Informal workshop with Transport for London (TfL) looking at traffic modelling in West London to see if you can ram a tram without causing a jam. So far – they can’t. One interesting notion came to light. TfL’s traffic modelling consultant kept assuring members of the Transport Committee that people made choices that meant once they couldn’t use the tram route, they would change the way they drove, where they worked, the mode they travelled, etc, etc.

When I pushed him in saying that if you stick a giant tram down a main road – people actually had no choice but were being thus forced to change their life patterns – he conceded. I wish they could get over some of the pinch points – but I don’t see them being able to do it well enough not to ruin their business case for the tram. The business case is shaky anyway and hugely expensive. They ought to take a look at a modern electric trolleybus for one quarter the price. Particularly as the experts said at the formal scrutiny session that the tram would be out of date virtually by the time it was built.

Anyway – it was a really useful meeting and the TfL director of the project is really working hard to try and get this through. In the end, if the Mayor says it goes ahead, it does – regardless of consultation. We’ll see. I don’t think he will have the money anyway. Ken can faff about for a few years with inquiries and feasibility and on and on. By the time to real funding is needed who knows where we will be…

(To see further details of my view on the tram, have a look at http://www.glalibdems.org.uk/news/178.html).

Heavy duty Transport Committee meeting which I chair. We had Transport for London, Ealing Council and a couple of learned professors to answer our questions arising from our trip along the route of the West London Tram and from the evidence we had taken from local people and groups.

Whether we will be able to get a consensus on the committee for our report – who knows. I would like to think it possible – if we stick to evidence-based recommendations rather than political rant.

The second half of the session was devoted to the future of rail in London. Fairly gloomy would be my judgement. The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) and Network Rail were our witnesses. Didn’t sense any great shift in ATOC’s position – other than they have learned to talk using the right words. Whether this has a flying chance of translating into more services for us poor Londoners…?

But the real excitement was a two second item as the committee agreed the terms of reference for a scrutiny on parking enforcement in London. With a couple of amendments this went through – and all media hell broke loose.

With all the reports in the press of unfairness, wayward clampers, overzealous wardens etc, it seems to me a good idea to look at what the truth is – are the reports accurate or exaggerated?

Needless to say the boroughs are concerned that we are looking into their business (and a very good business as far as I can tell) and I haven’t heard what Transport for London (TfL) think yet. But what I do know, is that if enforcement has become ‘unfair’ then ordinary, decent folk start feeling angry and upset that life is becoming impossible – and unfairly so.

And many people who use public transport whenever they can – still at times use a car for journeys that are not covered or possible by public transport. And other journeys are really necessary for the disabled and other vulnerable people.

If parking regulations and enforcement are about resolving traffic problems and keeping proper flows and rationing scarce space – that’s great and quite right that money raised from them should be spent on improving traffic and transport in that borough. However if things have gone too far and this has turned into simple revenue raising – it is not alright.

Admittedly, boroughs have an incentive to bring in parking revenue as it is virtually their one funding stream that Gordon Brown and the Treasury cannot nick back. Other profit that a council might make is then deducted from their normal grant from Government – which may be the source of some of these issues.

But we are also looking at the plethora of times and signage, etc, that confuse residents as they pick their way through the minefield as well. No-one is as well-placed as the boroughs to design their own schemes to suit local needs and local people. However, just as we did with trying to look at the myriad of different boroughs approaches to Blue Badge holders – so we hope to be able to help flag up some issues for the boroughs to then hopefully work on.

Off to Uxbridge to meet other members of the London Assembly’s Transport Committee where I am taking them along the entire route of the proposed West London Tram.

The project director from Transport for London and other officers join us too.

Two hours to get to Uxbridge station where we are meeting – but the sun is shining.

I’m not giving a blow by blow account of our four and a half hour exploration by foot and mini-bus of the route – suffice to say a tram would be a wonderful addition and benefit to some areas and some parts of the route. But there are real problems elsewhere with the proposed route.

The real hot spots were plain to see as we stood in Acton High Street – which would be closed to traffic and where the side roads, which would take the displaced traffic, were too tiny really. Along the route there are also questions of the roads being too narrow and the damage to businesses. In total, around 27,000 cars travel the route and would get displaced by the tram.

It’s a very tricky issue – a scheme can be a good idea in general, but if the particular route selected doesn’t work, then that’s that – it shouldn’t go ahead.

Good news is that we have Professor Goodwin – a renowned expert on traffic dispersal – coming to the Transport Committee to give us his views. I hope we can get some real answers to help with judging this balancing act.

The GLA Transport Committee’s meeting about the West London Tram commences and I welcome the groups – some from Southall, Acton, Ealing, Shepherds Bush as well as some general contributors from organisations like GLAD, Transport for All and the London Civic Forum.

Have to say it was one of the most fascinating meetings I have chaired. The groups were there to inform the members of the committee of their concerns so that when we sit in formal committee on 16th September, we will be able to question Transport for London who are coming before us and put to them all the key issues raised.

I gave each speaker five minutes and then the committee asked that person questions. The really key issue is fears from residents about traffic displacement if a new tram gets the go ahead.

In the case of the original Central London congestion charge – Transport for London’s traffic forecasts only showed a very small percentage increase in traffic in the areas surrounding the charging zone. There was a lot of scepticism at the time – even some scare stories that the world as we know it would end in gridlock on 17th February 2002. But, once Congestion Charging started, it turned out that TfL’s model was right.

For the tram, TfL’s models show that where the tram displaces traffic, it could result in increases of traffic of up to 25% in places – so this time the fears of residents may well be right. Even if there is an overall reduction in traffic caused by the tram (which would be good), this level of displacement could cause really serious problems in those areas.

Obviously we will look at the modelling and there will undoubtedly be robust questioning on this issue. But what the 25% increase – if it happens – really means. An increase from one car an hour on average down a road to one and a quarter would mean fears are misplaced. But an increase from a much higher level could cause real problems of bottle-necks, stationary traffic etc.

Clarification on this is absolutely vital, but the information we’ve had so far isn’t clear. Something to pursue in our questioning!

There are also big issues over how the consultation has been carried out, how the tram would integrate with other forms of transport and the impact in particular areas; e.g. the plans currently would involve the closure Acton High Street.

Later this week we are going to examine the Croydon tram and walk/ride the proposed route – from Shepherds Bush right along to Uxbridge.

I am chairing a meeting tonight – an informal meeting of the Transport Committee. We are hearing from numerous groups representing a range of views on the Mayor’s proposals for the West London Tram (WLT). This is causing huge controversy in West London and the Transport Committee is trying to ensure that all the concerns are heard and addressed by Transport for London who are consulting on the proposed routes.