a) Report on the GTR Passenger Benefit proposals for Croydon Stations (GTR – Yvonne Leslie)
b) GTR plans for encouraging people back to Rail (GTR – Yvonne Leslie)
Minutes:
a) Report on the GTR Passenger Benefit proposals for Croydon Stations (GTR – Yvonne Leslie)
The GTR representative presented slides on the Passenger Benefit Fund (PBF), which were shared with the Panel after the meeting. This presentation outlined the programme and how it was developed through resident feedback and suggestions. There was a fund allocation per station and it had been broadly decided what was planned at most of those sites. Projects were underway pre-Covid, however they had to stop for much of the summer but now had resumed.
The lists of planned work could be found on the following link:
www.southernrailway.com/about-us/our-commitments/improving-your-stations
The following was discussed:
In response to the Chair asking if West Croydon Station would see any improvements form this scheme, The GTR representative stated that West Croydon Station was not included in the programme. The Fund was for GTR managed stations or stations with Thameslink services. The other operator stations had a longer approval rating process.
Councillor Ben-Hassel stated that it was agreed in Scrutiny Streets, Environment & Homes Sub-Committee that there would be a discussion between GTR and the council for ideas on pooling funding to insure benefits were driven towards outcomes with impact, opposed to smaller changes which did not improve the lives of passengers. She raised that the Transport department had difficulty contacting GTR and now the decisions had already been made and an opportunity was missed, where council and ward councillor knowledge of the users and areas could have been utilised. A mosaic would be a nice addition to a station, however things could have been identified with more impact, such as a second entrance at Norbury onto London Road. In response to the GTR representative stating that she would check with the project manager but a second entrance was not feasible in all areas, Councillor Ben-Hassel said that some of these ideas would have been feasible had the funds been pooled. The Chair stated that the PBF could have been spread to be spent on more substantive changes on a number of sites, particularly to improvements to mobility infrastructure, which would make a huge difference to people’s lives.
The ESTC representative stated the DfT refused to introduce the Oyster service at Reigate, which wold have benefitted far more people than some of the planned improvements listed in the presentation.
The Head of Transport expressed frustration over the missed opportunity of some improvements, specifically the Norbury second entrance. The GTR representative explained that The PBF had been directed at projects which did not require any ongoing funding. The Planning and Strategic Transport Officer spent years trying to give GTR capital funding to open the entrance onto London Road, but the push back was the revenue cost associated, but that cost would shrink as they moved closer towards the end of the franchise period. The council later reiterated the request to pool money where they thought GTR were able to and make a noticeable difference to passenger experience, which was what the PBF original aim was and felt like a missed opportunity after years of trying to introduce the entrance.
For East Croydon Station improvement, there was not much engagement but there was a discussion and the council had a list of improvements. For larger stations, there needed targeted improvements to make a different, not necessarily physical ones. One suggestion was a deep clean of the station and Thornton Heath Station. Some PBF improvements were not strategic, such as murals because the council provided its own programme to deliver murals in the town centre and often would not have a lasting effect.
b) GTR plans for encouraging people back to Rail (GTR – Yvonne Leslie)
The GTR representative presented a slide on encouraging people back to rail, which was shared with the Panel after the meeting. This outlined the extra support GTR provided during this time including an enhanced cleaning regime, clear information to passengers in advance of travelling and staff at hand to help provide clear key messaging at stations to wear masks and wash hands. The train service provisions were devised progressively depending on demand, feedback from stakeholders and operational feasibility which was linked to staff shielding/isolating or delayed training. To track demand since the start of the pandemic, GTR were looking at data sets using infrared and weighted measures at ticketing entrances and on trains which gave real time views on trends which they could feedback to passengers. GTR were continuing to align with government advice. There was regional variants and GTR promoted the safe travel pledge in line with other operators.