work, whilst continuing to work with Islington Council to identify external funding opportunities.
- The study work that has been undertaken by TfL indicated that the removal of the [Stoke Newington] gyratory working at Stoke Newington would result in some significant adverse impacts, such as the loss of local parking facilities, diverted traffic and bus delays. These concerns, allied to the absence of project funding, means that TFL is not actively pursuing two-way working for the Stoke Newington Gyratory.
- There is currently no funding identified for the removal of Highbury & Islington Gyratory and it would be necessary to investigate the impacts on all road users of any potential scheme before a decision could be made to proceed. TfL will continue to work with Islington Council to identify external funding opportunities.
DfT and Cycle England both agree there is no safe cycling solution to gyratories. Will you therefore make a commitment that gyratories on Cycle Superhighways will be designed out? — Murad Qureshi
Removing a gyratory is costly and takes years to implement, requiring consideration of all road user requirements including cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Where a business case can be made for reconfiguration or removal of a gyratory, and where funding is available, TfL takes forward large-scale dedicated schemes such as the Tottenham Hale Gyratory project and Wandsworth Town Centre regeneration project.
Major barriers on the Cycle Superhighway routes are considered based on the specific challenges and constraints at that location. TfL is delivering a range of solutions for cyclists, which include provision of diversion routes that avoid the barriers completely, as well as specific, targeted measures to reduce conflict points between cyclists and motorists and give cyclists more space on the roads.
Why TFL have truncated [Cycle Superhighway A11-A118] (a) short of The City, and (b) short of Ilford, thereby ducking the issue of resolving its major killed & seriously injured (KSI) hazards at Aldgate & Ilford Hill? [and] Why have the hazardous roundabouts at both Lambeth Bridge/Millbank & Queens Circus not been removed or replaced by traffic-lights? Why does the end point of [Cycle Superhighway 2] dump cyclists into Parliament Square, which is one of the worst places to cycle in the whole of London? — Murad Qureshi
Cycle Superhighway route 2 does enter the City of London, with some improvements planned to facilities at Aldgate. The City of London Corporation is in discussion with developers about longer term solutions for Aldgate, including better and more extensive facilities for cyclists.
At Ilford Hill, TfL plans to improve the crossing facility connecting existing cycle facilities on Ilford Hill and Chapel Road. In partnership with the Crossrail project, further improvements will be explored, such as a quiet connecting cycle route via Prior Road, between Cycle Superhighway route 2 and the new Crossrail station. TfL would expect to be in a position to confirm what might be possible by Summer 2011.
At Queen’s Circus roundabout, the Cycle Superhighways project plans to improve off-carriageway facilities for cyclists, as well as providing more space for cyclists on-carriageway. At Lambeth Bridge/Millbank there is no current business case for removing the roundabout, although cycle lanes will be marked through it to raise the profile of cyclists with other road users.
As part of Cycle Superhighway route 8, which is due for delivery in summer 2011, TfL is in discussion with the City of Westminster regarding the provision of facilities to guide cyclists through Parliament Square, connecting Abingdon Street to Parliament Street (where the route ends on Whitehall). Any proposal will be subject to extensive consultation with a number of stakeholders with an interest in Parliament Square, including the Metropolitan Police and the Palace of Westminster.
I believe the TfL trial of motorcycles in bus lanes will be finishing in June/July of this year: (a) When will the report on the trial be published? (b) When will you make your decision on whether to keep motorbikes in bus lanes or not? — Caroline Pidgeon
The trial for allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes on the Transport for London Road Network is due to finish on 5 July 2010. The decision on whether or not to make this provision permanent will be made in June and will be based on the findings of the independent report that was commissioned to study the effects of the trial. This report will be published at the same time.
What progress has TfL made with the “feasibility study into the potential for road and lane closures as emergency actions in response to particularly poor air quality” mentioned in your Air Quality Strategy and when will it be complete? — Mike Tuffrey
In my draft Air Quality Strategy I have set out that special measures, including road or lane closures, could be used to help tackle extreme pollution episodes. It is likely that emergency road or lane closures would only be used in the most extreme circumstances. By way of comparison, Paris only uses its more interventionist special measures when PM10 concentrations reach 350 ug/m3, which last happened in 1997.
TfL has begun exploring the options for road and lane closures. As a first step, legal advice has been sought to fully understand the range of powers that the Mayor has. Once a firm legal position has been identified, TfL will examine the impact of particular closures on traffic flows in London to determine which might be the most effective.
Following this, further consultation will be required with the boroughs, businesses and other stakeholders to determine how such proposals could be implemented. More information will be included in the final Air Quality Strategy, which is expected to be published in autumn 2010.
Comments are closed.