• Reference: 2018/2815
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

I understand that 3 feasibility studies have been done by 3 Mayors into a lift at West Hampstead underground station and they all indicate that a lift could be put on the left side of the ticket area where the male washroom is situated. Will you publish the most recent feasibility study; and if not why not?

• Reference: 2018/2814
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Are you aware that there is now a one-mile gap between bus stops on the 303 route from Bunns Lane to the RAF Museum and that this change was not part of the TfL consultations with regards to bus routes? There are many people that need the Field Mead bus stop, including less mobile pensioners, mothers with small children, and schoolchildren coming back from school. Will you arrange a new bus stop near Field Mead, Grahame Park?

• Reference: 2018/2813
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Do you consider TfL's consultation to merge the 302 and 305 bus routes, which was not widely publicised in any event, was conducted fairly, bearing in mind that the most deprived ward in Barnet, Burnt Oak, with a high proportion of elderly and BAME residents, and with a lower than average access to private cars and to IT to enable a response to the consultation, has lost out as a result?

• Reference: 2018/2812
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Do you agree with Transport for London's decision to merge the 302 and 305 bus routes, with the outcome that the most deprived ward in Barnet, Burnt Oak, loses most of its bus service, whilst better off wards benefit from an improved service?

• Reference: 2018/2811
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

How many a) fatal b) serious injury and c) minor injury road collisions have there been in each of the last 5 years at Swiss Cottage gyratory on the A41; and in each case, how many were sustained by i) cyclists and ii) pedestrians?

• Reference: 2018/2810
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

I have been trying to organise several site visits with Transport for London (TfL) for several months now to look at serious tube noise problems which have not been remediated despite lasting for a considerable time, in one case for over 2 years. All I get is a TfL run around. Will you instruct TfL to stop prevaricating on tube noise issues and set up such site visits as soon as possible?

• Reference: 2018/2809
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

A constituent has reported to me that they tried to log a tube noise complaint with Transport for London (TfL). By phone, they eventually got through to the complaint number. They were kept waiting for 10 minutes and as soon as they were no 1 in the queue an officer spoke to them and immediately they were disconnected. They tried again and after hearing for most of 20 minutes that they were 3rd in the queue they gave up. Online, they found it very difficult to find the appropriate section to register the noise complaint. It keeps assuming the complaint...

• Reference: 2018/2808
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Do you think it is right that Transport for London (TfL) base their decisions on noise mitigation on their view that their drivers and fare-paying passengers, who may suffer a minimum additional period of inconvenience, should be prioritised over those residents that have a constant disbenefit, for example in Fitzrovia? Whilst TfL consider they have a solution to the problem (the Pandrol system), they are refusing to implement it due to tunnel noise affecting passengers.

• Reference: 2018/2807
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

In a previous answer on tube noise, you said 'TfL continues to work alongside industry and academia to further understand noise and vibration and to trial new products and solutions.' Please give further details of work being done in industry and academia on this; and bearing in mind that the noise has been caused in the main due to the shift to 'new products', i.e. concrete sleepers and flat profile rail, will you have a moratorium on the installation of concrete sleepers, until a proper solution to the noise generated is found?

• Reference: 2018/2806
• Question by: Andrew Dismore
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Bearing in mind the number of complaints about tube noise, from areas that have never before had a problem, are linked to Transport for London's move from timber sleepers to concrete slabs, which are not proving maintenance free and are also one of the major causes of the increased noise levels, will you look again at this policy?