Catching Up With The Committee: Part 2

Rail devolution is something that remains high on both the Assembly and TfL radars, and so it was no surprise when it reared its head at the April Transport Committee meeting. Joanne McCartney opened this topic by asking Sir Peter for an update on the South Eastern / Greater Anglia rail devolution discussions with the DfT. Sir Peter said the DfT had announced a significant reprogramming of the franchise programme. TfL does not believe that this new programme, with several franchise extensions, invalidates the concept of devolution or the ability to devolve a franchise prior to refranchising. Sir Peter made the specific point that reducing the scope of an existing franchise to devolve services to TfL would always involve a negotiation and this could be done at any point in the life of a franchise.

There have been detailed discussions about the economic justification of devolution and the extra costs that would be incurred to deliver the better service quality and reliability. He said that every serious question can be answered by TfL including those relating to the London Bridge rebuilding. This reveals a source of concern that has clearly figured in discussions and how adding an extra train operator through London Bridge could affect the level of service to commuters. Sir Peter believes the TfL approach to building / delivering reliability in its rail operations will support more reliable operation on remaining franchised services. It would also support effective operation through the constrained site at London Bridge. He anticipates a decision from government shortly. The budget is in place and value for money can be demonstrated.

Joanne McCartney asked if staff levels would mirror those on existing Overground and if Oyster ticketing would be extended outside London to the few South Eastern stations that TfL would serve. She also enquired as to how TfL would deal with overcrowding – assuming similar levels of growth were seen on the new operations as have been seen on the existing Overground network. Sir Peter said the Overground concept relies on much higher quality and on easier to understand Oyster fares. He said the London Bridge rebuilding is a serious constraint in the short term. There would be no immediate capacity improvement on South Eastern but there is an expectation of better quality delivering more passengers and revenue. Once this virtuous cycle is established you then get the justification for longer trains. He said passengers on Greater Anglia and South Eastern inner suburban services have been “badly dealt with” in recent years and that there was scope for significant expansion of capacity over a period of time following the release of capacity at London Bridge. There could be a programme of extra trains for South Eastern to ensure all peak services were 12 cars and longer and extra off peak services could be operated.

By way of contrast three days after the Assembly Meeting it became clear that Kent County Council are completely opposed to TfL’s plans to take over some services in Kent. This is based on fears that TfL will “steal” train paths from longer distance services .

Richard Tracey asked why the new Overground service from Clapham Junction is closed for maintenance works at weekends. Sir Peter replied that only a short bit of the line is new and Network Rail has to make sure the old tracks are maintained. He said TfL are making the point to Network Rail that old assumptions about closing orbital lines for maintenance have to be changed so services are not completely removed at times when increasing numbers of people actually wish to travel.

Tom Copley asked if more devolution on the Southern and Thameslink routes within the combined franchise is being sought by TfL. Sir Peter said that Greater Anglia and South Eastern were chosen because of their earlier planned refranchising dates. The scope of the combined Southern / Thameslink is so huge that the Mayor could not control all of it. Some services, however, are definitely in the scope of the Mayor and Greater London. The TfL preference would therefore be to take control of the shorter, more local services. Sir Peter said there was a parallel with Crossrail’s concept where it made more sense to concentrate shorter services through the central area tunnel. On Thameslink this meant trains from Luton or Sutton through the Thameslink core rather than longer distance ones from Kings Lynn or Eastbourne. It would therefore seem that TfL would want a shared operation through Thameslink, but recognises there are likely to be limitations to what the DfT would consider.

Sir Peter repeated one of his observations about the TOCs and that they will inevitably concentrate on their longer distance services as that is where the most revenue is. He also observed that the performance and crowding regime on National Rail “punishes success”. Therefore the TOCs have no incentive to boost inner London traffic because they would most likely breach their overcrowding limits. As a side comment, Sir Peter said that Oyster on rail services was an example of TOCs not being interested in London. As a result of Mayoral pressure and no TOC interest TfL paid for the extension of Oyster ticketing. However the TOCs have subsequently collected all the benefit. He remarked that all the TOC MDs are now “smiling” even though they refuse to disclose to TfL how much better off they are. Sir Peter said he was not happy, given TfL paid for it all but had seen no benefit. He challenged the Transport Committee to invite the TOC MDs to a meeting to see if they could find out the scale of benefit accruing to the TOCs.

The discussion then moved on as to whether there any risks in TfL taking on more devolved services. Sir Peter didn’t think there were risks in TfL taking on more rail services. He stated the most important issue is making sure that TfL are given full, not reduced, budgets if the DfT agree to transfer services to TfL control. TfL could not take on these services on the basis of it being a budget reduction exercise by the DfT. DfT are still under great pressure to show their competence and Sir Peter remarked that TfL could take some of the pressure off the department through taking on parts of the network via the devolution process. TfL have demonstrated that they can successfully tender and manage a rail concession contract in London.

Andrew Dismore asked whether the contract for the Thameslink franchise was being delayed because of the rebuilding works in the Central area. Sir Peter said the DfT are letting the franchise on a cost basis, not a standard franchise. He pondered as to how you cope with large scale works when the TOC owner have to take the revenue risk, saying that the impact of the works was inevitably costed as a risk in the franchise and came with a large price tag.

Sir Peter stated that not every rail line lends itself to TfL control given the varying service patterns. Although not directly stated, it was clear there was no aspiration to take on something like parts of Chiltern given the sparse number of stations in the London area.

Mr Dismore asked what bits of Thameslink TfL wanted to take over. Sir Peter replied that the inner suburban elements, such as from Luton inwards, was favoured as the routes would provide a reasonable alternative to overcrowded tube services if rail services were more frequent and better stations were provided. Finally Mr Dismore asked if Sir Peter was aware of suggestions that Cricklewood Station would be closed if the planned Brent Cross development proceeded. Sir Peter had not heard anything about closure proposals but was aware of a possible new station at Cricklewood.

Joanne McCartney asked if the Great Northern stopping services into Moorgate were being looked at by TfL for devolution. She felt it would make sense for these services to be devolved. Sir Peter said this line was a rare example of a London railway where patronage had fallen since the through service had been put in place in the late 1970s. He agreed that the relatively self-contained nature of the service, and it being largely within Greater London, leant itself to being run by TfL. Joanne McCartney added a plaintive “please” by way of closing reply.

Following on from Ms McCartney, Nicky Gavron said the old orbirail project justification had struggled because no one was confident about demand projections. Citing the experience of the revamped Overground service providing evidence that a high quality service will attract high levels of use, she asked if the planners and approvers had learnt the lesson about estimating the benefit of these improvements.

Sir Peter replied that an important lesson had been learnt and the case for 5 car trains and the related infrastructure changes had been compelling and easy to make. He continued by highlighting that he thought TfL had gained control of the former Silverlink Metro services as they were such a “basket case,” and that no one in the DfT knew what to do with them. He closed by saying the medium term issues for the Overground were even longer trains where the scale of infrastructure work would be much more costly. He added that “never used” freight paths would also be needed and that TfL were already trying to get these paths for use by Overground services.

The Mayor’s Cycling Vision

The final part of the Q&A session turned to cycling – specifically the Mayor’s Cycling Vision.

Darren Johnson asked what impact the Cycling Vision was expected to have on cycling demand and safety in inner and outer London. Sir Peter replied that a “very considerable” impact was anticipated. He then confirmed that there was a £20m rollover of under spent funds into the current financial year. He continued by saying that much of the work is on Borough roads and needs their involvement to make sure the money is spent properly and effectively. A conference has been held with central area boroughs. The Mayor’s Cycling Commissioner (Andrew Gilligan) had visited all of the boroughs to secure their engagement.

Mr Johnson then asked why the number of “Mini Hollands” in outer boroughs had been limited to just three boroughs. In reply Sir Peter said TfL wants the best plans and also the best delivery. There is a very clear concern that spending cuts in local government may imperil the delivery of some schemes. There was a suggestion that some London boroughs may end up not having traffic engineers due to the scale of funding cuts. An interesting remark at this point was an observation that funding is an issue, but not everything being done to improve cycling is justified via conventional means. It became clear that IIPAG (and others) had been arguing about the justification for increased cycling investment. Sir Peter remarked that TfL have done what the Mayor has asked because of the link to the Mayor’s manifesto promises.

Mr Johnson then asked if TfL would do more than the three “mini Holland” schemes if many good ideas came forward. Sir Peter returned to the need to see a consistent and reliable level of funding as part of a long term settlement for TfL. If the initial schemes worked then Sir Peter expects pressure for more schemes will build up. He added that there has to be delivery capability in the Boroughs to make this work. There then followed some subtle pressure from Mr Johnson about the “percentage of the TfL budget spent on cycling”. The subtext to this question was whether TfL would fund more schemes and push spending up to the 1% of the total TfL budget level that the Green Party in particular wants to see. In response Sir Peter said that government and business were already questioning the value of devoting a larger proportion of the budget to cycling. He argued that you have to have success from delivered schemes to get more funding and justification for the future.

There was a definite sense from the discussion that TfL are not yet fully confident as to where benefits will flow from and what impacts better cycling facilities will have. There is probably also a “data gap” in that there is not yet sufficient data of the required quality to give TfL planning certainty, or to create a firm evaluation framework for schemes.

Cycling Superhighways

The discussion on expenditure then moved on to the next phase of Cycling Superhighway implementation. TfL has said that the superhighways being built in the Mayor’s second term will be to a different standard so Mr Johnson asked whether these changes will alter the scope of what can be delivered because of the higher costs of segregated routes. Sir Peter said there may be some challenges in future schemes but also opportunities. He cited an example of the forthcoming Cycle Superhighway CS2 that will cross Vauxhall Bridge and head towards Victoria. In the past these schemes would have been on TfL roads but now some may be on quieter borough roads and thus would be cheaper to deliver (TfL are considering diverting CS2 on to Belgrave Road and around Victoria rather than try to modify the Victoria one way system). The budgetary question raised its head again – would TfL need to increase the budget because of the changes to design standards on the superhighways?

Again Sir Peter would not be drawn on a commitment to increases but reflected on using quieter, cheaper routes and more judicious use of segregation. There is clearly significant pressure on funding given the commitments to “Go Dutch” standards, more segregation and tackling the most dangerous junctions. Sir Peter said TfL were still working through all of the implications of trying to do so much more and to different, higher standards even with an increased budget.

Getting Value for Money

When Peter Anderson was asked how the TfL Board assess spending on cycling, the rather unexpected response was “Boris wants to do it”. The “value for money” question has not been considered by Board because of Mayoral demands to increase spending on cycling. One wonders quite what has gone on at City Hall to get us to this somewhat “untried and untested” position on large scale cycling investment. Mr Anderson concluded by saying that the TfL Board will review the effectiveness of scheme implementation once some have been delivered. The Board has not reviewed a business case for segregated cycle superhighways – they are being done because the Mayor has said they must be done.

There is still much debate about the level of segregation to be employed in cycling schemes. There is a “Learn as you do” approach from the Board to see what works in the cycling area. Piloting a small number of schemes (like the mini Hollands) is seen as very important to give a basis for any future schemes and to identify best practice that works in London. Mr Anderson said “We need to try and learn and see what works best in different scenarios”. There is a need for very extensive study of the resultant schemes. He cited the example of the London Overground improvements – “if you give people something that is convenient, easy to use and safe then you will get growing usage that gives you the basis for more investment and improvement in the future.” He felt the cycle schemes could mirror the success of the Overground – “If cyclists feel safe as a result of these schemes then you will see an increase in usage and then you get a virtuous cycle of proven benefits.”

Nick Gavron said new cyclists would most likely come from people using cars or buses or tubes. She asked if the benefit of releasing road space and transport capacity was considered as part of the business case assessment. Peter Anderson said there was such strong growth in patronage that any released capacity was immediately used up.

Reviewing Junctions

Val Shawcross asked for confirmation that funding had been increased for the Junction Review scheme and asked what would be achieved with the extra money. Sir Peter confirmed that funding had increased from £19m over 2 yrs to £100m over 4 years and that “more of them” would be done. Once the laughter from Assembly Members had died down, he continued saying that it was eminently sensible to have both more money and time to allow this work to be done properly.

There is a considerable challenge for TfL to try to improve safety for all road users without significantly worsening congestion and delays. There is huge pressure on road space in London which means there is a need to plan carefully or take some measured decisions as to who suffers the disbenefit of reducing junction capacity in order to improve safety. Some junctions are very difficult to resolve given each arm can be operating at over 100% capacity at peak times. There is a need, amongst all the lobbying, to recognise that roads serve business and bus passengers as much as cyclists and pedestrians and clearly TfL are trying to find balanced solutions. Some of the planning might take cyclists away from difficult junctions thus removing the need to re-engineer complex junctions (e.g. Victoria one way system on CS2). Sir Peter said the best traffic engineers in the country have been brought in to help deal with the most difficult junctions. He added that “We did our best at Kennington and Stockwell on CS7 but feel can do much better now”. TfL are still on a learning curve as to what can be achieved. The Transport Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) are working on trials for TfL on the more complex solutions for the most difficult junctions. Some of the ideas have not been used in the UK before and the trials have gone well. Unfortunately there were no references as to where these trials have been undertaken and what was being trialled.

The discussion then turned to the development and publication of revised Cycling Design Standards and if these were still due in 2013 and would include a “strong working through” of “Going Dutch” principles. Sir Peter said there is a tremendous pressure to deliver a wide range of initiatives and there is a skill shortage of people who know how to design the infrastructure. There needs to be sufficient time to do things properly and TfL are unable to use consultants as there is not the experience in the UK of delivering these sorts of cycling schemes. While he was hopeful that the standards would be completed in 2013, he indicated that there was a need to be practical about what can be delivered this year. There is a need to develop skills, competence and experience inside TfL and with the boroughs to allow faster delivery in the future.

Val Shawcross expressed concern about a shift of skills, resource and money from the London boroughs to TfL. This could result in the boroughs being unable to create and deliver decent bids for “mini Hollands”. Sir Peter acknowledged that the Boroughs were under extreme pressures but would not countenance the release of resources from TfL to help the Boroughs. He foresaw problems for TfL and the Boroughs if resources were spread too thinly or the boroughs ended up without traffic engineers as they would be unable to maintain their own roads. Transferring resource would stop TfL doing what they need to deliver this year which would be to no one’s benefit. He continued by saying that the new design standards will assist as they would remove the need for differing designs from each borough.

In closing Caroline Pidgeon asked about progress in expanding the provision of cycle training and if there were sponsorship opportunities. Sir Peter said TfL are looking at the level of latent demand for cycle training and the relationship to school curriculum times. He said some sponsorship might be possible and would be helpful. He added he is keen to see more cycle training to help the expansion of cycle use and proper behaviour on the highway. It would be foolish to increase cycling facilities and not ensure new cyclists were trained so there was “no false confidence” in using the roads. He also said all school children should receive cycle training. Caroline Pidgeon thanked Sir Peter for TfL’s support for the Assembly’s report on cycling.