A Glimpse At The Transport Path Ahead

1. So, rather than increasing congestion charging, the choice is to impose a supplementary emission charge on a wider geographical area. The difference being, of course, that the emissions charge can be avoided by using a compliant vehicle.

   Potentially, an emissions charge could be imposed on the Heathrow area, or is this too big a fight?

2. Gosh, no mention of the Garden Bridge as something Sadiq could open… 😉

3. R953
   I think that it will be renamed the ‘structural and operational efficiencies’ bridge.

4. If a ULEZ is to expand in all directions to the Circulars then a very substantial number of people will be caught up in the new demands; not only the millions living there (including yours truly) but also commuters by the thousands. Whilst clearly a good and necessary thing to do I can’t help but wonder how big the backlash will be once people realise the costs involved.

5. According to yesterday’s Observer
   http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/14/sadiq-khan-thames-garden-bridge-boris-johnson-mayor-london
   he is looking into whether the procurement process was completely above board.
   The gaurantee underwriting its costs had not been signed under BJ’s mayorship, and Khan may choose not to do so.

   The article repeats the misleading statement that Boris and Joanna Lumley were childhood friends: she says she has known him since he was four – and she was 22.

6. Alison
   The article links to the consultation proposal. Nothing is said – either way – about residents’ liability for the emissions charge. A statement of intent will have to be made soon, otherwise the usual suspects in the media will take the worst case outcome.

7. Re Answer =42,

   A Heathrow ULEZ has been proposed by Heathrow Airport itself but the area surrounding airport is another matter.

   Re Alison,
   The current ULEZ proposals (congestion charging area as the boundary) gave locals living within or to close to the zone, a grandfathered period till 2023 instead of 2020 to comply so 6.5 years to replace any existing non compliant vehicles. The average life span of a UK car is circa 16 years and increasing slowly so the youngest non compliant (diesel) cars would be 8 years in 2013 or the youngest non complian petrol cars 17 years old in 2023.

   The big issues are diesel vans, lorries, coaches and buses as they have to be Euro 6/ VI which still isn’t compulsory for all new vehicles (van not till sept 2016, other s already have to comply).

   Vehicles built before 1 January 1973 will also be exempt from ULEZ as there were no emission rules before then…

   Whether any (diesel) vehicles retrospectively fail due to gaming tests vs real world performance /use is another matter. (See the recent Nissan vs South Korea argument…)

8. “The BBC reports that the Mayor of London’s office estimates that around 86m people would benefit from this policy”
   I assume that is 86m journeys rather than people, and measured per annum?

9. Has the crossrail 2 consultation concluded that it should revert to the Tooting Broadway option? You suggest this don’t don’t mention that it was the option prior to Balham being mooted…

10. “86m people would benefit from this policy, as they currently use more than one bus trip as part of a one hour journey”
    Probably an underestimate, as there will be others who currently walk the shorter leg, (or both legs), or use some other means of transport altogether, and are therefore not counted in the 86m journeys. Of course, these will be at worst cost-neutral to TfL, and will in many cases result in extra revenue, (or at least revenue diverted from tubes/cycle hire to buses)

11. “Crossrail 2 to link Clapham Junction to Wimbledon via Tooting Broadway instead of previously proposed Balham”

    Should be

    “Crossrail 2 to link Clapham Junction to Wimbledon via Balham instead of previously proposed Tooting Broadway ”

    (Balham is the most recent proposal)

12. “the new Mayor is also proposing to commit TfL to only purchasing hybrid or zero-emission double decker buses from 2018 onwards”
    TfL does not normally purchase buses (NbfL excepted). It specifies what type of bus (number of decks, diesel or hybrid, etc) but it is up to the operator who gets the contract to procure them.

13. “doubling the Ultra Low Emission Zone to stretch north and south of the Congestion Charging Zone rather than just include the part of central London within it. The new Ultra Low Emission Zone will extend to the North and South Circular.”

    The CC area is about 5km across. The area bounded by the N/C Circular roads is about 25km across, so the area is not doubled but increased 25-fold, and the perimeter to be policed will increase 5-fold

14. Re Stephen C,

    Except Tooting is apparently a realistic possibility again so the wording could be correct, give it some time and Balham will probably be flavour of the month again soon though.

15. @Stephen C
    “Should be

    “Crossrail 2 to link Clapham Junction to Wimbledon via Balham instead of previously proposed Tooting Broadway ”

    Probably, but if anyone can persuade the new mayor to stick with the original proposal, it is surely the MP for Tooting (one S Khan Esq) !

16. Would they be relying on manufacturers stated emissions for calculating the charge??? Or are TFL going to do their own measuring?

17. timbeau 16 May 2016 at 16:19

    “if anyone can persuade the new mayor to stick with the original proposal, it is surely the MP for Tooting (one S Khan Esq) !”

    Pay attention! He’s already resigned.

18. re Stephen Burch,

    Would they be relying on manufacturers stated emissions for calculating the charge??? Or are TFL going to do their own measuring?

    Manufacturers so it could take some time to produce actual improvements in air quality!

19. @ngh, Stephen Burch

    Given the ongoing scandals of VW and Mitsubishi auto companies cheating on pollution measurements, TfL or an independent party need to measure the buses’ emissions, randomly.

20. Re LBM,

    (Add Nissan to that list today.)
    It would be very expensive to do the necessary testing so they’ll just go for official (manufacturer) testing and then wonder why NOx doesn’t fall that much!

    HMT just applying duty on Petrol and Diesel according to their energy contents rather than by volume (as currently) would be the highly effective and simple solution to reduce the number of new diesel cars on London (and other city) roads where the annual vehicle mileage is relatively low as the payback period for the extra cost of diesel car would then be significantly longer so as to discourage their purchase by most potential first owners.

21. The other group of people you can add to those 86M benificiaries from Hoppers is people who have a less delayed journey through being able to get a combination of buses when their usual route is disrupted, without having to pay extra.

22. The proposals for resurecting the consultancy arm London Transport International are interesting, I presume the reason for this it that there are surplus staff who can be employed by the consultancy arm to ear=n the external revenue. What seems odd is that at present TfL seem to spend large amounts with various consultancy firms, look at the payments on the TfL website if you need to know how much. Are TfL really employing large number of consultants while having surplus staff available or is it just a matter of needing consultants with skill sets that are n ot available internally ?

    If I remember correctly the reason for LT International being shut was that it was seen as unfair competition based on part of the costs being subsidised by London Transport.

23. A few typos

    “the use expensive contractors.” – missing “of” I think.
    “is unlimited transfer bus ticket” – “an” rather than “is”?
    “According the document” – add “to”
    “via concession like ” – add “a”
    “private hire drivers are fare ” – surely it should be “fair”?

    Queries

    “The price tag of a one hour bus hopper is an estimated £50m. ” – TfL’s pronouncements on the day of the launch said £30m. I agree that previous Mayor’s Answers had said £50m but TfL have now said something different – presumably to do with the product concept they’ve come up with for September. And to answer another query it is 86m journeys a year not people (from the Mayor’s press release).

    “Measures committed to by the new Mayor are underway for ” – I don’t see how measures can be underway when they are stated as being dependent on funding. I accept the Mayor’s press release says there is a commitment but it seems poorly worded to me. I’m not aware of any work happening to upgrade euro5 spec vehicles. In fact it was specifically turned down my the previous Mayor in the context of upgrading euro5 spec NB4Ls. It was also said that such an exercise would be technically difficult on the NB4Ls.

    “The presentation suggests that the Mayor will put forward a proposal for the new consultancy arm of Transport for London. ” – err surely TfL will put forward proposals to the Mayor? That’s how I read the presentation.

    Sorry to be quite so picky but I’m afraid that’s how I am when “reviewing” text. I used to drive people who worked for me mad when I reviewed their work. Corrections and queries everywhere. 😉 They soon learnt though! Feel free to delete this set of comments when the editing is done / you reject what I’ve suggested. 🙂

24. Question – has there been a study into putting a modern tram along oxford street while banning all other traffic – (save for maybe delivery trucks) – please let me know / send link

25. Re LBM,

    Some interesting recent studies in Netherlands and Germany on commercial vehicles (inc buses) in real use NOx emissions in urban service suggest there could be some quick gains through modifications. (Some fleet users already do this but NOx would be the most difficult emission to do this for, the key thing would be to keep:
    the effective compression ratio (in cylinder CR * turbo CR),
    combustion temps lower
    [both of which would decrease fuel efficiency]

    and reduce (aggressive) acceleration to which the answer is parallel hybrid (Boris bus style) where the engine is either on or off.

26. Even if vehicles pass emissions tests with no cheating by manufacturers, there will still be differences between the drive cycle used in the lab and real world driving conditions in London.

    It is still possible that cars could meet the latest Euro 6 emissions tests but air quality is still lousy because of the inherent stop/start, crawl along at an average 10 mph driving in London.

    I think that Euro 6 cars less than 5 years old by 2020 won’t need to pay the ULEZ charge. If the ULEZ doesn’t improve air quality appreciably then the latest models should be charged as well however maybe this will be done under the label of “congestion charging”. 😉

27. No apologies necessary for pointing out fixes! I’ve made them all (and swapped the Balham / Tooting reference).

28. Re 21 Century Railway,

    TfL international mark 2 – I suspect they don’t have enough full time work to take on people with certain skill sets due to the cyclical nature of worksflows so they use consultancies instead however if you could sell a small ammount of the spare time of some of the additional staff then that changes things.

    Also other UK regional transport bodies than have recently been empowered (TfN and Welsh Government) might be willing to hire TfL consulting if the price is cheaper than consultancies.

    (I can’t see Edinburgh selling tram expertise, so there are potential tram knowledge transfer to South Wales)

29. Re WW,

    The simplest way to upgrade the older NBfLs from Euro V and improve real world NOx performance would probably be to install a petrol engine at the expense of more CO2 but that is so radical the rules don’t even consider commercial petrol engines as CO2 has always been seen as the main evil in those quarters. If reducing NOx comes to the top of the priority list very different answers come out.

30. Re Reynold 953,

    I actually suspect that some firms getting engines retuned on their fleets to improve fuel efficiency / CO2 emissions may has increased NOx emissions on the roads in some circumstances depending on what the tuning firms have done.

31. A few thoughts on the presentation.

    While I can see why TfL have done it (why wouldn’t you want to impress the new boss?)but I’m suprised it was released to the media. It’s actually quite a clever document to try to “capture” the new Mayor and tie him into an awful lot of ongoing activity. Clearly there are the appropriate nods to expected policy changes. I suspect the ULEZ ideas have been “on the shelf” inside TfL for a long while but weren’t allowed out by the previous Mayor. It’s quite an ambitious agenda and TfL can’t just have dreamed all that up nor can they do all the supporting work in 100 days or less. That’s why I suspect it’s been sitting there waiting for a policy change or an event that forced the previous Mayor’s hand.

    I am very interested to see what happens with the “fare structure” review. Note that the Mayor made no commitments on structure. I’d also go so far as to quibble over what is a “fare” and what isn’t. For example season tickets are not fares – traditionally they are “rates” or “prices” but not fares. I expect someone very clever has been beavering away to work out how the Mayor’s policy can be delivered in a clever way that minimises the impact on the revenue base and which might even do clever things like allow some prices to rise but offer people alternatives that cost the same or less than they currently pay. I may be wrong but I don’t see every aspect of the current fares, zones and product ranges remaining the same.

    I note that TfL refer to “modernising” the taxi and private hire trades while the Mayor’s provisions are more about protectionism and enforcement. One to watch I think and it may get very nasty indeed. If you want to get a hint of how aggrieved the taxi trade is then look on Twitter. I fell across an account the other day and was really quite shocked at the views and issues. I know that’s not a singular example of the mistrust either.

    I note that the TfL presentation talks a lot about bus industry and green issues but says nowt about making the bus service better for passengers. Strange priorities there. It also palpably ignores the commitment to set up a TfL bus company to compete against the private sector companies for route contracts. State aid and unfair competition concerns I wonder?

    I’m still waiting for the Mayor to announce some of his senior team (except Statutory Deputy Mayor). I’m slightly surprised we’ve got this far without any announcements even though he said he’d take his time.

32. @chris – Mike Horne’s blog has a thoughtful piece on why a tramway along Oxford Street is most unlikely to see the light of day. BOFP is enough to avoid commissioning some expensive consultants…

    [BOFP – Back of fag pack. LBM]

33. Bus and truck emissions have been tested on-road (rather than in labs like passenger cars/ vans) since the early 2000s due to dieselgate-like scandals in the late 1990s.

    Heavy goods emissions controls are very effective (unlike passenger cars and vans), it will likely not be possible to reduce emissions in heavy goods vehicles below Euro VI norms and instead electrification will occur. We are seeing this with the BYD order for the 507/521 busses and the test EV DDs on 98. The limiting factor here is the capacity of local grids to charge so many busses overnight.

    Van emissions are a disaster because:

    1) the lean trap technology (rather than selective catalytic reduction/ urea injection) used in vans (because it is cheaper) is ineffective (see Volkswagen),
    2) the controls are shut off completely anyway outside temperatures of 20-30 C (tests only require them to work in this range) (see Mercedes/ Opel),
    3) van operators don’t maintain DPFs either and having a DPF is essentially optional -although it is illegal to operate with the factory DPF removed, removing a DPF is not illegal and there is no real way of checking if it is installed as garages remove filters while leaving the outer casing.

    Euro 6 vans will almost certainly do nothing to help for above reasons.

    In fact, Euro VI busses/ trucks emit similar amounts of NoX to passenger cars/vans now.

    Refrigeration generators for cooled-truck bodies are also a disaster as there are NO emissions controls on those whatsoever so only God knows how much gunk they contribute.

    The NRM Euro Vs are fine as is because they have a higher proportion of electrification relative to other Euro V hybrids (they have a 75kWh battery pack) which enables them to run on electric power more often for longer and thus their NoX emissions are more or less similar to Euro VI Hybrids anyway. This is why they won’t be upgrading them.

    Hopefully what is coming soon is the removal of the congestion charge exemption for PHVs (estimated to bring in £350m per year I saw somewhere) to fund Sadiq’s fare freeze and the purchase by TfL of some of the new Metrocab/ LTC range-extended cabs (in a manner similar to the NRM purchase/ lease)

    Extending the ULEZ to north/south circulars will probably be done with resident exemptions and mainly to encourage shift to petrol via awareness. Even bringing it in to start in 2020 (note it starts in SEPTEMBER 2020, which is basically 2021, currently) would be an improvement.

34. Question – has there been a study into putting a modern tram along oxford street while banning all other traffic – (save for maybe delivery trucks) – please let me know / send linkChris @ 17:33

    A lot of shops have access to service areas at the rear/sides of blocks. Those that don’t still move stuff in cages with wheels. It’s possible that for significant sections delivery trucks wouldn’t be a problem.

    However, I suspect the cost for a tram would be an issue, particularly given this information: while there are a lot of bus stops on Oxford Street, there aren’t that many for each route. For example, the 10 runs the length of the street from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Road, but stops just five times in total, at:

    – Marble Arch tube station
    – Selfridges (v. near Bond St tube station)
    – just before Oxford Circus station (John Lewis)
    – just after Oxford Circus station (Great Titchfield St)
    – Tottenham Court Road station

    With the station redevelopments in progress significantly improving the rail accessibility picture, although admittedly not at Marble Arch tube, is it possible that a reduced bus service along Wigmore Street, perhaps with hybrids or electrics, might be more pragmatic?

    Not that I wouldn’t like to see a tram. As long as it had a Bordeaux-style ground-level power supply, that is…

35. Has the result of the latest Balham vs Tooting Broadway consultation actually been announced yet? What is the source for the decision you’ve stated? I suspect the final announcement may not be made until after the Tooting by-election to avoid purdah issues

36. I also do wonder if a tram limited to just Oxford Street itself would be politically feasible – wouldn’t a lot of people want to fight for it to push on up the newly-part-pedestrianised Tottenham Court Rd, or on and around Hyde Park?

    I’m not encouraging a further crayonist outbreak, I hope. Those are two examples but let’s assume people might want to argue for pretty much any major road at each end.

37. @WW
    I got the feeling from the way that the article was phrased, as well as the link, that the briefing paper was not so much ‘released’ to the meejah, more that it ‘escaped’. Which might suggest that the the new mayor has some friends that still have to be made.

    Perhaps I got this wrong; maybe Nicole could comment?

38. Re SCD

    Best post of the month so far!

    Refrigeration generators for cooled-truck bodies are also a disaster as there are NO emissions controls on those whatsoever so only God knows how much gunk they contribute.

    Lots according to one manufacturer I spoke to 6 years ago who were willing to do something about it (integrated with engine cooling circuits) but they said it was only worth contemplating if brought within emission regulations and then there is the whole can of worms on red diesel /fuel oil being allowed to be used for refrigeration purposes would have to be sorted so there are huge disincentives for manufacturers. (A DfT/HMRC/HMT problem)

39. …removal of the congestion charge exemption for PHVs

    About bloody time too. I think outside the PHV trade itself SK and TfL won’t get much argument on that.
    Question is: why did Boris never approve such a straightforward and obvious measure?

40. I am surprised by the lack of ambition in the ULEZ. We definitely need a zone which covers Heathrow (including the M25) but that can come if Heathrow expansion gets the go ahead.

41. Could someone please enlighten me as to what PHVs are ( both the words and the actual vehicles )

42. PHV = Private Hite Vehicle, which are disinct from Taxi’s (ie. black cabs)

43. Given that MTR, Deutsche Bahn (Arriva) and RATP have companies running services in this country – I see no reason why TfL can’t go make money abroad too…

    Anyway, I’m waiting for JR East to enter the UK market and crack the whip…

44. @Jeremy/Chris – apart from the problem of relatively few retail sites having rear access for deliveries, the four really difficult issues for any Oxford St tramway are (1) where to put the depot and (2) how/where to relocate the various services under the street, (3) where to put the existing east-west traffic, particularly east of Oxford Circus and perhaps (4) how to reinforce the tube stations and Central Line tunnels where they are close to the surface. No doubt, (1) could be solved if the tramway was part of a much wider network running out into the suburbs where a depot could be sited but – Hey! – we seem to have just recreated the bus problem…

45. @Kate

    As something like 90% of the M25 is outside of the GLA area, it is not within the mayor’s gift to incorporate it within any kind of zone. And even if it was, TfL is not the highway authority for motorways, these remain within the remit of Highways England.

46. I wonder where these trams along Oxford Street would be maintained?

    Also why would Crossrail reduce the number of bus passengers, there are no inner London stops, if I’m on the number 7, is it worth the additional faffing about and cost of getting off at Paddington for a couple of stops on Crossrail to Bond Street or Tottenham Court Road, what it’s more likely to do is to tempt drivers away from the M4, as there would be proper fast rail access from the west into Central London.

    From the east it saves the hassle of changing to the Central Line at Stratford, the traffic flow will probably be flipped over, with Central Line passengers switching to Crossrail, but passengers on the 25 can already switch to the Central Line at Mile End and Stratford – I’m not sure why they would change their behavior.

    Not sure about Abbey Wood, if you live somewhere like Erith, access to Central London will be significantly better, if you live in Eltham or Sidcup it may not matter for the regular commute.

47. 1 – TfL running buses in competition – not likely while they aren’t big enough to hedge fuel (ie buy in advance, up to a year ahead) – that’s what really killed East Thames. TfL running buses only becomes economically feasible with 1000 vehicles, and then they need garaging too.

    2 – pedestrianising Oxford Street – ok, where do you put 370 buses per hour? What about through bus passengers (routes 10, 73, 98, 390 for example)? Marble Arch and Oxford Circus stations are not ‘accessible’ – you need street-level lifts for starters. Also making people walk maybe a kilometre to find a bus or tube, with shopping, let alone mobility problems, will not endear passengers to TfL/Sadiq. And… When Oxford Street’s pollution was first measured, it was nearly all diesel buses. Now it’s nearly all hybrids, there are fewer buses (8, 15, 137 etc cut short) and the current pollution level is hardly changed. It isn’t buses to blame, or not as much as the headline misleads. A tram isn’t practical – turnrounds (have to stand somewhere, even double-ended LRVs), depot, utilisation, power system – can’t use overhead as above, interferes with Xmas illuminations – also knocks out trolleybuses. The only practical solution is all-electric buses with ‘opportunity charging’ (induction loops) but that still has pacemaker etc issues… And may interfere with precious mobile / internet signals (or not).

    3 – big issue with PHVs is their abuse of licencing to enter central London / CCZ. An annual licence costs £80 (gone up?) so anyone driving in and out 7 or more days a year is quids in by pretending to earn a living from ‘hire and reward’. No check is made to see if the applicant is a genuine PHV driver. If TfL passed every applicant’s name to HMRC (won’t breach the Data Protection Act, as each applicant is seeking a permit to earn an income), so that they could be taxed for such earnings. For self-employment now, HMRC can say you earn £x pa and you have to disprove it, not you say you earn £y and up to them to challenge it. With a presumption of taxable income they’re not earning hanging over applicants, a substantial number would back off…

    These are simplistic points – Sadiq and his deputy mayor for transport have to overcome TfL’s standard regime of blinding the outsiders with science, sabotage by media release, stubbornly saying ‘no’ for internal political reasons, putting cost issues before passenger need, and suffering greatly from NIH syndrome – ‘Not Invented Here’. Our transport system is good and getting better (some of the world’s best disability access facilities for example) – its management ain’t, and I admit to bias… But the new broom has a superb opportunity, Hopper Fares being the start as he means to carry on. Pity he’s leaning towards expanding London City Airport (off-topic?)

48. How does every other pedestrianised high street in the country manage with deliveries? Oxford Street is not unique, just very busy.

49. 370 bph seems an outrageous number of buses for a 1 mile street. Surely there must be scope for rationalisation.

50. @Chris Mitch – as has been pointed out above in this very thread, central London has really only three east west roads – Oxford Street, theStrand, and -less useful – the Euston Road. Many of the buses using Oxford Street are taking passengers between places quite remote from any part of Oxford Street. Presumably “outrageous ” is one of those adjectives with irregular forms – my buses provide a generous service to meet people’s needs; your buses have scope for economies; his bus services are outrageous.

51. @Graham H – yes there will be losers, and solving the bus issue is not trivial, otherwise it would have been done years ago. But 370 buses per hour is A LOT of buses.
    The West End approximates to a grid of streets, so there must be alternatives possible.
    I know various methods have been tried before, without much visible success (I remember when the pavements were widened and private cars banned 20 yrs ago – that made zero appreciable difference to congestion), so any new solution has to be dramatic, not a compromise. Good luck to the latest iteration…

52. Usual good read – but WW missed a couple of typos:

    “which discretely highlights” should be “…discreetly…”

    “2018-2010 time period” should be “…-2020”?

53. The TfL presentation says:

    “By 2020, 3,500 buses will by hybrid (including all buses in Central London) and
    all single decker buses will be electric or hydrogen” (which means that there will be no single-decker buses in Central London – really?)

    but the piece says:

    “all 300 single-decker buses in operation in central London would be zero emission and all 3500 double-deckers (including the 1000 NBfLs) would be hybrid by 2020”

    which isn’t quite the same thing. Anyone know the actual position?

54. @Chris Mitch -there’s no “must” about it -look at a map… The West End is no grid. BTW, I do think we need to audit that claim about 370 bph.

55. Can I respectfully suggest that any idea notion of tram shuttles on Oxford St be forgotten? It’s simply not going to happen. It’s not been mentioned by TfL at all and there a myriad of issues with it (as already stated above). If nothing else the retailers in Oxford St would not tolerate years of disruption.

    @ Chris Mitch – the numbers of buses in Oxford St have already been rationalised on several occasions. The crux of the matter is whether you want frequent bus services in the West End (and beyond) or an enforced route march for everyone. Resolving that particular dilemma is going to tax TfL’s bus planners as well as those at City Hall and Westminster City Council tasked with ensuring Equalities legislation is complied with.

56. @ Chris M / Graham H – the other relevant issue here is that it is not 370 bph traversing the full length of Oxford St. Many routes terminate at Oxford Circus itself having only run on half of Oxford St. The 159 traverses half to terminate at Marble Arch.

    @ Mike – the Mayoral press release on the ULEZ says “Deliver 3,500 hybrid/electric double decker buses and 300 zero emission buses in central London by 2020”. This is in line with other statements from TfL. The 300 zero emission buses are single deckers which TfL has said will all go fully electric starting with routes 507 and 521 later this year. Routes like the 46, 214, 274, 153, 100 and C10 make up the balance.

    Expanding the scale of conversion to all routes within the proposed larger ULEZ would incur massive costs for new vehicles and electric infrastructure. I am deeply sceptical that TfL’s budget could carry that scale of cost by 2020 or that there will be a competitive supply market for such buses. Do we really want to only buy electric buses from China? I think not. Even buying hybrid buses for all double deck routes in the larger ULEZ is likely to be costly despite the fact there is a already a proportion of hybrid deckers already in service in the area. TfL is still happily awarding new contracts within that area with the use of new or existing diesel buses.

    A sudden policy change could cause another set of “unwanted London buses” needing to be cascaded out of London / dumped on the second hand market just after the point at which operators have to have fully accessible double decks in service on their routes! Not good timing. It would also be the third such Mayoral determined vehicle policy in 20 years – firstly Ken with the push for a fully accessible fleet forcing out relatively young step entrance buses, secondly Boris with the bendy buses and now possibly a third with Mr Khan. At some point someone has to ask some questions even if you accept the basic policy intent behind the cascade had value.

57. @Graham H, on the contrary, there are a number of streets parallel to Oxford St . If some of them are currently one-way, or lined with some of the most expensive real-estate in the world, well, that’s a different issue.

58. The “370 buses per hour” claim seems to have originated in a submission made to TfL by the New West End Company in 2009. They say:

    Up to 370 buses run down Oxford Street in both directions every
    hour – with an average capacity of only 15.9% – ie although at
    peak times the buses are full, at other times many run virtually
    empty – source: Travel in London, report no.1 (2009)

    The Travel in London report they cite doesn’t seem to bear out their claims and doesn’t even mention Oxford St that I can see. I think the 15.9 number might actually be the average number of passengers per bus in London as a whole.

    It’s interesting how the (clearly out of date and rather misleading) 370 buses per hour statistic has gone from one used by proponents of pedestrianisation to one used by opponents.

    Some actual data on how many buses are on Oxford Street, who is using them, and where they are going is clearly needed. Without it everything is just entrenched positions and a priori assumptions. Peter Hendy’s comments from last year that all options are on the table and that Wigmore Street (AKA the A5204) is one of them do suggest that there is more flexibility within TfL than there used to be.

59. @answer=42: Presumably the same person who leaked the 1.9 billion figure for the fares freeze to the BBC leaked this document to them as well. It is hard to see that it wouldn’t have been authorised by someone very senior and also interesting to wonder what the Mayor might think about TfL going behind his back to the media.

60. @Doubting Terrapin: can’t use overhead as above, interferes with Xmas illuminations

    It’s fairly normal in cities with tram networks to have Christmas lights above the tram wires, sometimes using the same wiring points on buildings. Dare I say some of them (eg. in Austria) end up with much more attractive illuminations than London’s reliably tacky effort each year (Giant jar of Marmite, anyone?)

61. @Doubting Terrapin – Adding to Ian J’s reply, try these few seconds of Christmastide in Zürich:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJQHicrJP58

    As mentioned before, any tramway along Oxford Street would need to be linked to another route for depot space and maintenance and Cross River Tram would have been the choice for that. Moreover, trams would ‘turn around’ not just at each end of Oxford Street but at more remote and indeed more useful locations, of which there are several choices, each of which could be planned to link with connecting bus services serving major arteries, and indeed railways of all hues.

    For Graham H’s point about how to reinforce the tube stations and Central Line tunnels where they are close to the surface, there have long been tramway track foundation techniques out there (but maybe not ‘here’ in the UK) to cope with that type of challenge. Cheaper, too, than what one might imagine from present UK practice…

62. @Chris Mitch – name them! (Wigmore St apart). Better still, walk them.

63. Fifty millipounds for a one hour bus hopper looks like a batgain!

64. Walthamstow Writer, Mike

    I think Mike was querying the 3,500 buses will by hybrid (including all buses in Central London) which should have been written as “including all double deck buses in Central London”.

    Or maybe he was bemused by the statement that “all single decker buses will be electric or hydrogen” suggesting some advanced form of alchemy.

    Both statements suggest that the presentation was put together in a bit of a rush (quite understandable) and they also show the dangers of not being careful with presentations as they often reach a far wider and more diverse audience than was intended.

65. Re Oxford Street and the question of how frail/disabled people can get from tube or Crossrail stations to shops in the event of full pedestrianisation:

    I know everybody here probably hates them as much as the way they are currently used deserves, but isn’t this a potential genuine niche for cycle-rickshaws? Restrict them to Oxford Street itself and the less-used sideroads, and regulate vehicle quality, driver trustworthiness and fares properly, and that could solve the problem.

66. PoP: it was largely the contradiction created by the missing “double-deck” that bemused me, but also the statement about zero-emission single-deck buses being limited to Central London, when all single-deckers throughout London will apparently be electric or hydrogen.

    Your last paragraph is spot on, but I would expect a presentation being produced for a single-person audience (ie as narrow and undiverse as an audience can be), particularly when that person is the Big Boss, to be pretty accurate!

67. IanJ 01:16

    More telling to me is that Peter Hendy clearly made this point (consider Pedestrianising Oxford Street) when he knew he wasn’t going to be the person who would be lumbered with trying to sort out the problem and the various fractious parties that go with it – and we didn’t.

    It all has the feeling of outgoing ministers advocating freedom of information.

68. Philip: An interesting idea.

    However, I suspect that these vehicles are only operated because somebody makes money, probably quite a lot of money, from them. If you manage to regulate the fares to something that non-tourist passengers (or the taxpayer, come to that) can afford, I suspect that the supply of pedallers would dry up rather rapidly. (Airports use electric golf carts, which might have a role here, though the finances look rather challenging).

69. Walthamstow Writer, Mike

    Actually I suspect having all single deckers being electrically powered within the North and South Circular would not be an unfeasible option. It would look good politically as if something was being done and make it easier to put pressure on the taxi trade and others to do similar.

    Existing buses on routes affected could transferred to outer London or sold off. Unlike bendy buses there would be a ready market in the UK. The central exit door could easily be blocked off and converted to seating space. Of course you could convert some routes to double deck!

    I stand to be corrected but I suspect that not that many extra electric buses would be required, given that the majority in inner London are double deck, but as a statement about intentions it looks really good.

70. Re PoP,

    “Of course you could convert some routes to double deck! “

    You might need to sort some low railway bridges to do that though…

71. As well as cleaning up London, the new ULEZ could pose a considerable challenge to expanding Heathrow.

    The Davies report said Heathrow could be built, even though it would further increase local pollution above legal levels. He argued that as long as building a third runway didn’t make the air worse than at Marylebone, the London site expected to be dirtiest in 2030, it would not by itself “delay the date… for compliance” to the law and so could go ahead.

    TfL received QC advice that challenged the legal basis of such an interpretation of pollution law. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee also recognised this issue in one of their conclusion concerning the Davies Report:

    “Many of our witnesses interpreted the Commission’s interpretation of the Air Quality Directive as implying that significant increases in NO2 resulting from Heathrow expansion would be allowable because of worse performance elsewhere in London. This would make no sense in terms of protecting public health and wellbeing. The Government should make clear that this is not the position it intends to take when assessing the scheme for compliance with the Directive.”

    On top of the highly questionable legal basis of the “Marylebone Criterion”, a larger, earlier, ULEZ should pull down pollution levels at Marylebone and across the rest of London, leaving Heathrow isolated as the worst polluter in the region. The Government could ignore the select committee and give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow. But that would only be to start a robust legal challenge on pollution grounds made all the stronger if Heathrow itself was delaying compliance.

    Heathrow has in fact proposed a ULEZ for 2025, and could bring it in sooner. But given 60% of its passengers come in by road, any earlier, stricter restriction risks reducing demand and undermining the case for expansion. Khan’s new ULEZ would create rather a dilemma for Heathrow’s plans for a third runway.

72. @everybody referring to Oxford Street.
    Just had another intrepid visit to the Metropolis. at 15,30 Took a 25 from Chancery Lane to Oxford Circus. 1.25km took 25 minutes, i.e. about walking pace. (would have walked if I didn’t get it free). Buses lined up at every intersection. This is NO GOOD. uneconomic use of vehicles, road space and an obnoxious environment too. Something must be done.

73. @Chris Mitch
    “370 bph seems an outrageous number of buses for a 1 mile street”

    Why would the length of the street have any bearing on the matter? It means just over three buses each way every minute passing any given point.

    (Although I suspect there is no actual single point they all pass)

    The reason so many routes run along Ox St is to provide a direct service from Oxford Street to as many places as possible. The Hopper fare will make it possible to change buses at Marble Arch or Centre Point , allowing some (or all) of the existing through services to terminate there instead of continuing along Ox St. (or, to avoid finding space for them to stand, connect two services together across Oxford Street.

    This would also improve reliability on routes such as the 73, which are currently plagued by the congestion in Oxford Street.

    The number of people who use such services via Oxford Street, rather than to or from, must be very small – there are easier and quicker ways to get from Kings Cross to Victoria than the No 73! And as a 90% full shuttle bus can replace six 15% loaded through buses, congestion would be reduced and the shuttle bus will make better progress. Ideally it could be a resurrected, but shortened, Route 500, with tri-door single deckers (or even bendies!) for maximum boarding and alighting efficiency.

    The idea that Crossrail will have any affect on bus congestion in Oxford Street doesn’t bear scrutiny. It may feed more people into the area, but existing bus passengers are unlikely to be converted as very few people are currently travelling by bus to Ox St from beyond Zone 3. From within Zones 1/2/3 passengers using the bus are doing so despite the presence of the Central Line, presumably because the bus is cheaper – why would they transfer their allegiance to the parallel Crossrail?.

74. The 1 Hour interchange fare does present an opportunity to try a solution for Oxford Street running fewer buses through rationalising some routes at either end or diverting some via Wigmore St. The reduced number of buses on Oxford Street might actually have faster journey times and carry the same number of passengers if the average speed was higher?

    Crossrail completion and the TCR station area being less of mess might also result in some big usage changes.

75. @timbeau

    As has previously been discussed on this and other threads, a proportion of people who use buses to reach Oxford Street are disabled people who do so because none of the current tube stations in the area have step-free access.

76. timbeau,

    The idea that Crossrail will have any affect on bus congestion in Oxford Street doesn’t bear scrutiny

    Maybe, but the notion that Crossrail will bring more people into the area who will (probably) get no advantage from the buses and will probably be seriously disadvantaged – if the alternative is an easier traffic-free walk – does merit serious consideration.

    At the very least, it means if you are going to do anything about Oxford Street then just before Christmas 2018 would be a logical time to do it.

77. Just to nail this piece of rubbish about 370 buses an hour using Oxford Street, an analysis of the current schedules for routes between Selfridges and Oxford Circus (the most heavily bussed section) reveals 112 bph in each direction in the high morning peak- a total of 224 bph. [For lovers of detail, the specifics in terms of route/bph are:

    6/10
    7/10
    10/6-7
    23/10
    73/15
    94/12
    137/12
    139/8
    159/12
    189/8
    390/7-8]

    If all were full (unlikely) that equates to around 10 000 pax/hr – equivalent to the capacity of around 40 40m trams. 40 trams/hr is thought to be close to the maximum reliable operation these days and has – at least in Karlsruhe – led to complaints about the “Yellow Wall” blocking the street permanently.

78. TomP

    Thanks for some interesting and relevant facts.

    If the ‘Marylebone criterion’ doesn’t hold water legally – and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t – changing the relative levels of pollution between Heathrow and Marylebone is not going to have any impact.

    A ULEZ is going to impact on air passengers arriving at Heathrow by car either through increasing their costs by the amount of the ULEZ charge or by increasing some combination of costs and/or travel time through a change in transport mode. I can imagine some passengers switching to other airports in consequence of the ULEZ charge but this number is likely to be very small indeed. A more likely outcome is that any effect on road traffic and resulting air quality from the ULEZ charge will come about from changing how businesses access Heathow, rather than price-sensitive leisure passengers. In addition, ULEZ will provide funds for pollution mitigation measures.

79. @Graham H
    Your analysis is terrific! mine was more perfunctory I do confess, and took a broad average of the whole corridor Marble Arch to Holborn.
    Clearly Oxford Street is way over top. I doubt that 40 trams per hour is a desirable maximum frequency due to intersections. it being only practical to provide priority for public transport vehicles at lower frequency. The priority at intersections is of great significance, by my estimations can make a plus 75% improvement in speed. Paris T3 provides an interesting comparison. The very heavily patronised southern section (Pont Garigliano _ Pont National) has a 6 min interval service of Alstom Citadis with crush capacity (very crushed)
    of about 300. Total priority is given, resulting in journey times similar to metro. This provides 3,000 ph in each direction. RATP propose twin sets (6,000 ph) but maintaining the same frequencies to allow for continued total priority. This sounds about right for Oxford Street, but a daunting project nevertheless. Clearly, in any context there is a practical limit to passenger volumes conveyed on city streets. There are numerous videos on U tube, just put in Paris tram T3.
    The Karlsruhe Yellow wall effect is not new (saw it for myself last June). Manchester had the same problem in central area in 1920s and 1930s. (TramJam).

80. Does anyone know how far outside the NCR/SCR would the car grandfathering rights be likely to apply?

    A 2019 extended ULEZ would hammer the self employed and small businesses who work or make deliveries and collections inside the affected area. The largest companies, like Royal Mail, can exchange vehicles between different parts of the country (or even London), ensuring the new acquisitions are allocated to the ULEZ. Small enterprises who have recently acquired vans are effectively stuck with high daily access charges or the financial burden of forced disposals / early lease terminations.

    And patients in the North Middlesex Hospital, just the wrong side of the new boundary, might discover that no-one wants to come and visit them any more.

81. @AR – ! -You can extend the Gelbe Wand analysis a bit. Depending on traffic speeds, @40 tph and 12mph speed, the 1/2 mile between Oxford Circus and Selfridges would have at any time about 2 x 40m trams in each direction – so, a “wall” of about 160 m out of the 800 m available. Halving the service speed would double the length of the wall with nearly half the street blocked by trams at any one point in time.

    That other notoriously heavily trammed street, the Bahnhofstrasse in Zuerich, sees something like 36 tph but there doesn’t seem to be a matching Blauweiss Wand. This may be because service speeds seem to be quite high and stops quite widely spaced – and coupled tram sets are probably somewhat shorter on average than the 40m single car sets in use elsewhere.

82. @Oxford Street discussion

    Note: I have lived within 5 minutes of Oxford Circus for 20 years so far. Whether this brings a certain bias or local knowledge or both to my statements is entirely up to you.

    One thing that we should bear in mind when speaking of 15% loaded buses on Oxford Street, is that these buses are actually quite well loaded upon their arrival at Marble Arch, Tottenham Court Road or Oxford Circus. What cuts the loading on the routes is the congestion – many passengers will choose to leave the bus at either end, walk the length of the street, then board at the other end.

    I am well acquainted with the effect of both the morning and evening peaks on Oxford Street – though the bus frequency is approximately equal in both peaks, during the morning peak the traffic flows relatively smoothly, while in the evening it tends to come to a standstill. The difference? Sheer pedestrian throughput, and the effect of thousands of pedestrians (many of whom, being either escapees from the stranded buses or just present to enjoy the ambience, should not be on Oxford Street) on the traffic flow should be acknowledged.

    As for alternative east-west streets, let’s consider them one by one:
    – Marylebone Road: In practice, pollution levels on here are as bad as Oxford Street. Traffic levels are similarly high. As seen on tube strike days, adding high numbers of extra buses to Marylebone Road is a very bad idea. It’s also a very long distance from Oxford Street.
    – Howland St/New Cavendish St/George St corridor: There is a large bottleneck at Marylebone High Street which makes this impractical at best.
    – Wigmore Street (and Mortimer, Seymour Streets): During periods of closure on Oxford Street (e.g. Christmas light installation, water main replacement), this is often used as the diversion route. Observation of traffic levels on Wigmore Street during said times indicate the main barrier to running a substantial bus service down here is the traffic light sequences and the one-way system around Oxford Circus (Margaret Street and Cavendish Square) – these are problems that could likely be fixed. However, this would shift the traffic problem to north-south roads crossing both Wigmore and Oxford Streets which, due to two sets of lengthened traffic light changes, would quickly back up through Fitzrovia, Marylebone and Mayfair – Soho effectively being a driving no-go zone at this point in time.
    – Brook St/Grosvenor St (Marble Arch to Oxford Circus only – Soho having no east-west driving route wide enough to take buses): A reasonably viable solution for a small amount of bus traffic except for one section, the section along the side of the US embassy. It’s very narrow and widening it for buses probably risks our foreign relations, which aren’t exactly at their best at the moment.
    – Piccadilly/Shaftesbury Avenue/Haymarket/Pall Mall: Would be a viable solution, were it not for the fact this stretch is the equivalent of Oxford Street for taxicabs and private hire vehicles.

    In short, there is a small possibility of being able to spread your 370 or 224 buses per hour across the network of east-west streets, but you’ve just created a host of other problems while you were at it – so a non-starter.

    I’ll leave discussion on the feasibility of a tram service to you, but I do have another possible solution. With at least 224 buses per hour of empty space, and thousands of pedestrians, could you not set up a free-flow zone, similar to the one at Heathrow, along the length of Oxford Street – by getting people to use the buses as a short distance journey, you could clear the crowds and the traffic problems in one swoop?

83. Kaiserstrasse in Karlsruhe is now being relieved by the construction of a tram subway for the regional tram-trains, with only the urban trams staying above ground.

84. @Nameless
    The principle up until now has not been to extend grandfather rights beyond the boundary of the zone but to give residents/businesses based within the zone more time to adapt.

85. @Graham H.

    An interesting analysis. However, you omitted the 13 (10bph each way) and the 98 (12 bph) which brings the total to 268.

    However, the stretch you analysed is not the moist heavily bussed. More routes (2, 30, 74, 82, 113, 274) turn right out of Baker Street at Selfridges than turn left (13, 139, 189), so the most heavily bussed section is actually between Selfridges and Marble Arch.
    2/12
    30/7
    74/8
    82/12
    113/8
    274/9

    Total 56, less the 26 which turn left, makes an additional 30 each way, bringing the total to 328.

    If you include the three routes which turn left, that brings us to 380 passing the Selfridges junction, although there is no single stretch of Oxford Street that they all run along.

    (And if you include the stretch between Oxford Circus and Centre Point, you need to add the 25 and 55, both with 12 bph each way)

    In practice, I doubt that figure is often achieved. Even if you had a solid wall of buses, 300bph each way requires each bus to travel at least its own length every 24 seconds on average, or about 1.8km/h.

86. Bah, just set up a covered dual-speed moving pavement between Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road and be done with it (with gaps for intersections). Hop on and hop off with no infrastructure negotiation or waiting.

    However I note that if 90% of people are getting off the bus at the end of the street because it’s so slow, then maybe you should push the other 10% off too and terminate earlier, and free up some space on the road. I guess this is the easy win to get traffic down.

87. @The orange one
    Can you please elucidate on free flow zone. I don’t understand how it is possible to alleviate congestion and delay by only catering for short distance journeys. As you have identified (and I agree with you) the buses on Oxford Street are less heavily loaded than at points to east and west, suggesting that it is only necessary to restrict bus volume on Oxford Street itself. BUT the improved flow will surely attract extra ridership!
    It may be that the only really effective solution is [A list of highly implausible “solutions” has been snipped. Probably not meant as serious suggestions, just indication that it’s a hard problem. But we knew that already. Malcolm]

    Clearly, there is no easy solution. [Quite.]

88. @The Orange One
    “one section, the section along the side of the US embassy. It’s very narrow and widening it for buses probably risks our foreign relations, which aren’t exactly at their best at the moment.”

    The Americans will be gone from Grosvenor Square next year. Though I doubt the new owners will be very keen on the idea either.

    http://www.cityam.com/238115/qatari-diar-unveils-plans-to-turn-us-embassy-in-mayfair-into-luxury-hotel

89. @timbeau – sorry about the 13 and 98. I didn’t bother with the Selfridges -Marble Arch section because there’s only one bus stop on that section, nor with the load on particular junctions which is not really of commercial interest to the users and hardly relevant to the claim about “buses along Oxford St”. As to Oxford Circus TCR, don’t forget that a number of routes (eg the 6 and the 23) have turned south at OXC and don’t continue to TCR; this more than offsets the routes arriving from TCR.

90. @answer = 42,

    The problem for Heathrow is that if the Marylebone Criterion doesn’t hold up, they have no legal basis for a third runway. Davies bent over backwards to give Heathrow that pathway, after accepting that the third runway would increase pollution further above the legal limits, even with all possible mitigation implemented.

    The question is not whether a ULEZ would have much effect in reducing passengers arriving by road. It’s rather how on earth can Heathrow achieve a substantial reduction in emissions from 60% of their customers without reducing demand.

    Targeting business passengers to provide the reduction will be both difficult and have limited effect. Business travel has dropped off at Heathrow such that the previous 2007 case for the third runway, a direct cost-benefit analysis of saved time for business travellers, was not redeployed by Davies – he had to fall back on macroeconomic modelling.

    Davies’ gymnastics to keep Heathrow in play will require further contortions with a new, larger ULEZ.

91. @Sykobee

    The problem with turfing the other 10% off is already identified – these are those with some form of disability, who need some option to getting down the street.

    @Alan Robinson

    In the area directly around Heathrow Airport, up to a limit (effectively as long as the buses are directly beside the airport up to Hatton Cross), bus journeys are free. My argument is that by implementing a similar policy between Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road, you wouldn’t remove all the pedestrians off the pavements, just enough to get the buses moving again (in the way they are capable of during the morning peak). Specifically, if you could move:
    – those pedestrians that bailed from the buses at either end of the street in order to walk to the other end and get back on again
    – those pedestrians walking a substantial enough portion of the street (e.g. Oxford Circus to Selfridges) for taking the bus to be a viable option

    you would remove enough pedestrians from the pavements of Oxford Street to get the buses running smoothly again.

    This is by no means a perfect solution, given the difficulties with policing fares (I’d imagine the zone at Heathrow encourages a lot of fare-dodging). However, I doubt we’d see substantial amounts of extra ridership that we were not already targeting (except perhaps short distance Central/Victoria/Jubilee Line passengers like Bond Street to Baker Street, Oxford Circus to Euston, which is a good thing surely?).

    @timbeau

    Another luxury hotel, just what London needs, I don’t think. Let’s put loads of buses down that road.

92. But timbeau’s analysis is quite an achievement in itself, finding a plausible explanation of where the 370 figure may have come from. Of course the number of buses passing the Selfridge junction in all 6 directions is pretty meaningless in real life, but it does demonstrate the lengths “public relations” firms go to in order to put forward a particular case.

    Although I am bemused as to which particular proposal(s) might be thought to benefit from such an exaggerated number: presumably it best supports “Something must be done”. But what if all available somethings cost a packet and may make the situations worse?

93. Tom

    When I said business access, I should have phrased that as supplier access – regular suppliers have scope to substitute zero-emissions vehicles.

    Your statement ‘ Business travel has dropped off at Heathrow…’ is contentious. Please support.

    Anyway, I think we are fundamentally in agreement that air quality is potentially a killer as far as runway 3 is concerned. Well, I remember it being identified as an issue in the Darling review of South-East airports – that’s the one you refer to as 2007 I think. If Heathrow have done next to nothing since then, then they have only themselves to blame.

    The government should, in principle and if the wind is blowing in the right direction, take a decision after the EUref on the runway. However, I wouldn’t place any bets on any decision being made. It’s quite striking in the TfL paper that a Heathrow ULEZ is not specifically identified as a question for the consultation. I think the runway decision is probably the reason.

94. @Graham H
    west of Selfridges/east of OXO.

    It all depends on what the originator of the statistic meant by the number of buses on Oxford Street. The cited figure appears to be close to the number of individual buses each using at least part of the street, although I agree that is not a very helpful statistic – just as counting the total number of trains running on the Northern Line or the Overground would overstate how often you will see a train at any particular station.

    Your methodology is certainly more useful in understanding how solid the “red wall” is.

95. @timbeau – a small point but just to be correct, the current 13 time table shows 8 bph passing Selfridges for OXC between both 0700-0759 and 0800-0859; the 23 shows 11 and 9 respectively. So the correct figure is probably about 260.

    @Malcolm – We have all watched “Absolute Power” and the “Thick of It”… It’s odd,isn’t it? Even at 260 bph the situation is clearly unsustainable, so why puff it up some more? [It would be interesting but moderatable to see whether, in fact, the Selfridges junction is the most bussed – Bank, Piccadilly Circus and Waterloo bridge roundabout might beat it; in the days of trolleybuses,Manor House used to have 200+ movements/hr and that with all the associated frog-pulling and pedal work.]

    @The Orange One – the Brook Street axis just fine until you get to Hanover Square, where the exits to the east are hardly conducive to heavy traffic.*
    ________________________________________________________________________
    *Lord Dawlish writes “Quite spoils my lunch to look out of a certain restaurant at the top end of Savile Row only to see all these d—-d buses manoeuvring round the side streets”.

96. @The Orange One
    If your aim is to speed up the buses on Oxford Street, increasing dwell times by encouraging more people to use them by making them free is unlikely to help. And there always will be some pedestrians, if only because 50% of bus passengers will need to cross the street to get from the bus stop to the shop or vice versa. (Not to mention having to walk from and to the nearest stop, unless we are to run with open platforms)

    Running one full bus instead of five that are 80% empty would reduce congestion by 80%. (Although one must note that if the buses are faster, more people will use them so you may need two buses rather than one)
    Having to change buses will cost no more with a hopper ticket, and in any case many of the people who have no choice but to use the buses don’t have to pay anyway.

97. @Graham H and others.
    A Tale of two cities, again. I am increasingly bemused by the Oxford Street bus problem. There is something strange about it. Other big metropolis’ have similar dense central areas with huge demand to access the shops, business premises etc. Examine Paris. The “Grand Boulevards” are very much equivalent to Oxford St, TCR Regent St etc, and yet, are served by only a fraction of buses evident in London.
    The metro is a little more dense, but not much. I am beginning to think that Paris which has long had an integrated (publicly specified and managed co-ordinated system) has simply “managed down” (never allowed to expand) the central area bus service. Therefore there are no streets in Paris with very intense bus service, about 20 per hour is the norm, and single deck (some artic). If London had managed its transport system in a similar manner, possibly Oxford Street would never have reached the current excess.
    ( I can thoroughly recommend Paris buses as an alternative to very overcrowded metro, available for same fare).
    The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the failure to implement full fare integration (resulting in demand for maximum number of through bus services) is the culprit. This may seem absurd, isn’t London the only city in the UK with integration?
    Well, yes, but it could be that the significance of a fare by TIME (i.e. changes within one hour) has been overlooked/ and/or underappreciated.
    @the Orange One
    Thanks for explanation of free flow (Heathrow situation was new to me). However, delays due to pedestrian obstruction/congestion.
    Trams are held to be the ideal mode in densely populated pedestrianized streets as people know where they are going. I have seen this work to amazing effect in very densely populated streets in Amsterdam and Erfurt especially (and many others).

98. @Graham H

    I figured as much – although making Princes Street a through route eastbound might help. Maddox Street between St George St and New Bond St is a bit narrow though, I suppose.

99. Whilst I’m completely opposed to the idea of pedestrianising Oxford Street, as I think its merely a cheap political token policy/sounds good in the press, could a sort of compromise not be made to remove some of the bus stops?

    This would mean that average bus speed would probably increase slightly, bottlenecks would be reduced and the removal of some bus stops would allow the pavement to be widened.

100. @AR – Paris (and French bus services generally) seems to be very much the exception in Western Europe, with,as you say, many routes stopping quite early in the evening and frequencies low by the standards of comparable cities (London, Wien, Berlin, Brussels, for example). Move out to the French provinces and major cities like Angers or Poitiers have a handful of routes most of which disappear after 20.00; look at rurban areas such as the coast round Calais and see how few buses move between Calais and, say,Dunkirk. Compare that with the Belgian equivalents with an interurban network of halfhourly or better services across much of the country well into the night. It seems always to have been so, looking at my 1970 Chaix which includes interurban bus services. Reluctantly, I can only suggest a difference of culture rather than planning context.

     What is striking about London is not only the density of services,but also their frequency, their intermeshing with the semiurban surrounding areas, Green belt despite, and above all,the astonishing night bus network – I cannot find anything like that on that scale elsewhere.

101. @Graham H/Malcolm
     ” So the correct figure is probably about 260.”
     (ten less than my rough estimate). Which miraculously amends the total for all buses using any part of Oxford Street down from the 380 I calculated, to the originally-quoted 370. So, irrelevant as the number of buses using the Selfridges junction may be, it does seem that that is what was counted.

     If fact, there are two junctions near Selfridges, and neither junction is traversed by all 370 buses. Because of the one way system on the A41, buses from Marble Arch towards Baker Street turn off up Portman Street and Gloucester Place, but buses from Baker Street towards Oxford Circus join the eastbound flow one block further east at Orchard Street. In addition the 113 terminates at Orchard Street and returns up Portman Street, so only traverses that one block of Oxford Street, and again only westbound. (Each physical bus is therefore counted twice, as a terminating southbound service and an originating northbound one: rather like claiming Paddington sees eight Heathrow Express services an hour – four eastbound and four westbound!)
     So for that one block there are 185 westbound buses but only 97 eastbound.

102. @Graham H
     Just as you say : London simply has more buses than any comparable European city, sometimes to extraordinary excess in centre. Why?

103. Ali G: Arranging for the Oxford Street buses to each go slightly further between stops might well produce a slightly better average bus speed, but at the busiest times I suspect the effect would be fairly negligible because much of the delay is not loading, but being held up by the traffic.

     Another way of cutting down the number of bus stop sites might be for each individual stop to be shared by rather more routes. However, this might just cause extra delay as buses queue to use “their” stop.

104. @Graham H
     Forgot to respond;- Difference of culture, indeed. Discovered old tramway stop (narrow gauge railway) at Collonges le Rouge. is now
     the bus stop, serving same destinations since about 1938 when train service ceased. Currently two buses a day, early morning and evening.
     Looked up timetable of “Les Tramways de Correze” , just the same.
     I just drive (almost) everywhere in rural France.
     Angers has been greatly improved public transport wise by new tramway, Route 2 in pipeline, and buses generally beefed up too.
     (but NOT on tramway axis).

105. What are people’s guesses for how much buses (waiting to) turn right on Oxford Street at various points are causing congestion? (e.g. 159 turning right into Regents Street)

     When they suggest “Pedestrianising Oxford Street” do they mean all of it as far as New Oxford Street or just the western end and the Company presumably being happy for the eastern end to still have buses on it as they would’t want TCR station area redevelopment to allow gentrification of the eastern end (and competition)???

106. @Alan Robinson

     I’d like to see trams, but I won’t get into the tram feasibility discussion.

     @timbeau

     You’d need comprehensive reorganisation at Oxford Circus, TCR and Marble Arch to deal with the number of interchange passengers. Of the three, only Marble Arch has the space required. It’s definitely a case of problem after problem.

     @Everyone
     If you want to reduce bus services on Oxford Street, there are going to have to be some losers (redirection is clearly a non-starter). How are you going to pick these?

     In terms of widening pavements, the pavements on Oxford Street are already about 60% of the full width of the street, which is ridiculous.

     As for pedestrianisation, I suspect there’s a fundamental clash in viewpoints here. To me, Oxford Street is my local high street, with my local bank, local restaurants etc. I’ve grown up with it and I think it’s fine as it is – the only problem is that there’s far too many pedestrians, even with the pavement at about 2/3 of the road width, and it would be better if some were removed. To me, it’s like pedestrianising Ealing Broadway, or Hoe Street in Walthamstow, or Walworth Road, or whatever your local high street is – but I recognise this is an unpopular and somewhat controversial opinion, so I won’t bring it up again.

107. @The Orange One
     I’ve cracked it! (Oxford Street) There won’t be any pedestrians, buses or central line in a few year’s time, everybody will be travelling in autonomous cars.

108. Re ‘running services in other cities’ like RATP etc, EU competition law is very clear on this: either you are a monopoly in your own city and don’t operate elsewhere, or you can tender in other cities but then you lose monopoly rights in your own city and have to tender out operations. Hence Paris Metro lines will be tendered out from 2025 or some such (there’s a phasing-in period).
     Can’t see a Labour mayor bidding out tube lines to private operations and maintenance concessionaires, nor can I see him crossing his fingers for Brexit. (That said, DLR operations are franchised out so there’s an interesting question as to whether DLR could operate overseas even if TfL couldn’t.)

109. @Alan Robinson

     “I’ve cracked it! (Oxford Street) There won’t be any pedestrians, buses or central line in a few year’s time, everybody will be travelling in autonomous cars.”

     * Hoverboards
     * Jetpacks

110. @ PoP 1031 – I think you’re veering into “wavey hand easy peasy” territory. A quick scan of the 4 TfL quadrant bus maps brings up a total of 87 single deck operated routes that run within the N/S Circular bound area. I’ve excluded buses that stop on or near the boundary from outside the zone. If we take a rough average of 10 buses per route (some have lower, many have higher peak vehicle requirements than that) then we are looking at say 850 (being conservative) new wholly electric single deck buses. We also have depot charging infrastructure to provide and possibly, technology dependent, charging pads at bus stations and termini. I’ve made no assumptions about increased PVRs being needed to allow for longer stand times if buses recharge at termini nor about service levels increasing / decreasing. Even if we casually gloss over the fact that there no TfL spec compliant short length fully electric single deck buses in existence (AFAIK) then we have quite a lot of money to find. And that’s before the bus companies take any sort of view about performance risk and reliability on contracts specifying wholly electric vehicles.

     As ngh has pointed out a number of single deck routes can’t be run with double deckers because of height restrictions. Others are restricted because the residents phone the Commissioner, their MP or the Mayor whenever a double deck bus gets within half a mile of their front doors (I kid you not). A proportion could go double deck but many can’t because of clearance issues (tight turns, overhanging trees, insufficient demand to warrant DDs).

     I would also point out that the demand for buses outside London is in decline. We have also just passed the point where low floor buses are mandatory on public service vehicle work so the market place for second hand TfL spec single deck deckers has largely gone. Many operators consider TfL spec vehicles to be too heavy and too complex. It costs money to “dumb them down” to make them affordable to run. We also have the Buses Bill causing general uncertainty amongst bus companies and if, as expected, additional burdens are placed on smaller bus companies then I expect we will see a further round of business failures, route withdrawals and further decline. This then brings us back to an issue of premature asset disposal, scrapping of vehicles with years of service left in them and what all this does for leasing costs going forward. Oh and we have little market experience of fully electric buses so we are back to “NB4L syndrome” in terms of who will buy electric buses and who takes the residual life risk. If that means TfL have to fund everything then it’s another hit on an investment budget that is already inadequate.

     One other issue is whether a “slim” rather than “flabby” TfL would have the resources to handle the sheer scale of commercial negotiation needed to deal with mass conversion of routes to electric power. It’s also evident, to those of us who watch from the sidelines, that the programme to convert routes to NB4Ls and cascade other buses has put strain on TfL’s procurement resources who manage bus tenders. Every change has to be negotiated, funded and signed off. We also have major bus route schemes in the pipeline to deal with Crossrail, the existing ULEZ proposals, population growth and possibly Oxford St. That’s a heady mix of work for the route planners, the consultation teams, procurement people and the operators themselves. It’s also evident that keeping passenger information up to date is also suffering. If the Mayor’s demands result in more internal reorganisation at TfL and job losses then we are going to see further problems. (I’ve seen all this happen for myself and been directly affected by it so speak from experience)

     Please note I am not saying it is impossible to go wholly electric just that it might be hugely expensive, disruptive and unaffordable even if we view cleaner air as a sensible objective.

111. Walthamstow Writer,

     I never said it would be wavey hand easy peasy. I said it “would not be an unfeasible option”.

     So fewer than 1000 buses (e.g. the same as the total number of NBfL). There are perfectly good electric single deckers on route 521 and route 312. I can’t believe it would be hard to source a bus that is smaller than these for when a smaller bus is required.

     Yes it would cost a lot of money but then so must have the NBfL been and that was perfectly possible with political determination. Yes you will need recharging facilities but, judging by South Croydon garage, these are not especially onerous. What decent transport upgrade doesn’t require related infrastructure upgrades? It didn’t stop 747s, heavier Networker trains (loads of bridges rebuilt), 34tph on all of the Victoria line, bendy buses, taller buses (a lot of literally raising the roof has gone on at various garages in past years).

     It seems our forefathers could make massive changes such as introduce trams and trolleybuses and then get rid of them but converting a small portion of the fleet to electric buses is too much of a challenge in the 21st century.

112. I took a quick look at TfL’s collision map for the section of Oxford St between Selfridges and Regent St and in the 10 years between 2005-2014 there was a serious injury about every 6 weeks and 5 fatalities.

     Do TfL have a view of what an acceptable level of deaths and injuries would be for Oxford St?

113. Recent suggestions about future technologies in sarcasm are not meant as an invitation to muse or propose said modes of transport.

114. Clearly this would not be an easy thing to introduce but I do wonder if Oxford Street and the nearby areas could have hybrid trolley busses !

     In general, the overhead infrastructure for trolley busses would be difficult to introduce on a widespread basis but in a few “bus intensive” locations the ability to have no (local) emissions would be valuable.

     The central london busses seem to already have an electric propulsion element so adding overhead power pickup might not be that hard.

     If the political will towards emission reduction developed then bus lanes and segregated bus routes could also be provided with overhead power to reduce the diesel used by busses.

     Somewhat more radically, I can see a future where electric vehicles are given “helper” power on main routes with battery power used away from main roads.

     (crayon mode off….)

115. Under the heading ‘Turning South London Orange’
     ‘The transfer of the Southeastern rail franchise appears to be a delivery milestone already in place for the 2018-2010 time period according the document’

     Is 2010 a typo? [Yes, it should be 2020. Fixed now. Malcolm]

116. @LBM
     I have attended management training courses where “wacky” suggestions have been (requested) and used as a device to both create a relaxed mood and also as supposedly a creative stimulant, i.e. by considering the apparently absurd, one is actually helped to come to an appropriate conclusion. i.e. by properly analysing and categorising the elements of the “wacky” suggestion (and coming up with a full logical reason why it is unsuitable), this helps you to get things in focus (?)
     @Pop
     Conversion to Electric buses would be expensive. Yes , but unaffordable? If “less than 1000 buses” are involved, it is possible to do a very rough indicative “business case” . Lets be generous and assume that this will require writing off written down book value of 900 buses . Assume mid-life (on average, which may or not be case) and I come up with something very broadly in order of £150=200m. There is more to be added;- (Higher capital cost for electric bus?) Transitional costs;- establishing recharging points, changed maintenance spec, training etc. There might be some betterments to working expenses, fuel, maintenance ?
     The point is that is doesn’t look like the cost is “beyond bounds”. If this cost is related to a proportional share of the premature fatalities caused by emissions (as identified in medical research) then the cost looks like it is within estimations of “valuation of a life” I have encountered elsewhere. (£2-300k ?). A tricky point, but one that could be popular with public if well presented.
     @Reynolds 593
     The road accident casualty rate for Oxford Street is very interesting, Difficult to see how change of bus traction is likely to improve stats. Only a reduction of vehicle movements and/or pedestrian numbers is likely to do that. I have seen nominal valuations of the cost of a road fatality to society as a whole as £1m. Serious injuries not as costly, however, we might assess the total cost pa of Oxford St with 0.5 fatalities and 8 serious injuries as in order of £750,000 pa. If totally pedestrianized, this might be a robust saving. (except that if buses are diverted to parallel streets simply increases accidents elsewhere).
     Or = does it?
     To forestall question: The valuation of a life for a “natural causes” fatality is less than that for a road or rail accident, due to involvement of Emergency services, Police and Coroner.

117. Wacky suggestions. Undoubtedly these have their place in the world, for the reasons Alan R mentions, and plenty of others.

     It’s just that we don’t want them here – particularly not in quantity.

118. @WW
     “A quick scan of the 4 TfL quadrant bus maps brings up a total of 87 single deck operated routes that run within the N/S Circular bound area.”
     As a matter of interest, how can you tell from the map which routes use single deckers?

     The electric buses on the 521 are taller than the diesel ones (like the hydrogen buses on the RV1, much of the extra gubbins is in the ceiling – that’s why electric double deckers are not so easy to design) Are there any routes which have height restrictions which would preclude an electric single decker?

119. Re Timbeau,

     1. Open a spreadsheet
     2. Ctrl C+V the key with bus routes from the desired TfL map into a spreadsheet (Add a Y/N include a manual filter if you want to play with subsets e.g. Selfridges to Regents Street on Oxford Street)
     3. Ctrl C+V datatable from http://www.londonbusroutes.net/details.htm into another tab in spreadsheet
     4. Create mapping table for bus type from column 2 in the datatable in 3. above to map specified bus type on route to “your” bus category either Single, Double or extra high single (e.g. hydrogen or electric) in a 3rd tab. [or bus height if you want to play with bridges in detail]
     5. Use Index(Match(,,)) to lash the 3 data sets together then analyse, it can also give your buses per hour and seating + standing capacities per hour on route(s) / areas.

     Are there any routes which have height restrictions which would preclude an electric single decker?

     Yes – I can thing of few without any detailed analysis but it might be worth banging council + NR + TfL heads together sooner rather than later as you could go for double deck and decent HGV clearance to reduce HGV mileage and emissions too. (But that would be joined up thinking so won’t happen!)

120. ULEZ
     Residents with older vehicles that they want to keep, for historical or logistical reasons?

     [Two further references to the Tingey Landrover snipped. Perfectly valid concerns, but we’ve heard them before (once or twice!). Malcolm]

     Cycling
     And those that can’t – the “disabled” principally, already being cruelly discriminated against in some areas, as a result?
     As for “security” & “Oxford St” – let’s not waste time & Oxygen, huh?

121. @ PoP – oh please. Citing the “good old days” is not something you usually do. You know probably better than I do that these days things need a lot of planning, consultation, assessment / justification etc etc. Life is simply more involved and complex than it was in the past and there is greater scope for people to question / challenge / dispute the plans of “officialdom”. You also seem to be accepting that it was perfectly acceptable to write off huge amounts of assets in the 50s and 60s and no one worried about it. Now OK Boris got away with blowing, what, £500m (?) in scrapping bendy buses, buying replacement LFDDs and then buying NB4Ls, which still don’t work properly, with not much scrutiny from Parliament or the national media. Doesn’t make it right or justified now does it? I don’t see Mr Khan being able to pull a similar trick without it being plastered all over everywhere. You ignored almost all the points I made so I am sorry but we are back “wavey hand” time as I see it.

     @ Alan R – yes yes we can all construct a business case and juggle some numbers. However as you know better than all of us if the “piggy bank” (budget) is empty or there is a massive scrap over who gets what share of the “piggy bank” then nothing much gets done. We have zero clarity about the ramifications of the new Mayor’s policies on the TfL budget both in terms of money in and spending going out. That is what underlies my comments / concerns. Where is the money coming from?

     I happened to read an official TfL presentation earlier today that set out what I assume is the official view of the impact of the Chancellor’s removal of the revenue grant earlier than expected. The figure was £3bn over 3 years. That is a collosal sum of money and that’s before Hopper Tickets, fare freezes, fare structure changes etc etc.

     @ Timbeau – I am sad enough to know exactly what type of bus runs on every TfL route so I can pick the single deck routes out just by looking at the route numbers. 😉 I accept there’s nothing on the map itself that shows the distinction. I can’t answer on the height issue.

     One important factor with all electric buses is weight and the space taken up by batteries. While the technology is improving we do need to consider that the legal carrying capacity of all electric vehicles may be much lower than a diesel equivalent – certainly true for the BYD double decker even with an axle weight dispensation. This then means you need more buses to provide a given level of capacity on a route or you simply accept that people will suffer more overcrowding or be unable to board some buses. It is also worth bearing in mind that routes that use small buses often do so because they serve more congested (with parked cars) side roads in order to improve network accessibility. However there are practical limits to just how many buses per hour can be put down some of these roads. All I am pointing out is that there is a lot to consider, to plan and to resolve before we are whizzing round Zones 1-3 in electric buses. I thought people could understand that but seemingly not.

122. Re WW,

     “Where is the money coming from?”

     The bank of the flying spaghetti monster?

     I’d love to see the quote they get from UKPN for the distribution network connections and additional capacity needed for recharging…

123. While much of the discussion on Oxford Street was about bus numbers I notice no mention was made of the number of taxis on the street and the way they simply do u turns etc anywhere they feel necessary along the full length of the street. While pedestrianisation of Oxford Street also raises question of where taxis go ?

     A consultation on making Baker Street two way was held earlier this year and if Sadiq follows up this option it will make some changes to buses at western end of the street.

     As for full pedestrianised street surely the best way forward would be to say look at diverting the buses that run along Baker Street towards Marble Arch into a side street north of Oxford Street .

     As someone who used buses on Oxford a Street to get home I can say that many passengers on through routes like the 73 have no interest in the street on most days and just want to get from say Victoria to Euston a Road, Angel , Stoke Newington and for those who advocate alighting at Marble Arch and walking to TCR I suggest you do this on a very wet day !

     Some of the problem has arisen because of the cutting of bus routes in London and terminating many routes along the street so extenstion of some routes would allow fewer empty buses and provide new links .

     It’s a pity Crossrail has not been used to create more sub-surface links from stations to buildings similar to those at Canary Wharf thus allowing pedestrian movement to move underground and expand as street is redeveloped.

     As for step free access then TCR is due to become step free this year and Bond Street next year it’s schemes for Oxford Circus and Marbke Arch that are needed. Although whether linking these station to surrounding buildings is feasible should be looked at given benefit of escalators and lifts in shops would improve station accessibility during shopping hours .

124. WW can “ pick the single deck routes out just by looking at the route numbers “.

     Within living memory (all right, rather long living memory) everyone could do that, because the single deck route numbers were in the 200 series. (Other features of erstwhile London Transport bus numbering principles are also available).

125. @Melvyn

     The taxis will flee to wherever they can. This will probably be the Mortimer Street/Wigmore Street corridor, or the Brook Street/Grosvenor Street corridors at the western end only. Classic black cab drivers certainly have the know-how to find required alternative routes (even if certain black cab drivers do not always use said knowledge – a lot of them seem to mysteriously forget the existence of helpful cutthroughs). PHV drivers – well, they’ll either prove their mettle or fall by the wayside.

     In terms of your other points (apart from the use of Wigmore Street as an alternative route), I wholeheartedly agree.

126. Malcolm – “Within living memory (all right, rather long living memory) everyone could do that, because the single deck route numbers were in the 200 series” – but not forgetting that night buses were numbered in the high 200s before they were N prefixed.

     Bring back Chief Constable Bassom!

127. @PoP:Both statements suggest that the presentation was put together in a bit of a rush (quite understandable)

     Surely they had the entire purdah period to put it together (and an equivalent one for Zac Goldsmith that would be interesting if irrelevant to read).

     the dangers of not being careful with presentations as they often reach a far wider and more diverse audience than was intended

     Especially if your organisation leaks them to the BBC!

128. @Graham H: 40 trams/hr is thought to be close to the maximum reliable operation these days

     Melbourne would beg to differ – 60tph per direction on the Swanston St/St Kilda Road axis, and no wall complaints (shorter trams). But as you say your calculations assume that the buses on Oxford St are full.

129. @superlambanana: Re ‘running services in other cities’ like RATP etc, EU competition law is very clear on this: either you are a monopoly in your own city and don’t operate elsewhere, or you can tender in other cities but then you lose monopoly rights in your own city and have to tender out operations. Hence Paris Metro lines will be tendered out from 2025

     As they say on Wikipedia, [Citation Needed].

130. @ngh, WW: Where is the money coming from?

     It is worth noting that it is the UK government, not the Mayor, that is bound by European law to keep pollution below certain levels and faces legal sanctions if they continue to exceed those levels. Pollution (from buses or otherwise) isn’t necessarily a problem for the Mayor to solve alone.

131. Malcom
     Not just my L-R … but all the other residents with specifically diesel private cars inside the A406/206 – how many vehicles- half a million, a million?
     Now will every one have to “throw those vehicles away” or possibly, if “kits” are available get them retrofitted to comply?
     The trouble & huge expense involved ( I would guess, even at half a million cars, that’s going to come to a minimum of £2.5 BILLION, coming out of private person’s pockets ) is going to be enormous – has anyone actually thought this through? And the political backlash – & not it’s nothing to do with J Bonnington Jagworth, either.
     I agree that trying to get a lot more less-polluting vehicles on the road is a good idea, but what’s wrong with “natural wastage”? Or is that seriously too slow?

132. @Ian J – it’s curious, isn’t it? The Embankment tram services happily ran at 120 tph in both directions, with most of that feeding into the complex junctions around the Elephant; the Vauxhall Bridge Road services happily terminated a high frequency operation over a conventional stub terminus, and so on. What is it that prevents this happening now? Service speed? Length of vehicle? Automatic operation of points? I’venever had a satisfactory explanation frommy professional colleagues.

     @IanJ/superlambanana – I deliberately didn’t challenge the latter’s assertion about EU tendering rules; although I thought I knew them pretty thoroughly from my days of advising various states on their tendering policies, there is always the chance that some new Directive will have slipped out in recent months. I had certainly understood the rules very differently and , as IanJ says a citation is needed before the statement can be left to stand.

133. “Measures put forward by the new Mayor will require all newly licensed taxis to be zero-emission capable from 2018. ” While the Mayor can mandate that drivers buy them, he can’t compel manufacturers to make them. Given the indulgence of law-bending PH companies, it’s unclear whether anyone will be producing a London-specific vehicle for a trade that may not have a future.

134. @the orange one
     It’s not logical to say the problem with Oxford Street is too many pedestrians. The whole purpose of Oxford Street is to be a regional shopping centre (not a local shopping street) and this requires as many pedestrians as possible becasue that’s the only way they get into shops. This is why both Khan and Goldsmith signed up to pedestrianisation.

     Oxford Street is a classic ‘city place’ in the street types matrix, where the needs of movement must be subordinated to the needs of the place. The issue then becomes one of access and not movement.

135. @various comparisons between Paris and London
     Perhaps one of the consequences of the relatively low frequency of bus routes in Paris is that their modal share is low at around 33% of the public transport trips. Heavy rail and metro take more than 62% and trams the remainder. In London, buses take about 50% of the public transport market.

136. quinlet says “The whole purpose of Oxford Street is ….”

     Not the whole purpose. Currently it is also a public thoroughfare, permitting people to travel on the surface from place to place. (There is a clue in the name “.. Street”).

     Of course, in the interest of “place making”, or for any other sufficient reason, that function can be diverted elsewhere, either for all through traffic, or perhaps for all wheeled traffic. (It is already diverted elsewhere for private vehicles). But the interests of those who were travelling through it must be properly considered.

     And even if it does become purely a commercial place, it would still be possible to say that pedestrians beyond a certain number are “too many”. Overcrowding starts by being an unattractive attribute, and ultimately may become dangerous.

137. quinlet: Your point would be valid either way, but I am curious as to whether the market shares you quote are in terms of numbers ofjourneys or kilometres travelled.

138. @Malcolm
     It’s journeys for Paris and stages for London (which is nearly the same in terms of the rail/bus split but might, on reflection, slightly exaggerate the bus component as a bus/train trip would most probably be labelled ‘rail’ on a journey analysis).

139. Re Quinlet,

     First they came to pedestrianise Oxford Street, and I did not speak out—
     Because I did not use buses or taxis on Oxford Street.

     Then they came for …

     Then they came to pedestrianise my local Z list half vacant mini high street and there was no one left to speak for me because they couldn’t get to the protest because there the entire London road network had been incapacitated to placate shops insisting on pedestrianisation as their saviour (and local councils drinking the more rates in the future kool aid (that never materialises)).

     There needs to be an honest discussion about movement in the city and which retail areas are worth saving and the knock on effects. (The continuing rate of the rise of internet shopping should be telling shops, the typically pension /insurance fund owners and council something about shopping but obviously it isn’t.) In a large more populous city the balance probably needs to swing towards movement as an overall facilitator.

140. @quinlet/Malcolm – One important difference between London and Paris is their structure. Historically, the area in Paris within the old walls has continued to be densely populated and this area is extremely well served by a dense mesh of metro lines – hence bus services have had only a supporting role. The transition to extra-mural Paris has been very marked and the suburbs are fairly recently developed. Planning,including the provision of bus and other transport networks has been slow to catch up and even now has a fairly sparse coverage. In short, until the last few decades, Paris has been a small (in area terms) city well-served by its metro.

     London has long (at least since about 1800) been a much sprawlier place with no marked transition between a dense central area and the new suburbs (and no functioning city wall since mediaeval times). Not only did that lead to a much looser and farflung urban railway network but it also left scope for a dense bus network, particularly in the expanding suburbs where towns like Harrow and Kingston and Croydon were centres in their own right before London swallowed them; local bus services quickly became established there. Paris on the other hand seems to have expanded into something of a desert.

     It’s probably significant that while the modal splitfor travel to the CAZ is something like 90:10 in favour of public transport, with bus being about 20-25% within that, in the suburbs, travel to work is closer to a 50:50 split with bus being the dominant public transport mode. In Paris, I would expect these differencesto be even greater.

141. A further difference with Paris is that in general the stations in central Paris are much shallower so the time to get to the platform from the street is usually less than in Central London. Also they are more closely spaced, in quite a few places they are similar distances apart to bus stops. And a metro journey costs the same as a bus journey, so there are quite a few less incentives to take a bus as opposed to the metro in Paris

142. In Paris, a metro journey costing the same as a bus journey. Furthermore, if it hasn’t changed recently, the bus journey is that price for one trip on one bus, whereas on the metro, changing trains is also included (and the equivalent of London’s zone 1 is much bigger). So in Paris the journeys where a bus might compete on price are mainly the short ones. Unlike London, where the journeys where a bus is spectacularly cheaper are the longest ones.

143. @s WW, Malcolm
     On the londonbusroutes. net listing, single deck routes are highlighted in blue.

144. @quinlet/Malcolm

     It’s also worth pointing out that pedestrianisation won’t make Oxford Street the pleasant, sunny, empty boulevard of the artist impressions. Pavement already takes up around 60% of the street (this is a rough by eye estimate) and it’s packed solid at certain times. Reclaiming the other 40% won’t bring the crowding lower than “bustling” – especially because north-south crossings must also be preserved, which holds up traffic.

     On bus/taxi-free days on Oxford Street, staff are usually deployed to stop pedestrians from crossing at north-south junctions (for example, Duke Street) and getting run over by cars. Would these people work there full-time?

145. A compromise for deliveries could be made that Oxford Street is pedestrian only between 9am-5pm. That gives shops time to take deliveries out of hours and most peak hour bus services can run outside of that envelope.

146. @Malcolm: This could be due to a few reasons, though. Paris’s revenue protection is quite a bit more intensive than London Underground’s – my personal experience were full size barriers which would trap fare dodgers in vice like grip, and so sudden that you have to put luggage through a different hole. I also got stopped by ticket inspectors once in a 3 day holiday. There’s no Oyster card rival, either.

     The network is also less advanced – escalators are fewer and further between, and step free access even rarer. On a side note, the stations are all absolutely freezing. The tube beats it hands down in my opinion. I can see why buses in Paris are nearly as attractive.

147. @ Answer = 42

     The CAA passenger statistics show Heathrow’s shift from business to leisure:

     2004: 35.9% business
     2005: 35.1
     2006: 36.0
     2007: 35.8
     2008: 34.1
     2009: 29.2
     2010: 30.2
     2011: 31.3
     2012: 29.8
     2013: 29.5
     2014: 29.6

     The opening of Terminal 5 midway through 2008 coincides with a reduction of about 20% in the proportion of business travellers, from 36% to 30%. That might indicate the leisure passengers would make up an even higher proportion of users of a third runway, and they would be more price sensitive to any increased charges from a ULEZ.

     Whatever Heathrow claimed to have done to reduce pollution to date, the NO2 levels at runway 2 have remained well above legal limits, and on current trends wouldn’t fall below 40 µg/m^3 until way past 2030. That does raise the question as to whether Heathrow would really want to see pollution levels fall below the legal threshold before a third runway might be built, only to be later pushed back above illegal levels.

148. Re Tom P,

     That might indicate the leisure passengers would make up an even higher proportion of users of a third runway, and they would be more price sensitive to any increased charges from a ULEZ.

     Indeed adding a tenner per passengers on to both take off and landing charges to pay for the 3rd runway will also send more price sensitive passengers to other airports.

     Encouraging passengers to Heathrow on no tail pipe emission public transport will need a carrot and stick approach with Heathrow not trying make as much money from it as possible (see HEx).

     Declining business users at Heathrow can also be seen by reading BA/IAG’s accounts over the years (and press coverage of their results where it is also highlighted).

     It will be interesting to see what the long term effect of T2 is then it is fully completed.

149. @The Orange One – your post also raises the interesting question about the role of the n-s streets, with their associated traffic lights, every 100m or so, as a major cause of traffic delay. (The all pedestrian phases have exacerbated the problem). Whether any more n-s streets can be stopped up,however, is questionable – if desirable. The precedent of Stockholm may be relevant: the city is divided into a number of cells, with very limited communication between them – cdeertainly seems to have killed off the local traffic but at what cost in efficiency etc is unclear.

150. @ngh
     There is now overwhelming evidence that the measures needed to keep high streets attractive and thriving places are primarily improving the quality of the retail offer and improving the quality of the local environment. And one of the ways of attracting a better retail offer is to improve the retail environment. I’m not saying there is no movement role in Oxford Street, but if we wish to maintain the place as a regional shopping centre of importance – it currently has the highest sales turnover per sq metre of retail space of any shopping centre in the country – then the pressure is to improve the environment for visitors, notably pedestrians, not to make it worse. Ideas such as part time pedestrianisation might be a good starting point.

     And, yes, the issues of the north-south cross streets will remain, but not all of these need to continue to cross Oxford Street and familiarity will help deal with crossing points where they do need to stay.

     Pedestrianisation is not a panacaea for every shopping environment and not even for most, so local parades are unlikely to see this happen. But better local environments definately are essential for every retail area if it is to survive

151. Greg Tingey: Cycling. And those that can’t – the “disabled” principally, already being cruelly discriminated against in some areas, as a result?

     Disability and cycling aren’t incompatible. There are plenty of disabilities where cycling is easier than walking/using public transport, and special bikes exist for various disabilities. And worst case, good cycle tracks are good places for mobility scooters.

     Sadly, I don’t see Sadiq having the political will to build more good cycle tracks. “Training” indeed.

152. @Graham H/quinlet

     One-way streets such as Poland Street currently turf traffic straight out onto Oxford Street (they are the only exceptions to the no cars rule), and are too narrow for three point turns. I presume you’re pedestrianising these as well.
     N/S cross streets aren’t exactly common (most of them are one-way too), which raises the point: With east-west and north-south streets both in short supply (and pedestrianising Regent Street is also starting to come on to the cards), is the eventual aim full pedestrianisation of Fitzrovia, Mayfair, Marylebone and Soho? If so, then you’re going to have a serious congestion problem on the Piccadilly/Charing Cross Road/Tottenham Court Road/Marylebone Road/Edgware Road/Park Lane box.

153. Re Graham H,

     That was slightly where I was heading with the no right turns thinking*, is it time to revisit the current all pedestrian phased at once and being able to cross both side of road in the same phase mantra again?

     * easier to enable alternate E-W and N-S pedestrian phasing to improve bus and pedestrian throughputs (as there would always be fewer people waiting at any given street corner waiting to cross.)

     Re Quinlet,

     Oxford Street – the a regional shopping centre of importance, Westfield West is getting extended, Brent Cross refurbished and expanded and the future Westfield South (aka the combined and rebuilt Whitgift + the other one across the road that keeps having it name changed) so people may stay closer to home for many items and shops there will have lower rents than Oxford Street.
     The rise of internet shopping has shown that lots of people don’t want to pay for retail palaces or getting to/from them.

154. @The Orange One

     An equally likely outcome of closing the whole area to cars would be fewer journeys made by car/taxi/minicab and therefore less congestion on the surrounding main roads.

155. @The Orange One
     “One-way streets such as Poland Street currently turf traffic straight out onto Oxford Street ”

     All of these are east of Oxford Circus. There are no such exceptions on the busiest section between Selfridges and Oxford Circus, where most of the upmarket shops are, and the heaviest concentration of pedestrians. There are only five cross streets, and none of the intersections allow traffic other than buses and taxis to turn into Oxford Street
     Duke Street (northbound)
     James Street/Gilbert Street (southbound)
     Stratford Street/Davies Place (two way)
     Vere Street/New Bond Street (southbound)
     Holles Street/Harewood Place (northbound only)
     The only other intersection is with John Princes Street, which is restricted to buses and deliveries only.

     @anon/Greg
     “There are plenty of disabilities where cycling is easier than walking/using public transport”
     Both my parents were able to cycle long after walking became difficult. And now my best beloved is in the same position – unable to walk or stand for long (therefore ruling out waiting for buses) she is still able to cycle

156. @ngh – 18 May 2016 at 12:38
     Re Graham H,

     That was slightly where I was heading with the no right turns thinking*, is it time to revisit the current all pedestrian phased at once and being able to cross both side of road in the same phase mantra again?
     Yes!

     I suspect it’s a much wider problem than just Oxford Street. Consider Victoria Street, for example.
     But Oxford Street/Regent Street might be the exception.

157. @Anon
     “An equally likely outcome of closing the whole area to cars would be fewer journeys made by car/taxi/minicab”
     If you close the area to all cars, yes. But if, like bus lanes, you make an exception for those chauffeur-driven hire cars with little orange lights above the windscreen (reputedly lit by candles, that’s why they always go out when its windy or raining!) , it will make little difference to congestion – except that, when they are all-electric, you won’t even hear them coming.

158. @Anonymous
     And there are many disabilities, as well as the effects of age, infirmity, sickness and injury, which are completely incompatible with cycling and provisions for its benefit.

     And precisely how do you get a guide dog onto a bike?

     Or your cab to the fracture clinic can no longer stop anywhere near your flat.

159. @timbeau

     Has Binney Street been blocked off entirely then? Also, while Stratford Place is two-way, it’s a dead end (albeit with a turning circle), and Davies Street is one-way northbound, so this effectively acts (or will act, given the current Crossrail closure) as funnelling traffic into Oxford Street.

     Unless you are aware of plans that I’m not?

160. Reading through the comments on pedestrianisation of Oxford Street it is amusing to this (Danish) person’s eyes that many seem to expect the world to end once the street has no automobile traffic running along it.

     If you’ve ever been to Denmark you’ll probably have walked up Strøget – the very long pedestrianised shopping street in the city centre. Until the 1960’s it was fully trafficked with the squares along the route acting as car parks (lovely use of public space!). For years campaigners sought to pedestrianise it. This of course couldn’t be done: where would the busses go? How would shops get their deliveries? What about the elderly who aren’t so mobile? And last but not least, what about the gridlock that would be caused on the adjacent streets once cars were blocked from the main thoroughfare?

     Yet when the street was pedestrianised, as if by magic, these things sorted themselves out. The cars disappeared (reduced demand kicked in), shops had their deliveries made early in the morning before opening hours, and of course few people benefitted as much from removed automobiles from the streets as the elderly.

     The one group that did benefit perhaps more than the elderly were the shop owners: the street went from being a horrible place nobody wanted to be to being the shopping heart of the city. Does anybody doubt the same will happen when Oxford Street is pedestrianised?

     Yes, there are some challenges, not least on what to do with the busses (charging the same for busses and tube rides would go some what to resolving this though as people really shouldn’t have to take a bus to cross the city – that’s why we built underground train systems) – but none of those challenges is bigger than the current disaster zone of wasted opportunity which Oxford St in its current guise is.

     London really is weirdly slow in coming to terms with the central lesson of 20th century urban planning: cities which prioritise the needs of automobiles are not nice places for humans to be.

161. Walthamstow Writer,

     @ PoP – oh please. Citing the “good old days” is not something you usually do.

     Eh? One of the examples I gave (34tph end to end on the Victoria line) was only implemented last Monday.

     I also drew a comparison with introducing NBfL and Bendy buses. How is electrically-powered single deckers so different in terms of planning required to introduce them. I would have thought it would have been easier. You can miss out the “first design your bus” stage.

     And note Alan Robinson’s excellent point, which I had overlooked, that you can (or should be able to) factor in a number of lives saved through cleaner air when considering cost – which, as he also points out, may not be that bad when everything is taken into consideration.

162. @the Orange one
     I don’t think suggestions for pedestrianising Regent Street, let alone the whole of Fitzrovia, Mayfair, Marylebone and Soho, have gone much beyond the dream stage so far. There’s a lot of water to go under many bridges before we get to that. But it’s not just in rational Denmark (thank you Anonymous) that larger scale pedestrianisation is taking place. In Barcelona in the Eixample district of the centre – many people will know of its grid pattern – plans are now advanced to pedestrianise (or limit to very local access) two out of every three roads.

     @ngh
     Internet shopping growth is hitting medium sized shopping areas very hard, but regional shopping centres are still growing because they can offer a better range of retail – even if these are more used as showrooms. And the West End is still a bigger shopping area (both by size and turnover) than any of the Westfields or Brent Cross.

163. Re PoP,

     How is electrically-powered single deckers so different in terms of planning required to introduce them.
     Hugely – all the recharging infrastructure which will be reliant on UKPN having spare capacity or being able to add additional capacity (they have similar 5 year regulatory planning regime to NR). May also rely on National Grid (ditto seperate 5 year plan).

     How is the cash need to make the changes realised from lives saved? (E.g. whose budget does it come from Defra, DoH, DfT, DECC, TfL…)

164. @ Graham H:

     The precedent of Stockholm may be relevant: the city is divided into a number of cells, with very limited communication between them

     Or Groningen? It did that back in ’77 – ’78…. The city was divided into four quarters and movement from one to another made impossible without going out to the ring road (except for pedestrians, cycles and buses) It made the city much more live-able…

     See here…

165. @The Orange One
     Sorry, I missed Binney Street/Gilbert Street, which Google Earth shows as allowing southbound traffic to cross Oxford Street – no entry to or from Oxford Street (“ahead only” arrows on all traffic lights)

     Davies Street is shown on GSV as two way, but the photo is dated 2008 (and it appears to be closed at present for building work, presumably associated with Crossrail)

166. Whether the buses collect their electricity on the fly or at special recharging points, converting a large bus fleet (back) to electric operation would require a lot of infrastructure. Probably not dissimilar to the cost of installing the electric infrastructure that replaced the original 2hp trams.

167. @Tom P, ngh

     Heathrow business use. Tom’s figures show business use declining as a % of total use. Using CAA’s figues, I make approximate Heathrow passenger growth over the last 10 years about 18.8%. Combining with Tom’s figures, this suggests that business use has fallen by about 2.0% over 10 years. (I cheated a bit in the analysis to save time but as round figures, this should be OK).

     It may be a small (and inaccurate) decline but it’s still pretty striking. It pretty much kills the argument to support Heathrow R3 as a hub airport.

     I would concur with both Tom’s and ngh’s conclusions.

     In particular, Heathrow R3 would attract mostly leisure passengers, prices being the same. But they are not: the cost of Heathrow R3 per pax is much higher than Gatwick R2. You have to ask yourselves: why do Heathrow shareholders support R3?

168. ngh,

     all the recharging infrastructure which will be reliant on UKPN having spare capacity or being able to add additional capacity

     I am probably on dangerous territory in challenging you on any point to do with electricity but I don’t really buy that. Surely, electricity has the same issue as transport that overall capacity is determined by the peaks? So long as you don’t recharge in (electrical) peak periods the cables and power stations should be able to handle it and their owners may even welcome the additional revenue. I know there is a peak rating and a continuous rating for a lot of things and just because you can handle peak rating doesn’t mean you can handle continuous rating but I would have thought the power supply could have coped with more off-peak demand.

169. @SHLR – very much the sort of thing that I had in mind. Admittedly, translating that into something on the scale of London, which also lacks a convenient street grid, is going to be tricky. In an access of crayonism, one could imagine a scheme based on, say, Park lane, South bank, Kingsway, Euston Road, but extending that to the City, where there is no obvious ring road in the SE quadrant is more difficult. And all schemes are going to face opposition from the inhabitants of Belgravia in the stretch between Hyde Park Corner and Vauxhall Cross, on the assumption that inter-cell movements are diverted on to a convenient ring road.

170. @PoP
     Cost of pollution (deaths and illness). On reflection, there is a further point that I neglected to address. The cost of deaths from diesel pollution are difficult to quantify (but substantial). The cost of ill health is more quantifiable (sick pay, cost of NHS treatment etc). I shan’t bother to try and do another “business case”, just relate the instance of illness identified in the King’s College report to cost of replacement of diesel buses by electric and it looks quite manageable.
     Broadly, if London is prepared to invest tens of billions in Crossrail projects etc, then a measly few hundred million to save lives and improve health doesn’t look bad (on a TFL turnover of £10b pa).

171. I’m just flying (bad) back from Amsterdam (excellent) after a two-day business trip. A €20 pass covered all transport in the city, including trains to and from the airport. The canals must have done much to encourage the development of a rational transport system. To this outsider it just does the job, working with rather than against those that live in and visit the city.

     In contrast, the trajectory of London, maybe starting with the Great Fire, and certainly not ending with the failed Euro emissions regime, seems to require regular injections of innovation such as the Tube, the omnibus, congestion charge, and now ULEZ, just to keep people moving without damaging too many Londoners.

     Amsterdam Reconnections would certainly have a less avid readership.

172. @timbeau

     It’s James Street/Gilbert Street which is the southbound cross street you’re referring to. Binney Street is an entirely separate northbound street which funnels straight into Oxford Street.

     As for Davies Street, it’s been blocked up with Crossrail for many years – looking at GSV I see southbound traffic was indeed allowed through to Brook Street!! I’m afraid I jumped to conclusions – it’s definitely one way northbound from Berkeley Square up to Brook Street and I don’t recall ever seeing a southbound vehicle on the street before (and that’s several years of taking the number 8 bus from Victoria to Oxford Circus), but that’s probably because the only place these vehicles could have come from is Stratford Place. And nowadays, because of Crossrail, Stratford Place funnels directly into Oxford Street (but cars would have to reach Stratford Place through Oxford Street in the first place, so it doesn’t actually matter any more).

173. (@Malcolm:) “In Paris, a metro journey costing the same as a bus journey.”

     If I recall correctly, a ‘long’ journey on a single bus required the cancellation of two yellow tickets.

     Another difference with London was that the RATP bus systems outside and inside the Petite Ceinture were more or less separate.

174. @answer=42
     The argument for runway 3 at Heathrow being sufficient for a hub airport was barely convincing in any case. The comparable hub airports in Europe (Frankfurt, Schipol, CDG) all have 4 or 5 runways and it is inevitable, despite John Holland-Kaye’s promises, that Heathrow will be shortly looking for runway 4 if the go-ahead for runway 3 is given and it is constructed. After all, promises from Heathrow Airport before on expansion have not been worth the paper they were printed on. Remember: if T4 was given the go-ahead there would be no further expansion. And, if T5 was given the go-ahead there would be no demand for runway 3.

175. I’m not sure there is room anywhere for a 5th runway, unless you are talking about converting Northolt (which was seriously looked at).

     If the above discussion is correct, R3 would lead to an influx of point to point flights. The hub argument could therefore be preserved for use another day.

     The Financial Times got its journalists to state their positions on Heathrow R3 versus Gatwick R2. The Heathrow hub argument came up. It’s quite an attractive argument because it suggests that there is a pool of high-value travellers that could very easily be attracted. I think that, in any case, the market has changed and this pool is small. Anyway, this is outwith LonRec’s competence.

     The new mayor is against Heathrow R3 but doesn’t control the decision. He has to develop both transport and air quality strategies that work with government decisions for either Heathrow or Gatwick or no decision. The above discussion suggests that he would be in a good position to block Heathrow R3 on the grounds of air quality. I don’t want to speculate on any next steps.

176. Re PoP,

     The danger of looking at averages of average of averages.

     In brief:

     The transformers need to cool down (e.g. overnight) after dealing with peak loads an example of this is the Bankside substation having a massive heat pump installed to dump the heat into the Thames to aid transformer cooling. Hence extra load overnight isn’t that helpful.
     Peak allowable loading is also higher in winter due to lower ambient temperatures improving cooling of both transformers and cables (typically 10-35% difference between Summer and Winter in London).

     A bus garage or similar scale recharging station will need an 11Kv feed which will need a spare circuit being available on the local DN primary transformer and a new cable running to the bus depot. If you are in Battersea – Vauxhall – Nine Elms area (eg. Abellio’s Battersea garage) you are in luck as there are huge improvements happening as part of Power Station etc redevelopments so no problem if you are happy to wait a year to 18 months.
     If you are in the Peckham – Clapham Park – Oval area e.g. at either Camberwell Bus depot then not so good as the limited capacity improvements are only scheduled (extra primary transformers as no spare circuits so not cheap) to take place in the NEXT (2020-2024) mayoral term.
     [Limited existing spare capacity is being used to allow the retirement or fault condition back up of other life expired or nearing expiry equipment. e.g the equipment at the former Deptford power station]
     Serious reinforcement in that area will only happen if needed after that, with it linked to National Grid upgrading the supergrid feeds for example upgrading Hurst – New Cross feed from 275kv to 400kv including new Tunnel for the new cables and a new 275 or 400kv Wimbledon – New Cross Link via Bengeworth Road link with a new supergrid feed at Bengeworth Road and UKPN piggy backing off the new proposed but deferred NG cable tunnels for UKPNs new 132 & 33kv cables.

     Overnight charging of the proposed electric bus fleet based on the spec existing ones being trialled needs 14MW of capacity at garages (excluding distribution etc. loses) for overnight charging or 40MW for in the day fast charge (2hrs) for 100miles range. (Assumes plug in rather than induction charging)

177. Just a quick apology to PoP & AR for my post at 2359 17/5/16 as on reflection it was rather grumpy and ill tempered. I haven’t ploughed through the subsequent posts but just needed to say sorry.

178. @Graham H: The Embankment tram services happily ran at 120 tph in both directions… What is it that prevents this happening now? Service speed? Length of vehicle? Automatic operation of points?

     And they managed to switch from third rail to overhead while in service years before the mainline did, too. The same in Melbourne too – the cable trams that were replaced by the electric trams were much more frequent.

     I think factors would include a combination of short vehicles, low maximum speed but fast acceleration, very short dwell times from open platform loading with frequent stops, a high level of priority from other traffic (those “tram pinch” signs with their implication: get out of the way or get sideswiped), less traffic in general especially cross traffic (helped by the Embankment being along the river), and above all hardly any traffic lights on the routes. No pedestrian phases were needed because, judging from old films, everyone just walked across the road wherever they felt like and weaved around the trams. What I have never managed to work out, though, is how thigns were negotiated when two very frequent routes crossed at an intersection.

179. @Sven Ellis: it’s unclear whether anyone will be producing a London-specific vehicle for a trade that may not have a future

     From the London Taxi Company (AKA Geely, the Chinese owners of Volvo cars):

     The changes will strengthen the company at a time when it is delivering a £300m investment programme that includes the creation of a brand new research, development and production facility in Ansty, Coventry, which will be complete in 2016. The development is the first new car plant to be built in the UK for over a decade and will focus entirely on the development and production of battery electric commercial vehicles.

     Interesting that they talk about commercial vehicles in general and not just taxis.

180. I’d like to see ngh’s info on the electricity grid above developed into a full article.

181. @Malcolm: Furthermore, if it hasn’t changed recently, the bus journey is that price for one trip on one bus, whereas on the metro, changing trains is also included

     No longer the case – bus/bus/(tram) connections are included up to a 90 minute time limit. Bus/metro connections aren’t covered. And locals generally have the much better value multimodal season tickets anyway.

182. @WalthamstowWriter
     Thank you for apology, graciously accepted, but not really all that grumpy (I can be much grumpier). You have made some very good points. The question of “where is the money coming from” is a perennial. The drastic reduction in support from central government is a desperate pressing problem, not faced, as far as I can tell, by any other European city transport authority, where local authorities revenue (i.e. from business rates) is raised and spent by that authority. I do appreciate that this is not a place to conduct political discussions, but when political polices do impact so enormously, difficult to ignore. faced with minus £300m something has to give, service quantity, quality, or staff remuneration. (fares increase out).

183. Ian J 19/05 at 05:50
     In answer to your final question,such intersections were controlled by men in peaked caps and greatcoats (mt Great-grandfather was one) whose word was Law.

184. @The Orange One

     Having grown up in Ipswich where the town centre shopping streets have been pedestrianised for as long as I can remember, yes, I would support pedestrianisation of Ealing Broadway (which was my local shopping street for a time), and likely the others you list (though I don’t know them all well enough to be sure).

     I am prepared to believe there are some streets that are more valuable as traffic conduits than as shopping centres. But Oxford Street is the most important shopping street in the country and quite possibly the world. It would be a very bold position indeed to say that it should be put into managed decline as a shopping destination. I buy all my books/music/travel online, but there’s no substitute for Oxford Street for clothes or any kind of luxury goods that you want to see/feel before buying.

185. ngh,

     Mmm. Well all that is a bit discouraging and not doubting what you are saying is technically true.

     Are we talking about the same city that managed to put on a very successful Olympic Games in about the same time period?

     I also find it strange that no-one has mentioned power supply issues with Night Tube or all night travel on New Years Eve and it has been stressed many times that Night Tube needs very little new infrastructure and will run on marginal costs as nearly all the assets are already in place.

     Let’s not forget that UK Power Networks is not the only game in town. Network Rail also has a big power distribution network and I am sure they would do things for money. A lot of bus garages are either very close indeed to railway tracks (e.g. Camberwell, Walworth, Bow) or not far away (New Cross). Also, by 2018, they will have completed a massive power supply upgrade from the Paddington area to the Stratford area.

     There is also a massive TfL owned power station currently being refurbished at Greenwich and I understand it has dedicated power cables to the Underground. Is it really beyond the wit of man to adapt the infrastructure so that it can also serve a few bus garages at night without overloading London’s power supply? It was originally built to supply power to trams and trolleybuses. How hard can it be to adapt it to provide power for electric buses

     Maybe, if the Mayor wanted electric single deckers within the North and South Circular roads, it would not be possible to convert all of the relevant routes but there is no reason not to try and see what the real issues stopping this would be.

     If there are good technical reasons why something cannot be done then fair enough but what I have read so far seems a bit defeatist to me.

186. Walthamstow Writer,

     I just presumed you had only read or absorbed some of my comment and commented on that part in isolation. No big deal – it happens all the time and I am sure I do it too.

187. Could as extra-light tram be used as a shuttle along Oxford Street? For example the Parry People Mover, which stores energy with a flywheel system, I think. It operates the rail shuttle at Stourbridge. I’m sure I’ve seen adverts for a system of patented tram rails which could be laid quickly, in a kind of rubber mat, without digging up the entire road, as they’ve done in Birmingham.

188. Another factor in comparing peak and base-load electricity demand is that a lot of “peak lopping” capacity is highly expensive to run (e.g pumped storage schemes – which use more offpeak electricity in pumping uphill than you get back in letting it come back down again when its needed, and quick-starting gas turbines) . Most of it runs at a loss, cross subsidised by the more profitable nuclear and coal fired base load capacity. If you start filling in the low-demand troughs, you either have to run the expensive peak-lopping capacity more often or build more baseload generators.

189. @Timbeau

     From a domestic point of view, there’s also the advent of smartmeters as well, and these, coupled with newer, timer-equipped appliances, will inevitably push people into shifting to Economy 7/Economy 10/Time-of-use tariffs.

     For example, since we replaced our dishwasher and washing machine to models with ‘delayed start’ functions and quiet motors we’ve started to run them overnight instead. I would expect a lot of people in London to start doing the same as well.

     (Until we reach a point where these advantageous tariffs are discontinued as domestic electric car use sees the off-peak demand increase when vehicles recharge overnight!)

190. Re PoP,

     Night tube frequencies – electrical demand excluding loses will be less than 20% of peak tube traction loads so no issue cooling wise, (this is probably 1 reason for lowish night tube frequencies with 8tph on Northern Charing Cross branch being the highest).

     Electricity usage in London is increasing at 1%+ year but declining in the rest of the UK.

     Network Rail Power Network is probably up for sale… (Ask Peter!)
     As possible partial solution but not cheap either due to the modifications needed – cash up front given NR’s situation???

     The simple solution is to reallocate electric single decker bus routes to garages that can easily have suitable supply provided, this may mean new garages or swapping routes between garages and companies as needed, given the time scales some of those will be mid-contract so that could be messy. That then leaves lots of range limited electric buses doing extra mileage to garages etc…

     The Wimbledon – Paddington – Stratford Arc has received and is still receiving the massive investment focus from NG and UKPN at the moment. (Also includes covering for the previous Lots Road closure and growth such as NLE, Crossrail…)
     Battersea – Nine Elms improvements mentioned above my me being part of this. Think of this as equivalent to CP4&5 spending.
     The will be far fewer issues recharging buses north of the Thames (assuming you don’t want to recharge them in the Strand, Holborn, City or Isle of Dogs areas) [some of the Stratford “improvement” was shifting IoD load to New Cross when a few improvements were made at NC!!!]

     Completing the circle (think of it as the final 1/3rd) with sorting New Cross (including Camberwell, Brixton, Clapham Park, Oval, Waterloo, South Bank, Stand, Holborn, City, London Bridge, Surrey Docks, Peckham, Deptford and some of the Isle of Dogs) is the next big spending item but for CP6&7 equivalent and there are lots of legacy issues to sort! (The obvious logical option is “ducktape” now and go very very big later). The electricity infrastructure industry faced similar issues to NR in maxing out the RAB credit card so the RPI-X regime was replace with RIIO which led to some potential “CP5” projects being pushed into the future… Sound familiar???

     In South London the Z1-3/4 area NR feeds come from UKPN at their co-located sites with NG at Wimbledon and New Cross so not as independent as you might think.

     Capacity isn’t just about net/ average power but also safe handling of fault conditions (while keeping the lights on, remember when the Wimbledon-New Cross link last went down…) which makes things far far more complicated. Have buses on a demand side management contract would be ideal but that requires infrastructure spend too.

     UKPN’s period of EDF ownership wasn’t particularly high spend one (keep the regulator happy with minimal sub-inflationary DUoS charge increases through efficiency improvements and racking up debt as the interest payments didn’t count for certain provisions…) and the newish owners have got the cheque book out as much as the regulator will allow it to catch up under the new RIIO mechanisms (debt interest not excluded from calcs)

191. Re Timbeau and MarcKee,

     It will be a fair while till overnight use becomes a problem.
     NG even managed to contract some diesel generator farm peak load capacity this time round when forced to more openly tender and not ask any too many questions (till the guardian found out!)

     [Incidentally NR is the biggest “glows in the dark” baseload customer]

192. I am not at all convinced that pure battery electric bus is yet practicable as a reliable provider of service for 20 hours a day. If it is, then it’s heavy, and therefore not particularly energy efficient. There is an experimental fleet of small (30 seats or so) single deckers running in Milton Keynes that use inductive coils (the primary winding of a transformer) in the street at their terminus to couple to the secondary coils that are lowered from the bus to add charge to the batteries during the layover. Wrightbus, who made them also offer a pantograph recharging system which could connect to overhead at termini. I am assuming these have smaller batteries than would be needed if there were no charging points. Rather worryingly, there’s also a diesel version of the same bus running on the same route with a message along the lines “sorry I’m a diesel bus but some of my electric mates are being re-charged”.

     Moving on to technical “crayonista”……..(beware the snip). I would have thought that LPG/LNG or petrol engine powered generators could provide much lower emissions for the generator-battery-electric drive train such as is fitted to the NBfL.

193. 100andthirty,

     You can read about the Milton Keynes induction charging in the Asphalt and Battery article but I am inclined to say don’t bother because the world has moved on since then. Catch one of the electric buses on route 507 (if there is more than one) to see how good they have become. Alternatively, go to glorious Croydon to see an entire route (312) operated by electric vehicles. I haven’t seen a diesel substitute there for months.

     I am not convinced that pure battery single deck bus operation is currently practical on the scale envisaged but I strongly suspect it will be by the time the supporting infrastructure is in place. One could and should always review rollout and slow it down if the anticipated benefits are not being fully realised.

194. Re 130,

     Completely agreed, I’ve been suggesting on Petrol/ LNG alternative for NOx and particle emission reduction with Hybrids (particularly serial ones) for a long time on LR already (once already in the last week in another thread!).

     The buses will need at least 1 in the day recharge increasing the bus requirement to operate the current service levels.

     TfL appear to be looking a more conventional plug-in options on the 312 Croydon garage trial with 2hr fast charge at 72A 3phase or 22A 3phase 5hr overnight. (100mile range from those charges).

     Furrer+Frey have apparently designed some nice bus overhead bus charging stations based on their tram ones (neither seen in the UK).

195. RE 130 and PoP,

     PS Unlike train/tubes the electric/hybrid buses have permanent magnet motors so low speed regenerative braking is better than on trains /tubes.

196. answer=42, ngh,

     My previous numbers were from the CAA figures “terminal passengers”, so includes transfers that won’t use transport to and from Heathrow. For terminating passengers, the shift from business to leisure is even more pronounced.

     From 2004 to 2014, the proportion of terminating business travel at Heathrow dropped from 40% to 31%. In absolute terms it dropped from 17.6m flights a year to 14.8m, a fall of 22%. Of that, UK business travel dropped from 10.6m flights a year to 8.0m, or a fall of over 30%.

     Heathrow’s customer base is very much shifting under it from business to leisure. This would tend to reduce demand for Heathrow Express and push up the cheaper tube or car alternatives, at least until a ULEZ came in.

     It’s notable that while UK business claim that a third runway is vital for them, it’s rather contradicted by the precipitous fall over the last ten years in their employees actually travelling from Heathrow.

197. Re Tom P,

     Matches what you see with Mk1 eyeball and in BA/IAG financials (red ink because of evaporation of business users)
     Correlating with Eurostar passenger numbers especially opening with St Pancras and full HS1 in 2009 will also produce interesting results 😉 [Also # flights to Paris and Bruxelles]

198. @PoP

     “Catch one of the electric buses on route 507 (if there is more than one)”

     There are four, (two Irizar and two BYD) but they are not always to be found on the 507, as buses for the 521 are drawn from the same fleet.

     Here is one of each (with a Citaro hiding behind to complete the set)
     http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1VZmNGQbPwo/VdylYyJ3NbI/AAAAAAAAB_o/AzLf7CDC0aQ/s1600/20625490525_cce5045ede_o.jpg

     The entire fleet for both routes is to go electric later this year.

     (I was about to say that I couldn’t recall having seen either of the BYD examples recently, but then glanced out of the window to see one in the street outside!)

199. On a separate issue, while the use of the North and South Circular roads might be a convenient boundary for the ULEZ, the A406 North Circular runs through outer London, whereas the A205 South Circular, not being a true radial [orbital? Malcolm] road runs through some quite central areas, so this would be a very uneven boundary

     For example, the A406 runs through Bounds Green, Silver Street, Barking (Zone 4) whereas parts of the A205 run through Putney, Wandsworth, Clapham (Zone 2)

200. How’s the electric version of the dreaded soixante-neuf route doing?
     I have still yet to see one ….

201. Tom P, ngh

     I used total Heathrow passengers, so compatible with Tom’s figures. I’m not surprised that point to point business use of Heathrow has fallen much more than the business total. You’ve had enormous growth in ‘low-cost’ carriers, who don’t currently use Heathrow. Plus, of course HS1. Logically this means that business hub use of Heathrow must now count for a higher % of total business use than 10 years ago.

     BA don’t want R3. Businesses that are primarily cost conscious want the cheapest alternative, which is certainly not R3. Global / EMEA (Europe, Middle East & Africa) headquarters would like to have one airport that meets all their needs. Fair enough.

     ngh
     BA / IAG are currently profitable. Something to do with low oil prices and lower exposure than their competitors to the Asia market.

202. Mikey C : You are right about how the “circulars” boundary might not be ideal in practice. But it seems to me that the point of it was to suggest an approximate boundary for the purpose of deciding whether such a distance from central London is vaguely appropriate as an emission-zone boundary. With the advantage, for this purpose, that most people have a good idea of approximately what that would include.

     Once it is decided that something of the kind is required (if it is), the detail of exactly which places are included can then be negotiated and carefully plotted.

203. Re Answer=42,

     Have a read of their accounts from 6-8 years ago where they cite declining business use as a reason for profitability issues, it hasn’t recovered to levels from before that.

204. Very thought provoking, thanks for the article and the comments. Amongst the comments about pollution I don’t recall anything about congestion which of course makes pollution from slow moving and standing vehicles much worse. A grip needs to be got. From my personal experience traffic speeds seem to be getting significantly worse. I’m a bus user and I see congestion now at any time on almost any route (mainly for me inner north London and the centre). I haven’t researched the numbers yet but I understand there has been a slight reduction in bus usage last year which could possibly be related to worsening bus service caused by congestion. This will become a big issue because congestion must cost bus operations millions and millions of pounds – and millions are being lost through the cutting of the operating grant. As an absolute start the congestion zone needs a big increase in charge and a re-extension in size.

205. Mikeatsmileend: I would agree about the importance of congestion for many reasons. Although increasing or extending the congestion charge should help, the effect may be somewhat limited, because most of the vehicle users in inner London who could be persuaded out of their vehicles already have been persuaded out, by travel time, parking problems etc, and those remaining are mostly “obligatory” users (carrying heavy tools or parts, or delivering, etc). And it would, I suspect, be widely unpopular with the tabloids.

     Pollution is certainly worse from many vehicles if they are slow-moving or standing. However, that probably does not apply (or at least, not so much) to hybrid vehicles, and those fitted with engine stop-start systems; and both of these categories are spreading.

206. Malcolm thanks. I think if it is important as we agree then its not enough to accept the status quo. Again its anecdotal but I see loads of cars with one person in. I know parents who drop off by car at my daughters primary school. I know of a bloke who drives to a local gym. a distance ( a 5 minute walk) I would never dream of driving too. There are loads of people driving who really don’t need to – although I accept they think they need to. If congestion is contributing to declining bus use this is an urgent issue that needs addressing – and modal shift can address pollution as much as new technology and potentially much more quickly and cheaply. It costs London buses at least 50% more to run equivalent services on a weekday morning compared to a Saturday morning which is a gross inefficiency.

207. @ngh 18:02
     I accept that Heathrow has absolutely declining business use, on the basis of Tom’s figures. 6-8 years ago we were in the crisis / post-crisis period, when business travel was cut to the minimum. The point we agree on is that at Heathrow it has not recovered to pre-crisis levels. And I think we also agree on the consequences for runway 3.

208. Malcolm,

     Pollution is certainly worse from many vehicles if they are slow-moving or standing

     True, of course, but there is a danger of falling into a trap here.

     Pollution shouldn’t be worse if vehicles are standing. It ought to be zero pollution! Unfortunately, for various reasons, drivers appear to be uncomfortable about switching their engines off. Until it is mandated that vehicle engines (especially cars and taxis) are switched off after a predetermined number of seconds and automatically switched on again when needing to move we will always have this unnecessary pollution. More than one approach to reducing pollution-causing stationary traffic is possible here and there is no reason why they could not be implemented together.

     The other trap is to regard slow moving vehicles as more polluting. We have a local petrolhead who writes to the papers objecting to 20mph zones on this ground. It is probably true they are more polluting but is is probably also true that engines are optimised for efficiency for speeds greater than 30 mph. If we had more slower moving traffic and more 20mph zones it may be the case that manufacturers would redesign their products (engine or gearbox) to work more efficiently at these speeds. In principle slower speeds ought to be more efficient because there is less wind resistance.

209. @PoP: I referred (just after the bit you quote) to “engine stop-start systems”. I have occasionally driven vehicles with these, and they work fine, but they do not seem to be getting any more widespread. Relying on the driver to stop and start is not very successful – and one reason may be folk memories of the 20 minutes running which (admittedly pre-war) cars were claimed to need to recharge from one engine start. (A modern car would probably be more like 20 seconds, I suspect, provided the engine is warm). I agree that mandating is probably the only way forward here.

210. Malcolm……Of course cars with stop-start are getting more widespread. Each year that passes, people buy new cars and virtually all new cars come with stop-start in order to comply with the emissions legislation

211. That’s good to know. It’s not often that I get to drive particularly new cars, except on the occasional hire!

212. @ Malcolm
     Yes I did mean “orbital” not “radial”!

     https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/bold-plans-to-clean-up-londons-toxic-air

     Sadiq Khan’s press release does specifically mention the North and South Circulars as boundaries. Leaving aside my initial point, there is a major difference between having a ULEZ in Central London where hardly anyone lives, and those that do can afford to buy a Hybrid Lexus or Porsche for “inner London” use, to extending it out to a large part of North London, where the air quality is much better. Indeed the worst air in North London is probably along the North Circular and this would make it worse!

213. congestion
     While London thrives it’s not reasonable to expect any significant reduction in congestion – see the Mogridge contention discussed on other threads. We can, though, involve fewer people in it.

     In part, the additional congestion resulting from the plethora of street works in central London (partly, but not only, resulting from the cycle super highways) will dissipate within a few months. But other methods, that are more tuned than a simple increase in the congestion charge might help. These include levying the congestion charge on private hire vehicles and reducing the scale of the residents’ discount. The ULEX proposals from Sadiq Khan will also help by introducing, in effect, a new charge for at least some vehicles over a wider area than the current congestion charge.

214. Answer=42,

     It’s even more stark. Business numbers at Heathrow show no sign of recovery since 2008. After having to cut travel to make ends meet, evidently UK companies judged the benefits not worth the costs, even as bottom lines improved.

     How increased, much more expensive, capacity would entice business back to flying was just one of a herd of elephants in the Airport Comission’s room. Others included carbon emissions, the asymmetry of shifting noise costs to new flight paths and of course the impossibility of meeting legal limits of pollutants.

215. For information about the Mogridge contention, see, for instance, this comment, and surrounding ones.

216. Mikey C
     Indeed
     Will a ULEZ apply to residents living inside the much larger N/S circular area?
     Or just to commercial vehicles?
     Cost?
     What about people living just outside who wish to go nowhere near the central area, but wish to go “inside” nonetheless?
     Date-of-build restrictions ( i.e. much older vehicles exempted) on the grounds that they won’t be around for much longer- usually – anyway?
     Lots of different potential heffalump-traps in there ….

217. @ Ian J 0347 18/5 @ Graham H 0841 18/5 – the nearest thing I am aware of about tendering of urban transport services is from the TfL Board paper from 2009 (see link)

     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/Item07-Contract-for-provision-of-services-by-london-underground.pdf

     That sets out the need, as demanded by the EU, to “contractualise” inhouse operation of rail services and to provide regular reporting. Therefore LU’s services are provided by LUL under contract to TfL. What is not mentioned is the “trade off” scenario about retaining a “monopoly” vs trading services elsewhere.

     I’d have thought the much bigger issues for TfL “competing” would be able to demonstrate fair competition, no state aid, transparency of decision making (if TfL is assessing tenders where TfL is a potential supplier (as proposed for buses)) and the ability for TfL to bear “risk” if it actually won a contract to operate services in another country. I’m not clear about TfL’s ability to enter into commercial partnerships or even to sell its expertise given the provision of transport services to Londoners has to be its overriding priority as set out in legislation (and dragged through the ages by inheriting obligations from its predecessor bodies).

218. @quinlet

     If you plan to remove buses from Oxford Street AND reduce the Congestion Charging discount, how exactly are residents of the area supposed to travel out of the area?

219. @mikeatsmileend:

     If congestion is contributing to declining bus use this is an urgent issue that needs addressing

     There are two possible ways of doing that – reduce congestion overall, or reduce the effect of congestion on buses (ie more bus lanes, bus priority signals, etc). The advantage of the latter is that it avoids the Catch-22 where reducing road congestion can make driving more attractive, leading to more traffic on the road and so a return to congestion.

220. @WW: Thanks for that reference, which leads to this EU directive, and in particular clause 18 on page 3:

     any local authority or, in the absence thereof,any national authority may choose to provide its own public passenger transport services in the area it administers or to entrust them to an internal operator without competitive tendering. However, this self-provision option needs to be strictly controlled to ensure a level playing field. The competent authority or group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services, collectively or through its members, should exercise the required control. In addition, a competent authority providing its own transport services or an internal operator should be prohibited from taking part in competitive tendering procedures outside the territory of that authority

     In London’s case TfL is the competent authority which has contracted the operation of the Underground to London Underground Limited (LUL) as an “internal operator”. The directive is clear that LUL as an “internal operator” should not be allowed to tender for operations outside London, and neither would TfL if it were “a competent authority providing transport services”: but arguably TfL isn’t one of those – its services are all competitively tendered, except the Underground which is contracted to an internal operator. So why shouldn’t TfL Rail or TfL Surface, or a separate subsidiary, be able to bid for contracts?

221. @the orange one
     Pedestrianisation of Oxford Street does not mean that there will be no buses in the vicinity, just that they will be on different roads. Decreasing the residents’ discount for congestion charge doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to drive, just that it will be a bit more expensive. There also remains the underground and cross rail, plus walking and cycling. Plenty of options to choose from in terms of residents being able to travel out of the area.

222. @IanJ – I agree with your interpretation: if TfL operated the services directly,then it,too would be prohibited from tendering but it doesn’t,so it isn’t; the distinction between competent authority and internal operator is very clear.

     BTW the suggested consequences of non-compliance-“but then you lose monopoly rights in your own city and have to tender out operations.” – isn’t actually contained in the Directive; theusual consequence of non-compliance with an EU Directive is a heavy fine – I am not aware of any “judicial re-set” process of the sort that can take place under English law. Nor is it clear that the directive extends to the provision of consultancy advice which, even if it did, can easily be sidestepped by the secondment of LU staff to TfL.

223. @Graham H and WW
     It seems to me that the status of TfL (re putting in tenders to run services elsewhere) is similar to that of Paris. RATP has successfully created an export division. Indeed, why not Tfl running parts of Paris
     system.

224. @AR – maybe although (a) I wouldn’t take French useage as any indicator of the EU requirements, and (b) I thought that the specifying “competent authority” was the Council of the Ile de France – but the usual problem of fumees and mirroirs probably applies to that, too.

225. @quinlet

     It’s been established that there’s no sensible place to put the buses without causing gridlock (Wigmore Street is not well suited enough as can be seen on days when Oxford Street is closed for water main replacement, and all other options are just stupid).

     The thing about the Oxford Street area is that there are no shops selling everyday items (apart from the likes of Tesco Express, which in the central area only offers a very limited selection catered towards the needs of the tourist) at reasonable prices (so discounting the likes of Waitrose and The Body Shop). As such, to live in the Oxford Street area requires regular trips to a non-Oxford Street area of your choice (e.g. Camden, Pimlico, South Hampstead) to buy the essentials. Not exactly a trip you can walk or cycle to complete, and hauling your shopping out of Oxford Circus tube along with every tourist and his selfie stick every week is not a brilliant solution.

     To be honest, you won’t exactly get a lot of money out of reducing the residents discount to congestion charging. Not many residents of the area in question often use cars, because it costs money – we all rely on buses to get anywhere distant enough (because it’s physically difficult to actually get on board any of the trains and they’re pretty expensive too).

226. I don’t see consultancy services as a money spinner for TfL. What the could do is:

     Help sell UK PLC outside EU. Graham H has already debunked that one in an earlier debate

     Learn from now others do things to bring better practice or cheaper solutions back to London.

     Either way, I reckon leass than £50m pa turnover and less than £5m profit after 10 years or more of trading. The consultancy would need dedicated staff.

     Personally, I think any consultancy is being proposed for the greater glory of the proponents and not for the greater good of LU.

227. The Orange One: Certainly claims have been made that Wigmore Street is “not well suited”, but I don’t think that this has been “established” (whatever that may mean). Its use at water main time is not conclusive. I think the point of the review which Sadiq is committed to is to find out whether, and if so how, to pedestrianize Oxford Street. Such a review still seems worthwhile to me, even recognising that some people will be disadvantaged. The days of “easy win, everybody happy, nobody sad” have long gone from central London traffic planning.

228. Orange One 12:44 “apart from the likes of Tesco Express, which in the central area only offers a very limited selection catered towards the needs of the tourist”

     Errm, not tourists. The many people who work in central London (a) getting breakfast to eat in the office, (b) getting lunch to eat in the office, and (c) getting ready-made or ingredients for evening meal. The arrival of such shops has transformed my shopping — no huge weekend trips to giant branches of Tesco or Sainsbury’s, just a few for the bulky items then small outings on the way home for (c)-type shopping.

     And, if you live in the suburbs, as I do, large supermarkets might be two or three miles away. What’s wrong with expecting the few Oxford Circus residents to make similar trips to Camden or wherever?

229. @ngh. BA declining business traffic out of LHR? Are you sure? BA are currently refitting much of their 747 fleet, removing economy seats and adding yet more business class seating. On those planes, virtually the whole aircraft is premium cabins, with a single – relatively small – economy section way down the back.

230. @ PoP – I’ve just had a quick look in London Vehicle Finder at route 312’s history. Most days there are several diesel buses running alongside the electric Optare Metrocities on the route. The schedule is also designed to allow some electric buses to come off part way through the day for a recharge. The same pattern of “hokey cokey” buses can be seen with the electric buses on the H98 at Hounslow.

     @ Greg – the route 69 trial seems to be going better these days. As I type all three electric deckers are in service and this is pretty typical now. They are now scheduled to run in the main schedule rather than as supplementary vehicles. They are also supposed to be out every day of the week now rather than just M-F in the early days. Look for “EB” on the timetable at http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/069.htm

     I’ve only had 1 ride on one and it was incredibly quiet inside. Other than the high backed seats and the lack of din it was pretty much like any other Enviro 400MMC double decker.

     The all electric BYD double deckers now seem to be out and about on the 98 reasonably frequently. One has had a small accident (just a small dent at the garage apparently) but the other 2 are running. There are a further 2 still to be commissioned so up to 5 deckers will be in service on the 98 fairly soon.

231. @ Ian J – glad to see that link to the Board Paper helped answer the question.

     @ 130 – I share your concerns about a “TfL Consultancy” / “internal competing bus company”. These appear superficially attractive and “supportive” of the expertise in the TfL organisation. A nice “pat on the back” from the Mayoral candidate. Now the candidate is the Mayor I wonder how long it will take that “pat on the back” to turn into a “kick up the bottom” and demands as to why so much money has been spent with no obvious return and why have you sent the best TfL people on “jollies” and are having to hire expensive consultants / put less skilled people into pressured or challenging roles on projects which are now not running to time! Call me an appalling old cynic but it’s really hard to see how a TfL consultancy can ever earn big money / avoid losing big sums on bidding costs. Surely the imperative must be to use the talent in the organisation to take out inefficiencies and ensure cost effective / timely delivery of the investment programme? There’s plenty to do.

     It is worth noting that we are a fortnight into the Mayoralty and only two formal appointments have been made. While not doubting the Mayor’s skills he can’t run the whole shooting match himself. He has his first Question Time next week and there are only 73 pages (!) of questions to be answered, many on Transport. His Tory opponents on the Assembly have helpfully submitted a great many “please put your head in this noose” type of question about the manifesto commitments that were made. Despite there only being one Lib Dem AM (Mrs Pidgeon) she has submitted enough questions for about 5 AMs including “will you be cancelling the order for extra New Routemasters?” as her starting point! It will be interesting to see how the questions get answered and whether we see a change in tone in the answers provided by TfL.

232. @ Mikeatsmileend – It is very clear from TfL’s own reports and updates that traffic congestion is worsening. TfL’s own road and cycle schemes are part of the reason for that. On the bus network TfL have said, in the latest Surface Transport MD’s report, that the excess wait time target for the bus network was not met for last year (ended at 31 March) and bus patronage is expected to be down 71m pass jnys. Bizarrely meeting papers were on the website a couple of weeks ago for Surface / LU & Rail meetings last week. All the papers have been pulled!!! I wonder if the “new regime” has demanded bad news be removed? Anyway the numbers in those papers merely confirmed forecasts from the last quarterly report under the Bozza regime. The TfL Budget for 2016/17 shows an even worse performance against target for 2015/16 than those quoted above (bus pass jnys down 122m against target, bus mileage down 3m against target, bus revenue down £84m against target).

     You are quite correct that network efficiency has gone sideways. TfL have had to fund increased route resources or cut back routes / reduce frequencies to cope with all the traffic problems. Operators have reported reduced earnings and profits because they have not been earning performance bonuses on many routes. Furthermore an incentive scheme to improve performance in Outer London doesn’t seem to have worked either. I am expecting the detailed annual bus route patronage stats to emerge fairly soon and I shall plug them into my spreadsheet that has all the info for the last 16 years. I am not expecting to see a good news story on many, many routes – more like carnage and a significant step backwards. TfL say they expect patronage to “bounce back” this year but I am very sceptical about that as journey times are getting slower and slower for a number of reasons and people don’t like slow journeys. A year on from now we shall see whether the completion of road works, the Bus Hopper ticket and whatever else the Mayor dreams up have had an impact on 2016/17’s numbers!!

233. @WW /Old Buccaneer – Having worked for my sins in several transport consultancies, I would like to underline the remarks about not making much money. Firstly, there is the scale – TfL has extensive experience in public transport matters, but only limited expertise in roads affairs and virtually none in logistics. It doesn’t design or build much inhouse. The divisions of well-established transport consultancies devoted to these things are quite small a couple of hundred people would be a typical staffage; they make much more cash flow (but low margin) on large scale design and project management. Although their fees often seem high (and are high), remember that that usually reflects quite low utilisation factors on the “softer” work. Of course, the likes of PwC and KPMG look – and are – big and profitable, but TfL could hardly compete against them.

     A niche player without a grunt work tail is never going to generate enough cash to fill the holes now facing Mr Kahn – if he is very lucky, he might get £5m on a turnover of £25m.

234. @ Graham H – I assume your suggested TfL numbers are based on all the work proceeding smoothly, pleased clients everyhere and no great loss of money in bidding for work. My concern is “risk” – a financially constrained TfL simply can’t go running round losing money on consultancy work / bidding for such work. An upside of £5m on £25m turnover is not much cop given there will be set up costs as well as opportunity costs from diverting personnel from other work. It’s not as if the TfL engineering expertise is sitting on its backside doing nothing all day. IME many senior LU engineers were worked off their feet trying to keep everything going given they were usually departmental heads as well as experts in their field and also had a “sign off” role in assurance / H&S aspects of projects. How so many of them remained so good natured and cheerful given all the pressure remains a bit of a mystery to me.

235. @WW – Too right – starting as a new entrant to a hotly contested market requires a very long pocket and extreme patience on the part of one’s backers. [To illustrate the point and tell an anti-person anecdote, nearly 20 years ago, Berger’s – the consultants not the paint manufacturers – thought it would be a good idea to enter the “soft” end of transport consulting and interviewed me to launch the gismo; salary offered in excess of £100k, terms were to employ 9 staff and have a £3m turnover within a year. Looking surreptitiously at my trusty fag packet under the interview table, I quickly identified mission impossible and declined gracefully. Nothing more was heard of Bergers – although I must say, the temptation to take the money and run away after 12 months was tempting…]

236. Walthamstow Writer and Graham H
     I suspect neither of you will be overly surprised that I share your scepticism about the prospects for TfL consultancy as a way of making good foregone revenue due to the fares freeze pledge. The most pertinent of the points, I think, is WW’s regarding risk and publicity, etc. Rightly, in my view, public bodies spending our money and (supposedly) acting in our names are subject to scrutiny and disclosure requirements. What happens when a bid fails, or if the outfit loses money? Will it be closed down or kept alive until something works, sooner or later, to avoid the mayoral embarrassment of a failure leading to a u-turn? Will it hire enough staff on high salaries to lure them away from competitors? How will that look in the Standard?

     Perhaps the worst thing about this is that there appears to be no economic justification at all for this function being carried out by the public sector. The justification seems entirely political: vanity. There is no public service element to it, nobody thinks there’s a market failure which needs to be corrected, no spare organisational capacity from some other related function waiting to be put into productive use, nothing like that. Just a mayor who believes himself to have the entrepreneurial flair which will, if he sets out building a commercial empire, generate substantial value to fund his spending commitments.

     quinlet and others

     “other methods, that are more tuned than a simple increase in the congestion charge might help”

     Yes, although I would say that without substantial change to the exemptions and discounts, the case for raising the charge seems unanswerable.

     There are a wide range of vehicle classes which are exempt and discounted. I see no justification for any of them. They all add to congestion. They should all be encouraged with a price to avoid the zone when making marginal journeys if we want to target congestion. Roadside recovery vehicles are a good example. Why should the cost of congestion they create be carried by road users other than the owner of the vehicle which drove into the zone and broke down?

     Finally, I would be very wary about extending the zone, especially when residents within it enjoy a 90% discount. Extending the zone slashes the price of driving into the old zone for people in the extended area. The scale of this effect might be small enough not to worry about, but I suggest this is something that ought to be considered. Instead, a second, outer congestion charge zone may be preferable (although given a much longer boundary I wonder whether the administrative costs would be prohibitive).

237. @Harry Crayola
     If a public body is possessed of knowledge and expertise it is in the interest of the public that this should be sold. British railways had a very successful consultancy arm entitled Transmark that yielded substantial profits benefiting the nation. The public (we) created that knowledge and expertise and we are entitled to capitalise on it.

238. AR – it would be interesting if you could quantify “substantial”. It’s also interesting to speculate how much the engineers whose time was sold by Transmark might have contributed to improved solutions for BR, perhaps saving many times Transmark’s net profit.

239. @100andthirty
     Transmark undertook a great deal more than engineering. The organisation was sold in 1996, and is still in existence as Halcrow Transmark. Don’t have precise accounts to hand, but I do recall how profits were in 10s of millions, representing a very high return on minimal assets employed, and as expression of direct costs (mostly paybill and expenses). Temporary posts were advertised in the BR vacancy lists, and I was encouraged to apply, which I declined as all the work seemed to be overseas, which did not fit my lifestyle.

     However, I did work for Transmark on many occasions, but without relocation. BR was regarded as a world leader in innovative ground breaking railway management, and I gave many lectures and more informal advice to visiting delegations regarding BR management accounting systems, support mechanisms and strategic planning. I can recall about 20 or so such episodes, for which my time would have been charged to these delegations, earning considerable foreign exchange. (I was told we absolutely rooked them).

     Essentially, BR was coming to be recognised in the International Railway community as the most efficient, cost effective and commercially dynamic railway in the world. (hence interest and Transmark profit).

     I was told that Transmark’s activities were absolutely beneficial to BR (and therefore the nation/public interest) in every way. Not only was profit earned, but it was regarded by the Board as a device to improve the skills and experience of management staff, by which BR would ultimately benefit. Certainly, a Transmark secondment was seen as a very desirable entry in a CV, almost guaranteeing promotion.

     I was conversing with former colleagues who had participated in Transmark work, only a few days ago at my regular meetings of BR headquarters finance dept at the”Lion and Wheel” and, as often the case, the value of Transmark work was a subject of discussion. As I suspected, I was indeed “marked down” for declining to take an overseas secondment.

240. AR…That’s a fascinating account of the value to the BR beyond the profit and loss account of the Transmark itself. Thanks

241. @100and thirty
     Thank you very much for your appreciation. The point is: excellence has its own validity, irrespective of whether it is a public or private sector organisation. I was PROUD TO BE A RAILWAYMAN.
     (Don’t care who owned it, could have been the Martians).
     With regard to the present. TFL is a major public transport provider.
     It is one of the “best” in the western (developed) world, The business
     results are a world leader (lowest support levels etc). Therefore, it
     should be the case that this excellence should be marketable.
     (and I contend it should be in the public interest that this expertise should be made available , but at a price).

242. A proven high calibre operator like TfL does have marketable skills. However, rather than set up a consultancy arm and indulge in all the risks and self-delusion of bidding for work, it would be far better to hire operational expertise out to existing consultants who have all the experience of competing in these markets
     Those consultants just do not have the up-to-date expertise in actually running a transport system. At best they have former operators plus personnel who have helped plan new systems.
     It would not bring in massive sums initially, but starting with a ‘guns for hire’ pool would be low risk and could be the start of something bigger.

243. @Fandroid – and the thing – allegedly – that established consultancies can bring is marketing skills which the public sector,almost by definition, can’t bring.

244. @Graham H. Sometimes there is just no logic in what works in marketing and what doesn’t. In my short career in consulting I was was spectacularly unsuccessful in selling anything to the Irish, but surprised myself by being consistently able to persuade the Scots to buy from us. There may be a joke of a traditional British sort in there somewhere.

245. … and financial risk-taking, which the public sector (however skilled its employees) is not allowed to indulge in.

246. Surely another benefit of a larger congestion charging zone would be that TfL can use the money on rail/other transport schemes; it must be all proportional though – if more people choose to use their local tube station/park at one then commutes will become more grisly and other people will decide the road surcharge/decide to replace their car with a compliant model (<99g/km CO2?) is worth the expense and return to their cars – especially if London keeps growing like it is, and you end up back where we are now.

     I think that, depending on whether the goal is revenue collection from motorists or an environmental aspiration that driving is made progressively more unattractive by reconfiguring junctions to be cycle or bus friendly and rather less trivial for motorists. Some time ago I did suggest park and ride facilities on the edges of the tube network like at Redbridge and Epping, but after passing through Bethnal Green recently I realise that unless new rail is built (CR2 anyone?) it's just redistributing misery. Since pouring money into London schemes seems to be particularly unattractive to non-London dwellings the DfT is keeping its chequebook shut.

     I wouldn't want Mike Brown's job right now!

247. @Fandroid – actually, the various consultancies – Robson Rhodes, Gibb, Scott Wilson – in which I worked after the Board collapsed were to a man, spectacularly bad at marketing. The last – Scott Wilson (subsequently taken over by URS, subsequently taken over by AECOM )- refused to allow to staff to spend time on marketing unless they could demonstrate in advance how much business they could guarantee to win. The assumption was that all – as in *all* – business would either be repeat business or sold entirely on reputation. A load of utter tosh, of course. We all therefore undertook marketing to save our souls* whilst doing something else chargeable, but the scope for that was limited and the lack of market success is illustrated by the bit in parentheses in my second sentence.

     Mind you, URS were no better than their acquisition: they announced on day 1 that their main business was US defense (sorry, defence) contracts and US utilities and promptly abandoned the entire European and Asian operation (95% of the business they had just acquired) on the grounds that the business was too risky legally (had we had a challenge in the previous century? – no). Many years of marketing down the pan. The AECOM takeover was their reward.

     Bile apart, the problem facing all consultancies who wish to play in the “soft” part of the transport market is that there is neither a recognition by clients that that is what they actually need nor any easy chance of putting together and sustaining a critical business mass. Too many clients demanding advice on transport strategy or institutional reform are sold transport planning advice, or accountancy advice or – if you are an American consultancy – “permissioning” – none of which is on its own what is required. The consultants and clients then part company thinking that the other are charlatans… At least TfL might have the patience to persist in selling a distinctive soft product that isn’t just engineering advice wrapped up as something glitzy.

     * everyone had a target of growing the business, even junior staff – again, complete rubbish if you refused to give them the tools (aka time and exes) to do the job. I always covered up for my team.

248. @Everybody contributing to this
     It’s not about risk taking or even enterprise (whatever that is) It’s about knowledge. Running a public transport organisation is a specific knowledge which the management are party to. It doesn’t exist anywhere else, not in academic circles or in the city. Those who exercise this expertise are the experts , the repository of excellence.
     This is valuable. It is desirable that this expertise should be disseminated. BR was respected for having developed this knowledge to a high level (1980s and 1990s) not generally appreciated by the public or government.

249. Graham H
     And of course “RR” went spectacularly down the pan, for other reasons – you’ll have to ask “the Boss” about that though ….

250. @WW: “An upside of £5m on £25m turnover is not much cop given there will be set up costs as well as opportunity costs from diverting personnel from other work. It’s not as if the TfL engineering expertise is sitting on its backside doing nothing all day. IME many senior LU engineers were worked off their feet trying to keep everything going given they were usually departmental heads as well as experts in their field and also had a “sign off” role in assurance / H&S aspects of projects. ”

     And for me, therein lies the rub. LU has many good engineers, but not the number needed to be at its most efficient. Too much time and energy is lost on firefighting – to have a long term slick and sustainable business the engineers there are need to be kept (not rented out) and more recruited in a controlled manner.

     There are many really boring things that could be done that would reap rewards if more engineering (and engineering management) resource was available to look further ahead. Condition monitoring and information management (in many guises) could be stepped up for long-term benefits, as could the automating (or semi automating) of many business processes still done in 1960s ways.

251. @ Alan R – yes there is knowledge. Having been deemed the resident “expert” several times in my career I am well aware of that. I am also had my fair share of trying to educate consultants, hired by LU, about “how the world works” and then they charge LU a small fortune to say what I already knew. All this because “internal people” are not sufficiently “independent” to be trusted. Ludicrous but there you go. I wonder if this is just a particularly British way of doing things or whether all major public transport operators rely on consultants to “borrow their wristwatches to tell them the time”? I accept some consultancies will have highly specialised knowledge / experts that will always have to be hired in as there isn’t the long term need in transport companies to have such experts on their payroll.

     There may be things that bits of TfL can tell others but a lot of this is shared voluntarily via UITP, COMET and other worldwide / industry mechanisms. I think this is a fairer, more sensible way to do things because ulterior motives are off the table. That willingness to share is what got me to Hong Kong, Paris, Oslo and New York in my career. I was “flogged” to Sydney for a month though only as “bag man” to someone else. It is also worth noting that severable notable operational managers from LU have gone on to work elsewhere in the world so LU’s practice will have gone with those people too. One thing LU Ops is pretty damn good at is training its top managers and ensuring they get a real blend of experience. Shame it didn’t always stretch to other directorates although it might be different now.

     I agree with Graham H – is it possible for TfL to develop a genuinely valuable niche product that is needed by other transport companies / authorities? Can they do it quickly enough and build a reputation fast enough to not lose a lot of money (or pee off the Mayor) in the short term? Those are the fundamental questions that need answering. I remain sceptical because TfL really needs its own top quality people to be ensuring it survives and adapts in its new era. It is also worth nothing that two high calibre people opted to leave LU prior to the Mayoral Election and I am waiting to see what fall out there is from that – particularly in respect of one of those people. Maybe Mike Brown can pull the rabbit out of the hat on a “TfL consultancy” but I’d prefer him to be pulling “better bus services” “on time / on budget project delivery” “vastly better passenger information” “more efficiency” “stable investment” “agreed long term plan and funding” out of his hat if I’m honest. Those things matter to Londoners and visitors needing to travel at value for money fares not only now but for years to come.

252. Looking back over this debate about TfL’s consultancy potential, I wonder if we aren’t,collectively, taking a too simplistic view. If you sit down and analyse the skills required to run a transport system, you find some -but not all – are replicated in the private sector and some-but not all – are sought after by third parties. Some skills it doesn’t have in any marketable sense at all. In the first category (the contested skills), TfL may or may not be able to compete on commercial terms satisfactorily; in the second and third categories, there may be a mismatch between what the market wants and what TfL can supply. Applyig these tests quickly winnows down what TfL (or BR as was or whoever) can turn into profit.

     Just to start the debate again in a more nuanced way, here are some preliminary thoughts based on spending 20 years working in the consultancy market after working for Br and HMG;

     – “hard skills”such as engineering and project management. In many of these areas (eg rolling stock design and construction), TfL acts as an informed customer rather than a “doer”, as a fleet manager rather than a builder. Same goes for S&T. The private sector has considerable skills in these areas and it would be tricky for TfL to take on the likes of Westinghouse or Siemens. The one area where the transport industry has no external competitors is in the design and management of operations. Operational skills are,however, not easily transferrable between different areas, let alone different countries,for a whole variety of legal and cultural reasons. RATP or SSG will think they know the Paris or Stuttgart conditions better than someone from overseas- or they willfeel threatened by outsiders in a way that working through COMET/NOVA doesn’t – a tricky market to enter.

     As to the softer disciplines – such things as transport planning are well established in the private sector. Although TfL has many good tools at its disposal, so do theirpotential competitors. Commercially, TfL (and TOCs and NR) know their patch and know how to play their local system, but the game is different overseas. Policy making and institutional reform and regulation are not really areas where operators can make a big difference (even if one thinks they should!) – they do not keepmany people busy on these activities and are usually the victims rather than the prime movers on these topics.

     To be sure there is a market for integrated commercial/regulatory/operational/technical advice – strategy if you like – but it’s quite small and few operators have many if any staff engaged on this. Private consultancies struggle with this area, too, but for different reasons:they lack the practical experience which so usefully sorts the theory geeks from those who can actually provide helpful advice. Nor is it clear that the market place recognises this strategy activity as something distinctive – it’s often confused with system development or,these days, even with system integration.

     No doubt, we can all compile more detailed lists but the general message seems clear – a series of niches some of which are not easy to turn into a cash flow.

253. @Graham H
     I can broadly concur with above assertions. My experience of this field is considerably less than yours, so I defer. As I remember it, the sort of financial/strategic consultations that I was involved in were initiated by foreign governments who ordered their state railway to visit BR to find out why they are so much better than us. Not much marketing involved here. A Classic was the USA, who sent over a team in mid eighties to find out how BR was able to deliver a viable Inter City business division, which according to the “party line” put out by their Railroad companies, transport academics and even Amtrak was a total impossibility. They were certain that they would discover an accounting travesty at the heart of it, and would go back to Washington to report that viable passenger train is still a myth.
     They were dumbfounded to find that in the UK passenger trains took a prime user attribution of infrastructure, not marginal secondary user as in the States. I suspect that their findings were so devastating and critical of all aspects of US passenger rail governance that their report was carefully supressed. However, the relevance is that it illustrates what I mean by “unique knowledge”.

254. WW……in full pedant mode…….
     The full saying which I am sure you know is “borrow your watch to tell you the time andcthen keep the watch”.

     My experience having moved to consultancy after a long time in LU is that clients often ask the right question, but too late, and so often get a sub-optimal answer. Even worse, they sometimes (often) buy consultancy where price is more important than quality. Indeed they sometimes don’t even ask for the consultant’s poposed approach to the assignment – just price and CVs.

255. GrahamH…..these days, Westinghouse is Siemens. The Westinghouse Brake and Signalling Company of old, became Knorr Bremse for brakes, and Invensys for Signalling. Siemens bought out the Invensys signalling company a couple of years ago and it is now called Siemens Automation.

256. @WW

     I wonder if this is just a particularly British way of doing things or whether all major public transport operators rely on consultants to “borrow their wristwatches to tell them the time”?

     From my experience – albeit not in the transport arena – most definitely not. On retirement from the public sector I spent 10+ years running my own consultancy specializing in defence procurement and procurement strategy and largely concentrating on transatlantic matters as that was where my specialist experience was greatest. To my surprise I found a ready market with the biggest US defence contractors who already had their own experts on staff – many of whom I knew well, and quite a few of whom were pretty competent. Nevertheless, said contractors were very happy to do their bit towards reducing the trade deficit by paying me substantial amounts of dollars to be told that their staff had got it pretty much right.

257. @130 -yes,ofcourse,but you know what I meant….

     I do very much agree with you about clients asking the right question too late. [I faced a good exampleof that a few years ago when employed by the Republic of Ireland to devise a PSO for their transport system; the question they should have asked was ” Why do we want to buy the system?” whereas the actual question was “How do we set targets for PSO delivery? ” – a necessarily second order issue. Gentle attempts to steer them into asking the why question fell on deaf ears so they simply ended up with a tidied up version of what they had already – I doubt if they thought that was good value. It emerged from their later policy changes that the pennyhad finally dropped, however…

     @AR That was then – regulatory and policy developments, especially in EU legislation (I won’t say “improvements”) has radically altered the context within which both operators and governments struggle to make sense of their railway businesses.

258. Have we just cracked the conundra as to why:
     a) capital projects cost so much more in the UK
     and b) The UK has such high employment yet such low productivity?

259. On reflexion (whilst reballasting the tramway in the garden…) I wondered if TfL consultancy might not find a really profitable niche in the area of finance – by which I don’t mean accountancy, but the task of explaining how a railway business works to bankers and lawyers and vice versa, particularly in the context of risk. This is something that was a great rarity 25 years ago, but the arrival of PFI and the struggle to find a better alternative without a call on the public purse has meant that a fair number of former colleagues, as well as I have spent much of the last couple of decades explaining operational, engineering, commercial and regulatory risk to banks and financiers. It strikes me that Tfl, both because of its PPP experience, and because it still runs an integrated transport system could have much to offer, even if of the “do what I say, not what I did” variety. (I have found that foreign governments lap up the message that the British version of rail privatisation is an expensive waste of money without delivering any useful policy objectives….)

260. Building on Paying Guest’s experience, my one and only paid consultancy outside UK was to a railway in an English speaking country. It’s CEO knew exactly what was wanted, but needed an independent report to satisfy the politicians who wanted something that looked sexy if not as practical or, in extremis, as safe. Therefore he needed an independent view.

261. @Slugabed
     My training as an Economics graduate suggests to me that wherever there is an apparently inexplicable diversity of outcomes where physical circumstances (geography essentially) suggest uniformity,then the answer has to be found in legislation. As you say, it does seem to be the case that Infrastructure is more expensive in the UK than in Europe. Property prices are only a partial explanation.
     It is certainly possible to demonstrate the effects of bad UK legislation on transport outcomes in the past. Tramways are the obvious example. Most of Europe continued development through to the present, the UK totally abandoned this mode (except for Blackpool, regarded as special case). Without inappropriate dissertation , suffice to say that UK tramway legislation was bad.
     There is similar problem in the USA, passenger trains are restrained by Federal Railroad Administration regulations that mandate heavy passenger cars, totally ignoring superior European practice (and much more). Employment and Productivity is a more sensitive issue and I recommend caution and restraint in explaining this. The UK has the “lightest touch” employment regulation of any major European country (we don’t even have ID cards). This increases the supply of labour, increased supply with constant demand- lower price. This is not an economics site: but I will just allude to recent research that suggests that the inequality of UK society has prevented an increase in demand to “take up the slack” of increase in labour supply at prior levels of productivity.
     Interesting , but not suitable for further dissertation here, as I am sure moderators will agree.
     The capital cost problem (for London and elsewhere in UK) is very real. Tramways seem to cost double European norm, metros also (Crossrail is much more expensive per km than Paris RER). This UK inflated cost factor may yet sink HS2 , and any further High Speed proposals.

262. @Slugabed
     Just done some in depth research re current metro capital costs.
     Tale of two cities again. Paris : RER E Westwards from Boulevard Haussman, 8km of tunnel, plus on surface improvements all the way to Mantes la Jolie. Lets be generous and assume all costs are to be expended on the tunnel portion = Total cost = E 2billion, cost per km = E 250million (or £192million).
     Compare with Elizabeth Crossrail : Assume just HALF of costs are on central tunnel; this equates to approx. £500m per km Hmmmmm!
     (In reality more like £600m per km, does anybody know?

263. @Slugabed – I wouldn’t trust any costs that the French quote – having made a profitable living out of delving into such things and explaining to bemused clients precisely what the French “forgot” to mention…

264. @IslandDweller

     Business travel has fallen by a quarter at Heathrow – that’s the numbers. BA putting 16 extra business class seats into 8 aged 747’s and putting them on more intensive business routes such as New York to London – that’s about sweating the assets.

265. @ Graham H – given your view on “missing skills” out in the real world perhaps I shouldn’t have put my feet up on leaving LU? Given I was involved in PFI and PPP contract development, drafting and then running part of PPP for years seems I possibly had (it’s all a bit fuzzy now) a marketable set of skills and experience. I also think I have a reasonable “bent” for strategic thinking. Oh well. 😉

266. @WW – sit close by your telephone! (Actually, if you’re really interested, I can put you in touch with some former colleagues who’ve made a very successful business of advising banks on risk in the transport sector). Me? I have enough to be comfortable and couldn’t face the hours any longer…

267. Re Alan R,

     RER line E extension cost is actually E3.6bn it sound like people haven’t understood and taken the non station tunnelling cost of E2bn as the total project cost. Lost in translation into English by journalists?

     Other contract costs:

     E186m for signalling
     E496m for La Defense station (3rd box) including 1km of tunnel
     Assume other intermediate station contract in tunnel will be similar or very slightly cheaper and include a bit less tunnel…

     So E2bn for 6.5km of simple tunnel?

268. Consultants
     As someone who regularly commissions consultants I do so for one (or sometimes more) of three reasons:
     – to get access to knowledge or experience I don’t have in house
     – to get some resource to focus on a particular issue which, if undertaken in house, would be part of the workload for others who have a much wider remit
     – to get advice from someone who is clearly independent and not (or less) subject to internal politics. This is along the lines that 100 and thirty has set out.

     Of these, only the last gets close to paying a consultant to tell you the time by borrowing your watch, yet, from the point of view of a consultant or an outsider, both the second and the third would seem to be of this character and maybe even bits of the first.

269. @ngh – Indeed – and based on typical UK costs of £100/mile for single bore tunnelling and on a station cost of £500m, and allowing for extra fitting out costs, in the UK, we might expect costs of £2bn = EUR3bn tops. Who says UK is expensive?

270. @ngh
     Thanks very much for breakdown. The E 2b I quoted was from an IRJ article, suggesting that this was indeed the total project cost. The distance from Boulevard Haussman to La Defense is actually 8km (I’ve measured it on map). Crossrail quotes 43km of tunnel, but this is for individual ,single line, tunnels. The tunnel km on similar basis is 21.5.
     So : RER E (including terminals and signalling) 3.6/8 = e 450m per km
     (£ 346m)
     Crossrail: I have been unable to obtain a meaningful breakdown of outturn capital expenditure (does anybody else know?)
     I can provide following assumptions;-
     Assume 90% of cost incurred by tunnel section infrastructure;-
     £14.4b/21.5 = 669m per km
     Assume 80% : = £12.8b/21.5 = 595m per km
     ” ” 70% : = £11.2b/21.5 = 521m per km
     etc etc.
     @the Paris unit cost of £346, Crossrail tunnel section would cost 21.5 x 346 = £7.44billion (less than half total project cost).

     It appears to me that Paris has got the best deal!
     But can anybody provide an accurate figure?
     Regarding the IRJ article;- Oh dear, can it be that we shouldn’t believe everything we read in the papers ?

271. @AR – try NLE and proposed BLE unit costs – £100m/mile per single bore,stations at £250-500m a pop.

272. @Graham H
     Depends upon station spacing . (and whether the £100m “standard cost” includes signalling etc and proportion of project overheads).
     Tunnels = £200m £125m per km
     Terminals (say 1 per 2 mile) @ 375m = £188m £118m per km
     Total cost £243m per km

     This looks good , but, I suspect that signalling , other plant and equipment and overheads will bump it up.
     If this is a realistic “standard cost” for crossrail, then cost of tunnel section should only be £5.2billion, less than one third of total project cost. Where has the other £10.8b gone?

273. Re Alan R,

     1. The French have been planning things for a very long time so better passive provision which will reduce costs.

     2. Remember that the RER line E extension also includes taking over RER A5 branch west of La Défense on 1 of the Tranilien line U branches (partially shared tracks).
     Both sets of tracks are already electrified and RER A is getting an upgrade to ATO before transfer so compare that with Crosrail at the GWML end and the RER E cost doesn’t include flyovers, electrification but just some signalling on the new tunnel section and the above grounds section between the end of the A5 branch at Poissy and the end of the U branch at Mantes.
     NR by comparison are spending £2.3bn on surface works, where as the Parisians have already done most of the upgrade work already…
     Crossrail cost includes rolling stock but RER doesn’t.
     What is French for salami slicing?

     [I suspect the RER E western extension will also be used as redevelopment tool to enable the closure of the 2 car plants (1 Peugeot group and 1 Renault group) on the end of the branches…]

     3. The new tunnel will also have cross over caverns.

274. @ Alan R – perhaps the money has gone on years of planning, design work, property acquisition, upskilling of the workforce, creating legacy, large and complex stations, rolling stock, linking into other bits of the rail network, moving Pudding Mill Lane station, utilities diversions / preparatory work, signalling and control systems, ventilation / fire / station systems, equipping the line etc etc?

     I almost feel I shouldn’t have to say this but the Crossrail total cost will be from start to finish because all related costs will be rolled up into an overall budget and financial authority. This is to avoid costs being hidden within multiple authorities over disparate projects meaning total costs would never be known. Do we know if the French do the same thing? If they don’t then you’re comparing apples and cucumbers.

275. @ngh: The French have been planning things for a very long time so better passive provision which will reduce costs

     In the case of RER E it was originally intended to join up with the lines from St Lazare and was only fairly recently diverted via La Defense to help relieve Line A (a bit like the addition of Canary Wharf to the original 1990s Crossrail proposals). But I agree about taking over already well developed suburban branches that have been steadily improved for years.

     Also they have already done all the really expensive and geologically difficult city centre stations in the 1990s – and they had big cost overruns doing them.

     There is also the fact that Crossrail’s price tag includes a lot of contingency. Do the French include as much, or are they just absorbing the risk that things will cost more than expected (as happened in the 90s)?

     Sometimes it seems like there is a spectrum – on one end there is the American approach of deliberately underquoting costs so that you get the go-ahead, then rely on regular bail-outs of extra money (see the Second Avenue Subway, California High Speed Rail etc). Then the French/German approach of quoting a fairly realistic price that occasionally leads to a huge blowout that hasn’t been allowed for (Stuttgart 21). Then the British approach of calculating a price, adding 60% optimism bias, then being pleasantly surprised that the project is delivered on time and to budget (HS1, Crossrail). Finally the Swiss like to be massively pessimistic about time and cost and end up patting themselves on the back for opening things years early (AlpTransit). It all seems to depend on the political culture and its appetite for risk.

276. Did, I wonder, the French ever adopt the concept whereby one part of London’s transport, let’s call it an LT department for short, object to the JLE because it would abstract traffic from an eastern section of Central Line, whilst of course part of the reason for the JLE to Stratford was to relieve that section Central Line?

     There was a parallel south of the River where bus folk got humpty and objected to Cross River Tram on similar grounds.

277. @Ngh Graham H, Ian J and more
     Crossrail ! I have been using out of date figures. The latest outturn (Nov 2014 from TfL) is £27b – £32b !!!! (Let’s say £30b).
     This changes previous analysis considerably. The uplift (£16b-30b) is for Trains and depot (not previously included!) and additional surface works,
     This is stupendous, suggests very strongly that the original £16b is indeed just central tunnels and terminals (Help! @ £744m per km)

     Looks to me very much like the “bait and switch” tactic which generates such cynicism in the USA.
     Trains and depots can’t come to more than about £4b (66 trains),
     which leaves £26b for 21.5 km of tunnels and terminals and another 25 km or so of various surface improvements.

     This is very very very expensive indeed!!!
     By my calculations , infrastructure financing costs alone likely to exceed £20 per journey !!! Just how expensive are Elizabeth fares going to be?

     As Ngh commented, appears to be much more expensive than any vaguely comparable project in Europe (even give or take a few apples, oranges, grapefruit, pomegranates etc)

278. @AR – don’t get excited! The Elizabeth Line fares will be standard TfL fares.

     Nor is it so expensive as might seem at first glance – 60 miles of single bore tunnels will cost around £6bn, + the costs of fitting out and the ventilation shafts – perhaps nearer £8bn; 7 subsurface stations of large size are going to cost the thick end of £5-7bn including property acquisition, and as you say, there’s quite a lot of surface works/station rebuilding, including any expensive works to link the tunnel to the surface lines. Just to give you a comparator or two, the rebuild of Victoria came in at around £400m at today’s prices, the NLE will cost about £100m per plain line single bore tunnel, and so on; the BLE is estimated to be about the same. Unless you can produce even this sort of high level analysis, you can’t – for all the reasons cited by Ian J and WW – say that French costs are less (or more ) than UK costs.

279. @Graham F
     “one part of London’s transport, let’s call it an LT department for short, object to the JLE because it would abstract traffic from an eastern section of Central Line, ”
     I do recall, back in the 80s, that there was resistance by both BR and LT to promoting, let alone improving, the “Kenny Belle” (Clapham Junction – Olympia shuttle, at the time running twice a day) because of the revenue both would lose if passengers did not go via Victoria.

280. @Graham H
     According to TfL Crossrail by numbers, it’s 43km of single tunnels, i.e.
     approx. 27 miles, not 60. (£2,7b at “standard cost”).
     can you (or anybody) produce an in-depth analysis of another European project (French or otherwise) that is demonstrably as dear as Crossrail?
     It’s a hell of a lot of money. To put it context (In my dim-witted provincial orientation), that £30b would pay for a decent fairly comprehensive light rail system in about 40 UK cities and larger towns, and Leeds has just had its piddling £250m trolleybus quashed.
     I see peasants with pitchforks marching towards the metropolis!
     (and flaming torches, check your fire insurance policy).

281. @AR – Can you? (if not then any comparison fails….)

282. @Graham H
     I rise to your challenge. I will endeavour to ascertain the existence of a European metro project as dear as Crossrail (for anything that’s at all comparable in scope etc).
     But: I remain puzzled. If I am UNABLE to find anything of comparable magnitude, then does not the original assertion stand? (UK metro construction is expensive)
     I may be gone some time.

283. Alan – that’s not the point at all. Without any factual analysis or metrics, any comparison on the basis that the headline cost of X is bigger than the headline cost of Y is meaningless and worthless.

     And to go back to your point about the Leeds trolleybus system compared with CR, the issue is one of value for money. A small project can have a very good vfm and a large one a rotten one – or vice versa. Size of project is no indicator at all.

284. AR……I think the £27Bn to £32Bn you quoted above is for Crossrail 2, not the Elizabeth line.

285. @Graham H
     The Leeds trolleybus may have been poor value for money , but , there has been minimal transport infrastructure investment per head in UK provincial cities other than London in last 50 odd years.(with very broad uplift to current prices) ; (VERY broad estimates of final actual expenditure) All £ million
     Liverpool Loop and link 400
     Tyne & Wear Metro 600
     Manchester Metrolink 1400
     Glasgow sub 300
     Sheffield tram 600
     Midland Metro 500
     Nottingham tram 900
     Edinburg tram (ha ha) 746
     other misc (say) 200

     Grand total : £5.6billion (in 50 years @ £112m pa
     expenditure per head of urban population (very broadly assessed)
     = approx 30m (non London) urban residents = £3.7 per head pa
     (less than a London Zone 1 cash fare).

     By any account , London has had at least 10 times the investment of
     the rest of the UK urban transport infrastructure combined.
     No wonder HS2 has been decried as yet another London centric project.
     Given that the source of most public Transport investment finance is HMT, (and therefore the Chancellor of Exchequer ultimately) it is inescapable that there is a limited “pot” for projects. Irrespective of whether provincial cities are capable of coming up with cost effective schemes, London has had more than the Lion’s share.
     The dismal Leeds NGT trolleybus was itself an act of desperation, whereby the “signals” given out by Dft about 12 years ago were to forget any further rail scheme. (Dastardly Darling strikes). The whole thing was so drawn out that trolleybus overhead has become obsolete in meantime (electric buses are fine, wires not needed).
     The peasants are revolting !

286. @AR but all wholly irrelevant, I’m afraid. Let me explain, again, the concept of value for money. Investment A costs , let us say, £100m but generates benefits of, say, £10m; investment B costs only £10m but generates benefits of £5m. Now, tell us which is a better investment.

287. @AR

     The outturn costs of £27bn+ you have referred to are definitely for Crossrail 2. The Crossrail budget is £14.8bn and if you have time you can read through various TfL board papers which show the level of confidence that it will come in on cost – off the top of my head the last time I saw one it was something like 60% chance of going into contingency (included in the £14.8bn) but still on time.

     With reference to Alistair Darling and the cancelled light rail projects, I have always wondered/assumed whether he took the hit for that when really it was a Treasury decision that there wouldn’t be the cash forthcoming?

288. A snip at twice the price! (Maybe)

289. @Graham H
     One of the very few things I think that I have learnt from my studies and experience is that politics trumps economics. “Realpolitik” demands that jam be spread a bit. (Which is why the UK eventually devised official support for uneconomic rail passenger services)I do appreciate the existence of external benefits as material to a transport investment, but the sheer inequality of outcome that has emerged raises questions. How it can it be that a capital city should be able to deliver such better external benefits? Not so in other European member states, whereby urban transport investment seems to be more “evenly distributed.”
     I find it difficult to believe that CERTAIN external benefits are essentially greater (per pass journey/km) in London than provinces, i.e environmental costs, pollution congestion etc, or do we really value an individual Londoner’s well-being higher than that of inhabitants of the provinces?
     I suspect a degree of wish-fulfilment. Without encouragement and appreciation (and continuity) provincial cities are less likely to come up with the good cost effective schemes. Of course, a major culprit is the confiscation of business rate revenue by HMT. Improved business rate income consequent upon transport improvement does not flow to the city concerned, it goes to Westminster (this is at long last proposed for change). A London bias may well have crept in, whereby if provincial city A proposes a scheme with benefits of additional investment, then HTM will cynically regard it as just detracting from revenues elsewhere, London has a unique quality, in that there may be a built in assumption that LONDON investment will not happen elsewhere.

290. Surely it also comes down to need as well. Projections for London suggest we will need Crossrail2 (and 3) long before they can possibly be built. Trams in Leeds may be nice to have, but the city won’t grind to a halt without them. If public transport provision does need expansion in Leeds, longer trains on the local heavy rail network would be a better place to start. Commuter services in Leeds are often only 3 carriages. In London, eight is seen as the bare minimum, with ten or twelve increasingly common.

291. @Alan – you are still not getting the point. It’s not that the valuation of benefits is different as between London and anywhere else, it’s that London tends to generate more of them. Look at my suggested example and work through the logic. (You can swap the benefits over if you like so that the £100m scheme generates lower percentage benefits. The logic of choosing remains the same).

     Putting it very simply: if you are investor, do you choose schemes that reward you better or don’t you?

292. @Just about everyone.
     “London generates more of them” (benefits)Really?, but London has only about 17% of UK population. Now, we are getting to the nitty gritty,how do we measure the worth of the UK economy (spatially). Is it the output of farms, mines and factories etc (and the incomes of those who work in them) or balances of property investments and proceeds of global banking? (which seems to constitute London).
     As Investor. Public sector investments are different. The criteria has to be that which achieves required degree of “well-being”. The market might pile all its funds into what it sees as an overriding “sure thing”, but not the “public”.
     @timbeau
     I have a friend in Leeds (another retired transport professional) who reports that Leeds has hit gridlock already, with appalling consequences. The “motorway city of the 1970s” has become te gridlocked city of the 21st cent. My friend reports that bus journeys into Leeds City centre in AM peak now run at walking pace. Bus ridership has decreased and fares have soared (First group mostly).
     The local trains are hopelessly overloaded, leaving people behind unable to squeeze on. You are correct in that a major priority would be to increase peak train lengths, but that it hasn’t happened is indicative of lack of application to the problem. Leeds is not alone.
     Just take a look at Leeds rail network, There are only six stations within the city area (i.e. densely built up to about 6 miles radius of central Leeds). These six stations only have a “catchment” of about 10,000-15,000 at best. Leeds is a city of over 500,000 , it needs something better than buses on gridlocked roads, surely. But, nothing happened, and Leeds is now largest city in Europe with no city rail system. Almost Zilch spent on transport Infrastructure in Leeds (Leeds NW electrification in 1990s was last). Other European cities of comparable size have had considerable investments.
     And that’s just Leeds.

293. Show me an employment centre in Leeds the size of Canary Wharf.

     Come and ride on the Jubbly around the peaks between Stratford and Waterloo (and beyond), heading to/from Canary Wharf. Now tell me that CR1 investment is London-centric and should be spent elsewhere.

     I was going to say that the only hope for relief before 2018/9 is a certain upcoming vote going in a certain direction, but I decided not to….

294. I give up – the quantum of benefits generated doesn’t depend on population, the day of the week or the colour of the engine driver’s tie. It depends on the way in which users and others benefit – and people wonder why the Treasury and other departments of state get angry at so many of the schemes paraded before them. Humber Bridge anyone?

295. @MikeP
     I do not suggest that London’s transport investments are not welcome and that the money might have been spelt better elsewhere. I spent most of my career in managing the finances of UK urban railways (other than London), and am perplexed that UK provincial cities have seen so little public transport investment. Graham H insists that this is because Provincial Cities are incapable of demonstrating adequate benefit from said investments. I DON’T BELIEVE IT!! There is something not right. When I travel around Europe (as I do about 7 times a year visiting thirty or so cities with new transport infrastructure, i.e. the 25 French cities with new tramways) I sigh! Yes, maybe “we” as a nation have failed to present worthwhile schemes in provincial cities, but in consequence there is a price to be paid for this incompetence. I was trying to state that a gridlocked journey at 3mph into a city such as Leeds is just as damaging to the nation’s economy as it would be in London. The solution may be different. If Britain’s provincial cities have to make do with inferior transport (and consequences) then they are uncompetitive and dysfunctional compare dwith their rivals elsewhere in Europe. If so, London disbenefits too, in that London’s economy is also at least partly dependent upon a successful national economy, unless you are party to some recent suggestions that London be established as a tax haven city state, bordered by M25.

     I sometimes think that “we” ( as a nation rather than just London) have never come to terms with the observation by Prof Colin Buchanan in his 1963 report that it is essential for the wellbeing of cities that at least 50% of modal split in cities should go to public transport. and that the public transport system needs to be sufficiently competitive with the private car to achieve this. Buses on gridlocked roads don’t cut it.

296. @Alan Robinson

     Just a small observation about Leeds. I went to school in Wakefield (famous mainly for the princess-marrying Mike Tindall) in the mid to late 1980s and did some work-based training in Leeds in 1986-87 and there was gridlock (an hour to get 9 miles) on the M1 (aka “The Leeds Urban Motorway”) back then.

     As I recall one of my school-friends was instrumental in turning the M1/M62 junction into something resembling an American junction too, but I’m not sure that helped really with the near gridlock.

     My observation is that London hung onto it’s (state run) bus system, which then made the tube- and commuter rail- systems work really well.

     The return on investment when you have end-to-end pubic transport really works. Adding in extra railway stations (like the London Overground) can’t really work in Leeds without the ability of the local population to use them.

     I note that the stations re-opened by WCMDC Metro (as it was then) like Sandal and Adbrigg (0.275 million) compare very badly even with the least obvious of Overground station, say Homerton (5.240 million).

297. @Alan R
     The problem is that Greater London is so much bigger than any of Leeds/Birmingham/ Manchester/Liverpool (indeed, on Wikipedia’s figures Greater London’s population exceeds the combined totals of the next four largest metropolitan areas in the UK) that you are bound to get more bang for your buck by spending that buck in London. spending the same amount of money on improving the infrastructure in Leeds is going to make little difference to Liverpudlians, and vice versa. Even the “Northern Powerhouse” initiative will not help a lot, as you can only improve speeds between the city centres of Manchester and Leeds if you ignore the needs of places like Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Oldham and Rochdale, not to mention smaller communities in between, all of which need connections to one or both city centres. A decent multicentred Northern S-Bahn network, on the Ruhrgebiet model, is not what “HS3” promises. And while each city is pulling against the others rather than working together, they will simply not have the clout to bid for funding matching what the Mayor of London can call on.

     Headquartering the Northern Powerhouse away from the two major city centres would help – maybe Todmorden, whose town hall famously straddled the Lancashire/Yorkshire boundary until a boundary change in 1888, would be a good place?

298. @AR – what you believe and the reality are clearly very different things. So often, I have faced a procession of scheme promoters who either have not done their homework or cannot be bothered to do a serious analysis of their prospects. The most spectacular of these was Manchester Airport Link. There may or may not have been a good case for it in 1987, but the PTE couldn’t be bothered to tell us about it. Instead the local MPs threatened to vote down the Stansted rail link Bill if they didn’t get what they wanted. Ridley asked me to go and meet their advisers to see if we could accommodate them. The luckless individual who paraded simply said “if X people use it, then Y benefits will be generated” – fine, so where is your modelling and forecasts? Silence and despite my pretty explicit hints, GMPTE never explained why they believed what they did; if they had, we’d have given it to them like a shot. When I explained this to the SoS, he said, we’ll just vote them down. Which is what happened. The politics of envy.

     A converse case was Dornoch Bridge, which was intended to cut off the long road and rail detour round Dornoch Firth. The case was lousy in the extreme – so few people used either the road or the railway and too little time would have been saved. The Scots, being canny, thought that BR could bear the brunt of the cost as they had no wish to pay for it themselves. We declined to help, despite a backstairs attempt by the Scottish Office to subvert the BR Scottish Region behind our backs (or possibly the other way round). Now they are responsible for such things, we don’t hear about the bridge anymore.

     The problem for all promoters outside London is that the modal split is so awful. In some PTEs, rail share is in low single figures. Even multiplying it by 10 or 20 would not lead to very large numbers using it, would barely make a dent in traffic congestion and would cost probably tens of billions in each case. Travel to the shires and the situation is far far worse. You could not make the case either financially or in terms of economics.

299. Alan Robinson: the domain name “leedsreconnections.org” is available. You can check for other provincial cities here:
     http://www.domainsbot.com/d/leedsreconnections.org

     One of the questions I am interested in is whether the current methods for evaluating public sector investment are designed to, or inadvertently have the effect of, “reinforcing success”, so that, eg, very large fast growing conurbations receive more investment in transport infrastructure per capita than smaller stagnating ones.

     It seems that your starting point is to assume that (i) it is the case (ii) it is self evidently ‘a bad thing’. You then go on to argue that desperate, ignorant, poor, provincial (especially Northern English) cities would benefit (in a non-specific, unquantified way) from more transport investment, including in light rail and electric buses. Despite being incompetently run.

     Your conclusion seems to be that more money should be spent now. As I understand it, money is being spent now, on eg electrification, tram-train, replacement and additional railway multiple units as well as the Ordsall curve; and new governance structures have been set up to develop schemes that provide value for money taking account of regeneration benefits.

     I am unconvinced and the application of pitchfork tines and Molotov cocktails is unlikely to convince me.

     [Mods: “desperate”: @1258, last para; “ignorant” & “poor”: references to “peasants”, @1204 and 1258; “incompetently run”: @1514.
     All citations AR 23.5.16.]

300. Re: fire insurance, AIUI riot damage is covered by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in London but IANAL. Arrangements outside London may be different, but perhaps not of concern here, as provincial cities seem not to be the target of the peasants’ wrath.

301. Graham H re: Dornoch Firth Bridge: ICYMI a road bridge was built for the Scottish Office between 1989 and 1991 at a cost of ~13.5mn in money of the day.

302. @Old Buccaneer – in the privacy of my study, I tend to share your question about reinforcing success; indeed, I would go further and suggest cynically that we keep inventing new appraisal techniques and criteria (eg agglomeration benefits) simply to allow decision makers/money men to be comfortable with the goal posts having moved… I don’t have a glib answer. There is usually at any one moment a shortage of really good schemes ready for the shovel, whether in London or elsewhere.

     One of the reasons that London is rather better at being ready when the spending window opens, is that it has TfL hard at work preparing business cases. The PTEs have had rather mixed experience in doing this and the unitaries and shires hardly any. In the bad old days of BR, the businesses were focussed on their own needs and certainly not encouraged to look at soft benefits and indeed 4/5 sectors had no transport planning staff. When we began to get a grip on the issues in the early ’90s, the government du jour was dismayed and remembered Colin Powell’s advice: “The best way to kill a snake is to cut off its head”. NR is different and maybe they will do more in the future but at present, the analytic staff are overwhelmed with the consequences of HS2 and electrification.

303. AIUI – As I understand it
     IANAL – I am not a lawyer

304. @timbeau re: HS3/”Nordenglischgebietbahn”: I think there is some thinking going on in Transport for the North (TftN) if the May 2016 “Modern Railways” supplement is to be believed. TftN is looking at agglomeration and east-west links in particular.

305. @Graham H
     Oh dear, I think we are getting near closure on this subject. We could go on for ever. OK Provincial public transport has failed went down pan in 1960s onwards), but why? Why did PTE officers fail to present sound schemes, I dispute your assessment of rail modal split. Rail is in the business of serving city centres, and in recent years has become ever more significant as bus use has declined. It is this city centre modal split that counts, in the case of Birmingham, public transport has reached about 90% (rail 75% of that). This matter was addressed recently in Birmingham Mail re suggestions by Centro PTE that a congestion charge should be imposed. This caused an uproar from petrolheads who were rebuffed with figures (from Centro) that 100,000 people a day access Birmingham City Centre, only 10,000 by car. Birmingham has had Cross City Electrification (trains now heaving) Midland Metro and other improvements. If the result is 90,000 public transport journeys to centre, this can’t be bad.
     As with rest of Europe, there just has to be potential for good public transport schemes. That so few have come to fruition will inevitably lead to accusations of London centric bias.
     It’s getting even more so ;-
     Over the next five years the only “major” provincial public transport schemes are:-
     Manchester Metrolink, Cross City completion and Trafford Park..
     Birmingham, another 1km Midland Metro to Centenary square.
     Sheffield tram-train to Rotherham.
     Leeds £173m “unspecified”. (trolleybus cancellation consolation prize).
     Er’ that’s about it, not a lot. There can’t be more, takes about 5 years minimum to bring a scheme to shovel ready state.

     Wales and Scotland are independently financed now so “don’t count”, but we MIGHT see a start on Cardiff Metro, Edinburgh tram to Newhaven, and Glasgow Airport link.
     (Might be £600m for whole lot). £120m pa.
     Compare that to the enormous expenditures approved for London
     Local politics does have a lot to answer for. As you must be aware, local politicians tend to see investment finance as a “trophy” (Look how much I have got for you good citizens in my constituency/Ward etc). As you report , incompetence in Manchester, and in Liverpool, a terrible zig zag Merseytram that went all over North East Liverpool trying to take in as many council wards as possible.
     These are my last words;-
     London’s Crossrail schemes (1 & 2) are very expensive.
     Provincial UK Urban transport investment has been disappointing resulting in very poor and badly patronised systems in provinces with undesirably high modal split to cars. albeit with some bright exceptions.
     For whatever reasons, London has had lots of dosh, with more to come.
     @timbeau, yes London has a very large population, but surely this does not have to mean that the bang for each buck has to be greater.
     From my own experience, very modest PTE initiated schemes achieved quite a bang. Perhaps they lost the knack after 1996 privatisation?

     I rest my case.
     (Over to Ladies and Gentlemen of Jury).

306. AR
     Not so in other European member states, whereby urban transport investment seems to be more “evenly distributed.”
     Because London ( & possibly Manchester) is almost the only place in Britain where “continental” levels of transport support in the non-financial sense apply.
     For the cause of this look to HMT & the politicians. [ Also Graham H’s comment on “return” ]
     Your Leeds case shows that the local politicians are not hitting HMT hard enough – because, IIRC, this was tried on Manchester, about 12-15 years back, when they wanted more tram-investment-monies. The politicos in Manchester threatened a then Labour guvmint to desert the party, en masse unless they got their trams, RIGHT NOW. They were serious & they got their trams.

307. Graham H: cynical, toi? Surely not…

     Yes, London does benefit from the element of strategic planning. I suspect it may also benefit from easy access to government, as officials with national responsibilities are minutes not hours away from officials with local responsibilities.

     Let’s hope TftN will be better at both planning and obtaining access than the constituent PTEs.

308. On consultancy and London exporting ideas: it occurs to me that helping other local authorities provide better transport journey planners using real time data would be worth doing.

     How it would work in practice and how it would be financed needs work.

309. @ Graham H 1453 – yep I do too(give up that is). I’m sat here mumbling under my breath semi exasperated at Mr R’s comments. I do understand where he is coming from when going “green around the gills” at the wonders of european urban transport. The UK has taken a range of decisions over the years that have brought us to where we are today. As I’ve said before we’re all culpable if we vote in elections. There’s no point in people moaning about congestion, crappy buses and useless trains if they won’t make them an issue for national politicians. London is different because we have a Mayoralty that controls transport and, guess what, it is an important issue that affects a lot of people and it affects the outcome of Mayoral elections. Ken, very cleverly, made it an enduring issue because his policies shifted a lot of people out of cars and on to the Tube, buses and Overground. Therefore there is both the modal share to create the case for investment and lots more people with a vested interest in wanting improvements. I suspect different political structures / greater devolution of power and finances are reasons why France and Germany have succeeded in building / modernising / expanding their suburban transport systems. They also have the benefit of (mostly) not having taken decisions to shut their tram systems in the 50s and 60s unlike the UK.

     I did a day trip around bits of West Yorkshire last year taking lots of photos. Nice presentable bus and railway stations in most places. Plenty of car parks and road access to town centres. Buses not terribly well used anywhere and a handful of people getting on the “nodding donkey” Pacer from Wakefield to Leeds. Leeds station was a bit busier but nowhere got anywhere near what we see at, say, Highbury and Islington for the Overground trains. As for the volumes on the tube then forget it – doesn’t happen. You’re completely correct that it boils need to need, a skilled transport authority, political imperative and the modal share to drive the case for investment. London has that and much of the rest of the country does not and I say that as a Northerner transplanted down south!

     Let’s see if the new wave of devolved Mayoral powers and new regional authorities manage to do any better or whether they’ll just splash the cash on new roads (seems to be a key priority for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority last time I looked at their wish list!). If you keep adding road capacity and out of town developments you get more cars – simples! Let’s also see what the expansionist, quality focused Northern Trains / Trans Pennine rail franchises manage to deliver and if they’re good enough to really pull in the punters. If it doesn’t work then DfT won’t be splashing the cash again on that type of franchise approach for the North. The operators have to deliver but the punters (and the presently non punters) also have to turn up and use the new trains and better services.

310. @AR Where are those figures for 90% of daily journeys into Birmingham being by public transport from?

     This data seems to suggest that it’s about 15%:

     http://www.citymetric.com/transport/heres-proof-london-has-britains-best-public-transport-system-1812

311. @marckee – it’s another AR “fact”….

312. Ah, I’ve just re-read your comment: your figures are for people travelling into the city centre, rather than modal share of the city as a whole.

     I’m still surprised to see a figure of 90% though.

313. I was recently at Birmingham New Street catching a train at around 6pm on a weekday, I was very struck how quiet it was. It does seem very ‘chicken and egg’ problem though, i.e. train service is poor so not many people use it, so low modal share can’t justify investment in better train service…

314. @Marckee
     I am quoting in retrospect figures supplied in response to the enormous hoo-ha caused by mere suggestion that Birmingham should have a congestion charge like London. This would only apply (it was stated) to the central zone. The basic observation was that there are 10,000 parking spaces in this central zone. New St is certainly handling a huge number of passengers, but not all are accessing the city centre. It is not generally appreciated how variable UK city boundaries are. Birmingham is often quoted as being a much bigger city than Manchester (what?) but this is because Manchester CITY council boundaries only go about 5km from centre. The dense built up area goes on much further. Birmingham actually extends to the West Midlands green belt. Be careful, this is a very happy hunting ground for those trying to discredit public transport by only taking on board the whole city area, not focussing on the centre, where the real action is. That outer city modal split is so skewed towards cars in UK provincial cities is itself indicative of inadequacy of public transport and failure to properly achieve full potential of city centre.
     @WW
     I do think that we are not really in disagreement over essentials. There is some conflict of definition re URBAN transit scheme. The Northern powerhouse project is about improving INTER Urban transport. (mainly).

     [Corrected. LBM]

315. @ Alan R – the “Northern Powerhouse” is a load of {choose your own negative term}. IMO it’s a political trick by the Chancellor. One would hope that brand new DMUs on services into Manchester and Leeds would trigger some level of patronage increase. I’d also hope that better regional services would help commuter flows from places Bradford, York, Huddersfield etc as fast journeys should easily beat road transport. I confess I’ve not studied the detailed franchise plans but the Government have gone much further than they should have in endorsing so many new trains.

     If we look at the West Midlands then New St is clearly a problem in terms of capacity but where’s the local strategic thinking about taking a diesel operated corridor and developing the case for new stations in the suburbs, the requisite signalling mods, possible extra rolling stock and a later phase of electrification. I’ve sat and looked in the past at where former closed stations were and wondered why Centro / NWM haven’t developed a modest programme of reopenings. I know that may appear simplistic but new stations in urban conurbations tend to have a decent enough record. The other aspect, again fairly modest in its ambition, is extra rolling stock. Roger Ford’s Informed Sources preview E Mail today suggests that rolling stock prices are currently very attractive as finance costs are low and factories have products available and in build so volume pulls prices down. Taking modest steps may not create massive headlines for the politicians but it does mean you get more “bang for your buck” and people gain access to the wider rail network.

316. @WW
     I think you have got it in one. As you say, it’s a piece of spin to try and persuade (bamboozle) northernersthat London isn’t going to get all the action. As I far as I can make out, it is simply a “strategy” ( if that) to entice wealth creating bankers to establish some of their operations in the frozen north, and in particular further enhancethe synergy between Manchester and Leeds, whereby Trans Pennine trains are now very busy indeed, in both directions. It’s only 40 miles between. and Liverpool etc are not much further on. I don’t see any point in mega infrastructure improvements, lengthening trains to London “norm” should double capacity. As Roger Ford says, it should be possible to get rolling stock at an attractive leasing deal in today’s low interest rates climate, but, Patrick McLoughlin had to overrule the HMT Hawks just to make a statement of intent to replace the dreadful pacers (which I can assure you were intended to be shunted off to the Great Carriage sidings in the sky about 1996!!!).
     This (essentially) is my concern . London Zillions of Squillions and the North can’t even get new trains to replace pacers! As I said, I see pitchforks! (figurative ones).
     New St. This has been impressively (and expensively)re-vamped , greatly improving public access and convenience, but no increase in platform capacity or that of approaching roads. Again, a major deficiency is short trains 3 or 4 cars in PEAK!!! a terrible waste of scarce valuable asset, and now resulting in gross overcrowding. My wife commutes to New Street (University actually) and now has to go back into New St to get a seat, otherwise she stands(even at her advanced seniority) all the way to Worcester, and is increasingly unable to access the train at all at University, where passengers are often left behind. Whenever she gets home after another terrible journey on LM Trains I get harangued to DO SOMETHING! (are you man or mouse). Again , all this unpleasantness for sake of a few more DMU vehicles, infrastructure enhancement not required.
     As to why Centro are not expanding West Mids local train network,
     well, you tell me.
     The basic theme I was trying to put over is that URBAN (shorter distance) public transport in the Provinces has under achieved. Longer distance (INTER Urban) service has done better, although at a crush.
     A Dedicated died- in -wool Mancunian I know is totally bemused by the Northern Powerhouse. Eh lad, What’s this Northern Powerhouse?
     We’ve got one already, It’s called MANCHESTER.

317. @AR – the pacers are to be replaced as part of the latest franchise deal – but I wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Nice to see the finance guys using squillion as a unit of account.

318. @Herned
     What? Birmingham NS Quiet at 18.00! That is nether my experience (and I use New Street in Evening peak about twice a week) nor that indicated in published figures. What is the case is the passenger numbers at New Street have more than doubled in two decades. Services HAVE been improved, and results obtained. Over 100,00 per day (weekdays) so it has been said, is approaching 6,000 per hour (average). However, the new improved concourse is indeed massive, so I can understand that 6,000 passengers could apparently disappear. Don’t know exact sq metres, but it is order of 40,000. i.e. 40k persons could stand there with 1 sqm each! (and still breathe).
     I think that they have built too much station in relation to platforms and capacity, however, the old New St was totally inadequate.

319. @Graham H
     Yes I AM aware that the pacers are finally to be replaced, but , as I understand it the SOS had extraordinary resistance from HMT who wanted them to judder on for ever . That the new franchises include pacer replacement is due to Patrick Mcloughlin having a bust up with HMT, so I am told, or have I got it wrong?
     Finance “guys” have long been known to use the term “squillion” with respect to proposed wildly expensive folly. (Even Godzillions).

320. Alan Robinson: “Just how expensive are Elizabeth fares going to be?”
     Graham H: “fares will be standard TfL fares.”

     And you could make a strong case for their being *no* additional income whatsoever given most (all?) of the pax will just be transferring from other services. One TOC loses as another one gains.

     The allied issue of where to spend your money – traversing beneath London or trams across Leeds – is as much about the pax numbers it benefits as it is politics, and I’d suggest the latter will always win out. Whether it should is a whole different question, of course. Graham H’s question about VfM depends, of course, on the cost of providing the investment money in the first place 😛 As regards the way London sucks up the available money it is far better to think of the UK capital city as a city-state separate from the rest of the UK; within and without the M25 are effectively different countries with massively differing demands.

     So far as renting out staff is concerned, I’ve often noted how when whole departments are made redundant there suddenly becomes a new consultancy on the block.

321. @ Alan R – there was a election “bidding war” between parties over the issue of pacers in the north. The Conservatives committed to replacing them so they were stuck once they’d won. The issue was that Uncle Patrick had to formally overrule his own chief civil servant who said there was an inadequate business case to replace the Pacers. In this instance politics won over the numbers. Whether the Treasury were cross was irrelevant given Mr Osborne is the brains behind “Northern Powerhouse” in his bid to run several government departments at the same time.

     @ Alison W – err I trust we will see a bit more patronage on Crossrail than just transfers from other TOCs and tube lines. The faster journey times and increased service levels will generate extra traffic if past experience is any guide. The link with Thameslink at Farringdon is also likely to be transformative (IMO). Greg has waxed lyrical about the likely increase in passengers on the GWML and the link from Heathrow is almost certain to generate patronage / modal shift too. As I’ve said before the TfL Budget projection up to 2020 shows very considerable increases in rail to the “TfL Rail” division that covers all non LU rail services that TfL contract. Crossrail has to earn a surplus to pay back part of the project’s finances.

322. @Alison
     “to think of the UK capital as as a city-state separate from the rest of the UK @within and without the UK are effectively different countries;—-
     Civil wars have started over less inflammatory statements than that.

     The UK consist of 60 odd million people, only 10m of whom live in London, and a another few million in surrounding hinterland.
     I think you have found the “raw nerve” that has made this whole question of transport finance “edgy”. I perceive that, whilst acknowledging importance of London, inhabitants of provinces (and especially local politicians in provincial cities) see London as repository of the SERVICE sector, in service to the rest of the nation.
     I am a Mancunian by family background, and it was beaten into me over 60 years ago that Manchester is the very centre of the universe, or at least the centre of the British Empire, (same thing). My grandfather took me all over South East Lancs to show me the great industries (Beer Peacock, Gorton tank, Cotton mills and foundries galore , plus Ship Canal and Docks, impressing on me that Manchester is of immensely greater significance than the despised Metropolis of London! I really am not joking, Mancunians really did think like this, and, I suspect, this attitude has not entirely gone away. The loss of their fabled cotton mills , foundries and tripe works has dented their pride a bit. Again, I am not entirely joking. What is the UK ?, a thriving series of islands with enterprise and prosperity throughout, or, one global financial centre surrounded by a museum/heritage countryside,coastline etc

323. It presumably costs the same to build a tunnel under London as it would in any other city (or a tramway, guided busway, elevated monorail or whatever flavour of the month is. But the number of people who would use it in London are far greater, so bcr will always favour London. (Caveat: a four-car length station tunnel is a little cheaper to build than a twelve car one!)

     In somewhere like Germany, with no one city vastly out sizing the rest, it is much easier to justify spreading the investment around.

324. As a guide dog owner I have a number of observations. Firstly the Oxford Street plans are long overdue and will make it safe enough for people like me to use. I’m disappointed there’s no detail about things like extending the Bakerloo line deeper south, perhaps to Croydon, but as I live in Harrow this isn’t necessarily that important to me. I’m sad to see that there’s no plans for driverless trains. Clearly a shift from the previous mayor. I’m also sad to see no direct commitments on step free access. I think we should be investing heavily in lifts and levitating platfor,s, but I accept that there simply isn’t enough money right now. It’s a very exciting time for London and it’ll be very interesting to see how transport plans out over the coming years.

325. I suspect that the Leeds (substitute any northern city of choice) problem would soon be solved if HM treasury were to be moved lock, stock and barrel to that city

326. There are plans to extend the bakerloo, buy to Lewisham, not Croydon. (Why Croydon? The area between Lambeth and Croydon is already criss-crossed by railways)

327. If LR really is debating the future development of the West Midlands’ public transport networks, could I put in a plea for the discussion to start with the real, published, post-consultation regional transport strategy with its new stations, line reopenings, etc?
     http://www.wmita.org.uk/ and click on Movement for Growth

328. @CL

     I spend a lovely afternoon outside and now we are onto West Midlands’ public transport networks?!? Even Comrade Dawlish is involved!

     But in serious mode, whilst the example has been made of West Midlands’ situation to compare with that of London, no further detailed discussion of the Midlands should be warranted or necessary. LBM

329. @LBM – not guilty! But I did have a pleasant afternoon in the garden…

     Alison W’s point about having already had the fares income from new investment (in this case, CR1) deserves a slightly fuller comment. Besides the point made by WW about some of the CR1 traffic being new, there are also both regulatory and “equity” points involved.

     In a red in tooth and claw society such as we, err, don’t live in, you wouldn’t build crossrail unless you could make money; you’d simply cram ever more punters and take their cash. But we don’t.for the moment, and there are overcrowding standards applied. So the overcrowded get their relief even though they are currently paying to stand in horrible conditions.

     The equity point is that CR1 clearly benefits only a geographical section of the total travelling population. The deal has to be that everyone can expect, eventually, the same standard to be applied across the system. Especially as the fares structure and levels are applied equally across the system and there is no targetting of increases (unlike national rail) on those who are alleged to benefit from any improvements.

330. @WW 1737

     France most certainly did not refrain from “[[taking]] decisions to shut their tram systems”. French trams mostly disappeared at much the same time as the UK. The only French tram routes to survive throughout the twentieth century were the Lille interurbans and one route in Marseille (due to the existence of important reserved track sections that were too narrow to convert into traffic lanes) and the main route in Saint Etienne (due to a high street served by a double-track metre-gauge tram line that was too narrow for bidirectional bus operation).

331. Graham re: ‘red in tooth and claw’.

     I think one might well promote a line in competition with (additional capacity to) the current system if it was *financeable*. See below.

     If one could obtain a monopoly concession for the new line ‘subject to finance’ tant mieux, as I’m sure they say in the Eurotunnel boardroom from time to time.

     Doubtless one’d warn subscribers for shares and bonds that ‘it’s the strap hangers that pay the dividends’; but you only have to look at the current round of financings of (allegedly) technology companies to see that fools and their money are no more tightly bound than in earlier periods.

     I agree that if I had the pan London monopoly concession I wouldn’t build capacity on the scale of Crossrail unless I had to under the terms of the concession. Though I *might* build it to stave off economic regulation if I was sitting on a *huge* cash pile* from my accrued monopoly ‘rents’. Which I couldn’t return to the owners “because it wouldn’t be tax efficient”.

     And of course I’d build it if I could make money doing so, too, in line with your original premise. I might have an associated construction or property company to help with that; I could probably call it Metropolitan Estates (OB) plc.

     *embiggened by paying the least tax I could get away with of course; & supplemented by a little light grinding of the faces of the poor.

332. @Graham H
     ” no targetting of increases (unlike national rail) on those who are alleged to benefit from any improvements.”

     Indeed, NR and TOCs often justify fare increases today as needed to pay for improvements that will benefit future clients. The current passengers not only have to endure the disruption for the improvements they themselves will not benefit from (unless they are regular travellers on the route and will continue to be so after the work is completed, but they are also paying for it!

     I thought private enterprise was supposed to bring investment into the system, with the improvements paid for by borrowing which is financed from the increased revenue resulting from those improvements. When the railways say they are “investing” in the future, what they are actually doing is spending my money, that I have given them in inflated (RPI+x) fares, but it is someone else who will reap the benefit.

     Do Ford put up the prices of an old model in order to fund development of its replacement? They wouldn’t sell many if they did.

333. @timbeau -indeed. The “pay now, maybe benefit later”argument was taken to a further level of exploitation by one or two senior figures in the DTp (who happened to live respectively in Islington and Richmond), whereby fares were raised on the Portsmouth line to pay for 442s on the fast services which (a) didn’t stop at the minor stations, and (b) quickly disappeared again. This didn’t stop fares at the minor stations being raised , however, so that we could have the privilege of seeing the Haslemere crowd whistle past in comfort. There were some interesting internal discussions in DTp.

     @OB 🙂 [Lord Dawlish writes : your prospectus sounds like the sort of company I could relate to”]

334. @Graham H
     ““pay now, maybe benefit later””
     The annus mirabilis of 2018/19, which will see both Crossrail and Thameslink 2000-and-counting finally complete, the arrival of the first new suburban stock on SWT for thirty years, and even the extension of platforms 1-4 at Waterloo to take 10-car trains, all of which I am currently paying for in one way or another, is also the year when I was expecting to be able to stop commuting into Central London.

335. @timbeau Where do you think your pension fund has been invested? Whether it was directly into rail infrastructure or, more likely, property development in London, it will have depended on things like Crossrail and Thameslink to appreciate. It all moves and comes around.

336. To bounce back to London matters I note with an element of smugness that my prediction that Val Shawcross would be appointed as Deputy Mayor for Transport has this morning proved correct. The Mayor has announced the prospective appointment (the Assembly has to hold a confirmation hearing) and also said Lord Adonis will chair CR2. This Mayor appointment looks like a good thing given Val’s extensive transport experience with the Assembly so she understands the dynamics and issues across the various modes. She’ll also have a very full and testing “to do” list given the expectation that will no doubt surround her appointment. The taxi trade will certainly have high hopes for change.

     [Very minor snip. One capital letter and a space. PoP]

337. @timbeau -but you will feel so much happier retiring in the knowledge that those who come after you will be so much better served. [According to the theory, of course, you should have been benefitting over your working life with such things as the SWT upgrade, so, now it’s the turn of other parts of the system -well, that’s the theory,anyway.]

338. @Graham H
     “should have been benefitting over your working life with such things as the SWT upgrade”

     What upgrade? The trains I travel on are 35 years old, and run to slower schedules, and no more frequently, than they did when I started using them in 1984. They also have 23% fewer seats than they did when they were new!

     Too often, the publicity talks about investment when it is really routine maintenance or replacement of life-expired assets.

339. @timbeau – let me introduce you to the concept of irony…

340. Walthamstow Writer,

     Well, as Val Shawcross so castigated TfL’s approach to the taxi trade she will be under a lot of pressure to deliver.

341. Timbeau: commuting from Putney to Bank since 1988, I’ve said goodbye to the slammers, seen the 455s through a mid life upgrade, seen new 450s and seen the 458s (Alstom’s troubled Junipers) come & go & return as 5-cars, as well as platform extensions and a spanking new footbridge & lifts at Putney plus the addition of the Waterloo mezzanine. Track has been relaid, so Mrs Buccaneer’s ornaments no longer rattle when a goods train passes*. Not to mention a rebuild of the Unmentionable Line, as well as new rolling stock replacing a pre-nationalisation build (circa 1994 from memory). Timings deteriorated on the introduction of Eurostars and never recovered. Like you I don’t expect to benefit from the next round of Waterloo upgrades. But I’d better stop there lest I incur the wrath of Alan Robinson & his “revolting peasant” army.

     [Lord D: OB’s broker will happily put your pension fund down for a million ho ho.]

     *Buccaneer’s Rest is on the opposite side of the road from the railway.

342. @OB
     So that’s where the money’s gone! Of course slammers had already gone from the inner suburbans long before 1988. 450s and 458s are rare as hens’ teeth on the Loop, and we have had platform extensions but so far no extension to the actual trains. (SWT have competition at Putney of course)

     Indeed, the service frequency and journey times are now worse than when the line was electrified, 100 years ago this year.

     As for the unmentionable line – much too far east for me – and Cross City Tram never happened.

     @Graham H
     sorry, I need to adjust the irony filter settings.

343. Timbeau/Old Buccaneer etc.
     The argument would be,that it was through the raised fares of countless pre-war commuters,that you were able to board those 4SUBsvthat took you to work at the beginning of your careers,so it’s only fair…
     (Check your settings once more)

344. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36371284

     A reminder of some of the other issues facing London, other than rail traffic. Due to a major fuel spillage, the Northbound Blackwall Tunnel has been closed all day. Buses are delayed by up to three hours and traffic is severely congested, with queues up to five miles long.

345. Mikey C
     It’s even worse, actually resurfacing of the road is required.

346. Indeed, much of SE London has been gridlocked today

     They can resurface the road quite quickly, so it should be ok by tomorrow morning

347. I really don’t see how comments about traffic today at a particular location has any relevance to the article. I don’t want a running commentary on it here. If you are interested then check out one of the numerous traffic information sites – of which TfL is one.

     Further comments on today’s disruption will be deleted.

348. Re PoP @ 16:07

     Well, as Val Shawcross so castigated TfL’s approach to the taxi trade she will be under a lot of pressure to deliver.

     Indeed much harder to be in power and deliver than to criticise in opposition.

     The Assembly Transport Committee has plenty of people experience in scrutinising particularly with Caroline chairing it so there won’t be any place to hide.

     How supportive of the Taxi trade has Val Shawcross been since TfL lost most of the arguments in the Uber consulation and case? I’m not sure there is much freedom for her to act without Uber complaining and probably winning.
     Crossrail opening in 2018 & 19, night tube and potential pedestrianisation of Oxford Street will hit the taxi trade hard in the next few years.

349. [Mods please delete if I have crossed the line]

     I reckon most of the commentariat here are well aware of the extent to which London transport, public and private, is fragile as a system and likely to be subject to prolonged perturbation in the event of a modestly disruptive event.

     The challenges are:
     1 what can and should the authorities do?
     2 are social factors (obeying rules, keeping behind the yellow line on the platform) helping or hindering?
     3 how can we (the commentariat) help the young ones to be more aware of the consequences of their actions?

     Readers are recommended to familiarise themselves with wave particle duality and the tragedy of the commons.

     [Comment not a problem and you can refer to current events if using it to highlight a relevant point – as you are. We just don’t want to end up being a bulletin board for news items – many excellent sites are already available for this. PoP]

350. ngh,

     Perversely, it may not be the case that Night Tube will hit the taxi trade hard. Certainly there could well be a gain in the suburbs even if it means lots of shorter journeys rather than a few long ones. Also they may well get a smaller share of the cake (people making a journey home) but it could be the case that the cake gets so much bigger they actually get more passengers.

     As an example of the latter witness Stratford’s old shopping centre doing much better now that Stratford Westfield has opened.

351. Re PoP,

     Indeed that could be true but I reckon that nightbuses, minicabs (inc Uber*) and walking will probably be bigger winners on from night tube dispersal points (*especially as Uber seem to be doing very well on Friday/Saturday nights as higher taxi fares allow uber drivers to charge more too!).

     Northern line night tube will devastate the taxi trade within walking distance of stations down the A3/A24 corridor and can you really see large numbers of black cabs queueing for business outside Brixton (24hr red route) and North Greenwich stations (with £15-20 of fare having been lost to night tube)?
     The minicab industry has always been comparatively stronger south of the river (and the taxis don’t like it up’en as Sgt Jones would say) as the minicab industry via Uber is now taking the battle north of the river.

352. @ PoP 1607 – Indeed. You can take the example of the taxi trade and multiply many times to get a long list of things that Val has strongly criticised or where she suggested a solution was simple. Now we shall find out just how hard or easy things are. I expect her political opponents will be licking their lips at the prospect of giving her a grilling in due course.

     I think the Uber thing is extremely difficult. My perception (careful word!) is that Uber have the ear of key people in government and that’s partly why requests from Boris to his fellow Conservatives in govt for more regulation / TfL powers were turned down. I can’t see the new City Hall team having any real chance of persuading people like Osborne to slap some shackles on Uber. Still in a month’s time the government may be in a state of collapse / civil war so anything might be possible. 😛

353. OB
     A useful place to start, following your enquiry/suggestion would be to do case-studies of previous disruptive “incidents”.
     Three immediately spring to mind.
     1. The helicopter-crash at Vaxhall
     2. The Central Line’s motor/gearbox failure saga
     3. The previous Blackwall Tunnel incident.
     How were these managed, what positive & negative lessons can be learnt from them, & what could & should be done “better” next time?
     Oh & a particular one for LUL “ordre/contre-ordre/desordre” – clear, simple instructions, without conflict/conflicting simultaneous messages, please.

     WW
     Ah, you too suspect that Uber were (are being) given much too free a ride (!) by certain neo-liberal aspects of the national government, do you?
     How interesting.

354. Re WW,

     You aren’t the only one who thinks like that! I suspect parts of the government like uber because they can potentially get turnover for each driver to see who is and isn’t paying all the tax due, I also have suspicions about making card readers in taxis compulsory so that more of the turnover is captured electronically.
     Swapping from taxis to Uber could help MPs cut their expenses without having to user other transport modes (an easy politically move).

355. The ULEZ is going to be politically challenging. My elderly petrol car will get the boot – but a lot of not very old diesel vehicles are also going to be affected. I wonder if the scheme will survive consultation?

356. Uber’s peak hour for pick ups in London is midnight, so it will be interesting to see how night tube impacts on that.

357. Re quinlet,

     Probably slightly later and a few zones further out with a much shorter journey and lower fare. It will probably reduce the number of mini-cabs required so will have a big impact of the very profitable surge pricing thus probably reducing the number of Uber drivers after a few months. They will probably do quite well with traffic from the Tube stations to homes.

358. @ Ngh – however that shift in Uber coverage will bring about complaints from people living near outer area tube stations. There are already well documented problems of suburban / residential roads near Heathrow being full of waiting Uber cars. When it looked like there was a prospect of the Night Tube starting last year there were a lot of Mayor’s Questions about provision of new / larger taxi ranks at suburban tube stations. There was the blandishment from the Mayor that “something will be done” but very little has happened yet. A tiny number (less than 5 IIRC) of TfL consultations were conducted that related to larger or resited ranks in a few locations but that was that. I can foresee Uber cars being parked all along Forest Rd near Blackhorse Rd tube no doubt blocking the bus stops. Ditto local streets near Seven Sisters. There is a formal taxi rank at T Hale so it’ll be interesting to see if that is populated with night cabs after 19 August or not. Unless something happens fairly quickly about private transport connections then I can see the Night Tube being associated with some negative headlines in places.

359. Re WW,

     It depends whether the road concerned is Tfl or council controlled as to who ends up dealing with it!
     In the ‘burbs there will be lots of LAs responsible. They are going to love enforcing parking restrictions after midnight but then it is easier for local residents to hold them to account on local issues. The biggest issues will probably be at the dispersal stations where there are very few night tube stops in that part of London.

     So on balance would Night Crossrail, ELL core and SSL (post signalling upgrade) be popular or unpopular.

     Heathrow are opening an uber car park and uber are blocking bookings from cars on local streets around Heathrow.

360. Transport Insider
     I’ve previously made a guess as to how many owned private vehicles might be inside the proposed ULEZ … ( Plus just outside & equally likely to be “caught out” )
     Does anyone have access to, or know of a ready-link to a more definitive figure of the number of households/people affected? Who will then raise a stink?
     And (repeat) will/is there likely to be a “cut-off date” before which the new regs won’t apply, as has happened in the past?

     [Greg: has it occurred to you that if no-one replied to this the first time, because they don’t know, then they will probably not reply to the repeat? Malcolm]
     All subjects for heated debate, I think. [Or better still, calm and rational debate. Malcolm]

361. How is it done at the handful of (NR) stations which already have an all night service?

362. @ Greg – the obvious answer is to wait for the ULEZ consultation to be issued. That will have to identify a whole range of issues, metrics and set out the mechanics of the proposed scheme. That is the time to take a deep breath, read and then have steam coming out of your ears. 😉

363. Re Greg,

     Based on the Boris era proposals:

     I did previously reply on dates – the cut off date is pre 1971.

     Other dates where Vehicle don’t have to pay:

     Motorcycle, moped etc. – Category L
     Euro 3 From 1 July 2007

     Car and small van – Category M1 and N1 (I)
     Euro 4 (petrol) From 1 January 2006
     Euro 6 (diesel) From 1 September 2015

     Large van and minibus – Category N1 (II and III) and M2
     Euro 4 (petrol) From 1 January 2007
     Euro 6 (diesel) From 1 September 2016

     HGV – Category N2 and N3
     Euro VI From 1 January 2014

     Bus/coach – Category M3
     Euro VI From 1 January 2014

364. Timbeau

     All night trains at Purley. Lots of people walk home. There is a minicab office at the front and minicabs will be ready for each hourly arrival (conveniently both directions at roughly the same time) and I’m sure the black cabs also wait in numbers at the relevant time. Up to about half a mile black cab tends to be cheaper.

365. I should add that there are lots of people getting off at Purley in the night – probably hundreds on a Saturday morning off the 1am and 2am trains. Many are going out beyond the London boundary as the trains are non stop to Horley so minicabs do great business.

366. Malcom
     All subjects for heated debate, I think. [Or better still, calm and rational debate. Malcolm]
     We should wish so, including my self, who is very likely to be personally affected, but I suspect that very little light is actually going to emerge.
     Which is a large part of the problem, of course.

367. ngh
     Thanks for that, now if you are a normal private car owner & your car was built in either 1990 or 2000, where are you, so to speak?
     Does that mean that it will have to be modified/ scrapped/sold, or is it “too old” to qualify – sorry I am seriously confused as to this, which doesn’t help, of course.
     Or does it mean that anything between 1971 & the list of dates you gave is subject to alteration/scrapping/sale etc? [ At present – I suspect that any “old” cut-off date might be more recent for a future implementation. ]

     I think WW is correct & we need to wait for actual proposals to emerge & that maybe a temporary moratorium on this subject would be a good idea until that day arrives?

368. Re Greg,

     TfL had a worked up proposal, the only change is the size of the area that has changed with the mayor!
     With the time pressures I can’t think they will go back to the drawing board in big way.

     https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

     1. Pay the daily charge £12.50/day for going into the zone was proposed for cars & small vans in the Boris sized ULEZ (with a generous scheme for those inside of near zone till 2023). HGV/Bus/Coach = £100/day!

     2. Sell

     3. Scrap

     4. Modify

     Sorry pre 1973 (’71 was when they stated doing the tests but it wasn’t compulsory till for sales till Jan ’73) because that was when emission tests were introduced so there is no data for vehicles from before then hence the cheapest solution to pre ’73 given the number of vehicles is exemption (and given engines for that vintage will mostly be non turbo non injection petrol the NOx won’t be that much of problem). Post ’71/’73 there is data.

     The big issue is some large diesel vans being sold at the moment (till September) won’t comply. I suspect there will be a reasonable business in retrofitting Euro V commercial vehicles to comply with Euro VI where easily possible.

369. @ngh, the TfL website states that “All vehicles that have a ‘historic’ vehicle tax class will be exempt from the ULEZ.” Today that means (private) vehicles built before 1st January 1976, but assuming the rolling VED exemption recently reintroduced* continues it would mean vehicles built before 1st January 1980 being exempt were the ULEZ to come into force in 2020.

     Do the revised proposals eliminate this exemption?

     * Was set at 25 years until withdrawn in 1997, reintroduced permanently at 40 years in 2014. Presumably rebasing it, combined with the effects of the scrappage scheme, reduced the fiscal risk of it becoming largely a subsidy for old bangers.

370. JA: Minor quibble, it wasn’t withdrawn in 1997, it was frozen at a fixed date (1972).

371. @Pedantic of Purley from the 24th May

     Comments about the GRIDLOCK across much of SE London are completely relevant to the thread.

     What to do about river crossings in East London is a major decision the mayor will have to take, and a major financial decision (and political one if tolling comes in)

     That the road infrastructure is so constrained that much of SE London was gridlocked for miles around on Tuesday is massively important. This isn’t some minor bit of congestion, the road and BUS network ground to a halt for several hours

     [In that case EXPLAIN why it is relevant rather than just posting it as a fact. Better still, explain the point you are trying to get across and illustrate the point with this as an example. PoP]

372. In view of Mikey C’s comment (I saw reports of buses being delayed for up to three hours to start with) and e.g. general discussion about Oxford Street and so on, it may be enlightening to consider that much of this topic was embraced by the Road Research Laboratory back in 1956. See this BFI film with sound (12 mins and wait to start loading):

     http://player.bfi.org.uk/film/watch-central-london-traffic-1956/

     Features include observations of average speeds in various Central London areas with the varying types of traffic, the parking problem, the disruption spread far around when Tower Bridge is lifted and – for me, most remarkable for that time – a ‘green wave’ traffic light experiment along Edgware Road. From a historic point of view, there’re lots of buses and vehicular traffic of yesteryear over which to salivate.

373. @WW: Lord Adonis will chair CR2

     In some ways unsurprising, given his role campaigning for it at London First and then, having turned from poacher to gamekeeper, giving it his imprimatur at the National Infrastructure Commission. But also surprising in that he will now have two masters, Sadiq Khan and George Osborne, whose interests don’t necessarily coincide. Is this a sign that a deal of some kind is being/has been stitched up?

374. @timbeau: the year when I was expecting to be able to stop commuting into Central London

     …and so presumably the year you become eligible for a pension paid for by taxes on the economic activity that Crossrail and Thameslink should help to grow, (notwithstanding the belief that some have that their National Insurance contributions go towards funding their, rather than their elders’, pensions).

375. “the year when I was expecting to be able to stop commuting into Central London”
     @Ian J
     “presumably the year you become eligible for a pension paid for by taxes ”

     Wrong – like many people, I was expecting to be retired several years before the state pension age. (I say “was expecting” because the law no longer allows employers to set a fixed retirement age)

376. @IanJ0318
     I think there was a deal, but maybe not the one you had in mind. A lot of informed gossip placed Andrew Adonis in the role of deputy mayor for Transport (indeed, one MP went so far as to congratulate him publicly on this appointment). However, he couldn’t have combined that role with chair of the National Infrastructure Commission and, had he resigned from the latter after only 9 months – especially after George Osborne did such public crowing at having poached a Labour ex-Minister – he stood a serious chance of permanently souring his relationships with the Government. Given that persuading the Government to continue to invest in TfL is a major part of the deputy Mayor’s job that made it a non-starter. Even after that idea failed, I think there was still some idea that he might be able to chair TfL but that went the same way. Chairing HS2CR2 is a compromise that gives the Mayor access to Andrew’s expertise without seriously irritating the Government.

     [Minor edit. Malcolm]

377. Re Quinlet and Ian J,

     I think this isn’t the only Mayor – Government deal. Look at yesterday’s DfT- TfL agreement on dealing with Pedicabs by DfT legislating control of them (they currently fall in gap in London) to TfL.
     Expect lots of “for sale” signs on the back of pedicabs soon?

378. ngh: tant mieux.

379. Graham Feakins: glorious, thank you. Especially the RTs. Amazing that the RM has come & gone in that period. 11-20 mph average speeds feel like a distant dream. I guess pedicabs are today’s brewers’ drays.

380. @ Ian J 0318 – and yet there are already cries that Lord Adonis is compromised because how can he chair, and presumably actively promote, CR2 and also lead the NIC which recommends which projects should have money spend on them? That doesn’t look terribly clever to me unless he is going to recuse himself from CR2 decisions / recommendations at the NIC. I understand the Govt are to put the NIC on a statutory footing so the need for no conflicts of interest becomes ever stronger as I assume various Select Committees and other bodies will wish to crawl all over the activities and recommendations of the NIC in due course.

381. Re WW,

     But the NIC has passed judgement on CR2 already…

382. @ Ngh – CR2’s route is not finalised nor is the business case nor are the costs nor is the funding. There is an enormous amount of work to do before anyone signs anything off. I certainly don’t believe the NIC’s involvement is finished given so much is far from certain. If the NIC’s role is just to nod sagely and prononce “yea” or “nay” over ill defined, ill costed and unproven schemes [1] then it should be abolished immediately.

     [1] and yes CR2 is still in that category as things currently stand.

383. 
     The incident in the Blackwall tunnel this week is a reminder that the issue of East London River crossings will be a major issue for Sadiq. It is briefly mentioned in his manifesto and in the TfL document in the section “A MODERN AND AFFORDABLE TRANSPORT NETWORK”

     “We’ll progress the Bakerloo Line Extension, make progress on East London river crossings, and use the revision of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) to make sure London’s population growth is productive.”

     http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/environment/mayor_khan_refuses_to_pull_plug_on_silvertown_crossing_scheme_after_blackwall_tunnel_incident_1_4550086

     Indeed the controversial Silvertown crossing came up in the first Mayor QT session. Sadiq seems to have parked the issue with the promise of an overall review, but whatever decision he makes, a lot of people will be unhappy…

384. @WW – ” If the NIC’s role is just to nod sagely and prononce “yea” or “nay” over ill defined, ill costed and unproven schemes [1] then it should be abolished immediately.” And if on the other hand, its role is simply to double guess TfL’s analysis, then it should be abolished immediately…

385. So what would a plausible NIC role look like, in the context of TfL schemes? (The website claim that it is supposed to “ enable long term strategic decision making to build effective and efficient infrastructure for the UK” strikes me as largely content-free).

     How about, studying the schemes critically, drawing attention to what it perceives as major gaps in TfL’s analysis, but otherwise keeping out of the kitchen?

386. Re WW,

     I didn’t say the NIC had signed off but rather passed judgement, namely good idea and keep working on it. Is the NIC actually ever going to sign off on anything as opposed to pre sifting projects before they get signed off elsewhere?

387. Re Malcolm,

     You second paragraph looks similar to what we have got so far…

388. I thought the role of the NIC was to identify priority infrastructure projects, but not to sign off on the detail of them – that will be the job of the various promoters with the ‘support’ of the treasury. If the NIC gets involved in agreeing the detailed design that will be three levels of bureaucracy for every scheme to go through, not two. For a structure which was meant to speed up infrastructure development, adding a further level of bureaucracy seems a strange way to go about it.

389. @ Quinlet – you may well be correct but I find it bizarre that the NIC can opine on the “value” of CR2 when there are so many questions left open, or worse questions opened up by the NIC itself, that will be key concerns for anyone reaching a reasoned conclusion about the “national value” of spending money on CR2. Surely someone has to close out these positions and then say “here is a finalised view, say yes or no and then we will proceed to secure a financing deal and DfT / HMT / Mayoral sign off”? This is merely adding one further “stop / go” decision point and then Lord Adonis can go and contemplate wave energy barrages or power stations or a tunnel to Ireland or go and buy another All Line Rover. Tell me what I’m missing if there’s something obvious to you that clearly isn’t obvious to me?

390. @WW
     I tend to agree with you. The NIC was originally intended to try and take some of the decisions on major infrastructure projects out of the political arena. Politicians are so much happier if a big black box gives them an answer so that they can claim it’s not them that’s making the decision which will demolish several hundred homes/pollute large areas/make several million people’s gardens uninhabitable through increased noise/name your own type of loser, but some form of objective decision which can’t be argued against.

     Reality has, though, struck home in that government’s have realised that most of these decisions are political in any case and so the NIC has been reduced to giving good advice to help back up the political decision. From looking at the NIC’s first group of reports it looks clear that Adonis has realised that the only way to win in that particular game is for the NIC to back robustly the answer the politicians first thought of.

391. Few observations on the (very interesting) digressions above

     1. re electric buses – haven’t seen much in the way of mention of hydrogen buses as a means of complying with ULEZ. To my mind a proven (reliable?) system – see RV1 – and wouldn’t need the huge extra electrical infrastructure mentioned above, just some more hydrogen refuelling capacity.

     2. prospective TfL consultancy – my (limited) experience of public sector consultancies set up from scratch is that ‘favourite’ staff get transferred to a new legal entity, feather-bedded with hugely advantageous T&Cs, spend a lot of time abusing expenses in jetting off 1st class to the Middle East, and end up creating 5/8 of FA (indeed losing money for the host organisation). A well known ‘leading’ NHS trust not a million miles away from London Bridge has just done exactly that, for example 😉

     3. My (biased/local) take on the whole Leeds/TfTN/(HS2 at a push) would be that substantial (and ‘quick win’/cheap) benefits in terms of overall usage/congestion issues round Leeds would accrue from reopening the missing link between Harrogate/Northallerton – there is *huge* unmet demand as I witnessed travelling out on a packed Leeds-Harrogate train the other day. And longer units (but did someone say that even the ‘new’ class 185 is no longer compliant in terms of emissions regs?) And electrification (which was managed quite happily with the Ilkley line) but is ‘economically unacceptable’ now…

     4. Blackwall Tunnel – re-emphasises the case for a third road crossing if ever an example was needed. The whole of SE london was gridlocked – a road journey from Bromley-Bermondsey took 1 hr 30 (via Crystal Palace/OKR) as there were reports of abandonded cars elsewhere. Also, wouldn’t it be useful if someone clever had come up with a contraflow system for the modern SB tunnel to cope with this eventuality? 😉 /slaps hand

     5. @timbeau – as a new and very regular user of SWT I am in 7th heaven compared with SET/Southern/Thameslink!

392. Re Tim,

     1. Hydrogen refueling capability probably even more problematic than the electricity issues! The large industrial source plants are no where near London and smaller on site generation units use lots of electricity!

     4. Elf ‘n High Vis got hold of the southbound tunnel contraflow plans and ate them!

393. @Tim
     Blackwell Tunnel
     The current plans for a new Silvertown crossing already accept that there will be more congestion after it has been completed and it really is quite difficult to justify it on that basis as a general solution to any transport problems. Trying to justify it solely as a diversionary route on those odd occasions when Blackwall Tunnel is closed can never be good value for money and it would fall into the same category as an alternative Brighton main line on that basis.

     There is an attempt to justify the Silvertown crossing on the basis that the users will pay for it through tolls. If it was just there for diversionary basis the tolls would be extremely high.

394. Blackwall / Poplar areas are currently off the scale for air pollution. I can’t see how any new road crossing in this area (more road capacity just generates more traffic) can pass any air quality assessment. Air quality being an issue I think the new Mayor said he’ll target….

395. @tim
     How does a crowded train from Leeds to Harrogate provide evidence of a need to re-open the Harrogate-northallerton link? If anything, it suggests the section south of Harrogate could not cope with any additional traffic..

     As a matter of interest, what colour trains do swt run on your line? (Of 24 coaches scheduled between 0800 and 0830 yesterday, only four turned up, and even they gave up at raynes park!)

396. How often has Blackwall Tunnel been totally or partially closed in the last decade?

     The comment about abandoned cars reminded me of why I very rarely use mine for serious journeys- 1 tonne of useless metal obstruction to deal with if anything goes seriously wrong with it or the road network.

397. @ quinlet, Island Dweller, fandroid
     This blog appears to be dominated by rail enthusiasts who hate cars. In fact, the Blackwall tunnel is congested every day, and another river crossing is badly needed. Silvertown can’t come fast enough. I never hear anybody argue against new railways on the grounds that they “would generate more traffic”.

398. @Andrew It’s a well-established fact that adding road capacity does not relieve congestion, as traffic just increases to fill the gap.

     This ‘induced traffic’ effect does not occur at the same rate and scale on rail transport, plus there is the advantage that rail journeys do not create localised pollution and the disconnected neighbourhoods that road construction, perhaps ironically, does. Increasing a railway’s capacity is just a more efficient, long-term solution to moving people from one point to another, in terms of number of people per hour or per m2.

     One of the things that a lot of the advocates for a further crossing often fail to address is that the approach roads/ramps will also take a large chunk of land, necessitating major roads through residential areas, plus, because of the induced demand effect, it becomes a tail-chasing exercise whereby further road capacity is added in order to attempt to disgorge and distribute the additional traffic on to the roads either side of the crossing.

     I wouldn’t say that this blog hates cars, it’s just that it recognises that cars are one of the least efficient and most anti-social methods of transport in a city with an excellent public transport system and scope for improving walking and cycling provision.

399. @marckee – “This ‘induced traffic’ effect does not occur at the same rate and scale on rail transport,” I don’t think you can say that for sure. I commissioned a study way back in NSE days to determine the main driver of growth in London commuting. It was clear that after CLE, the next most important driver was the volume of service offered (way above fares, traffic congestion, and the like). Pro rata, the effect seemed substantial but given that the other major comparator, from SACTRA, was conducted in a different place and in different circumstances, I would doubt that one could deduce comparative scales and rates between modes.

400. @marckee
     “disconnected neighbourhoods that road construction does [create]”

     A bit of a generalisation. A new railway would sever a community just as effectively, if not more so, as a new road. And whilst the approach roads may split a neighbourhood, a bridge or tunnel across the Thames (or the Alps, cf the Gotthard Base Tunnel’s opening ceremony yesterday) can connect previously unconnected communities.

401. @Graham H

     I meant that in terms of reaching the point where the benefit of increased provision is cancelled out by increased journeys being made, the difference in timescales between rail and road is significant, all other things being equal. Coupled with things like the Downs–Thomson paradox, it means that trying to draw an equivalence between road and rail, in the way that Andrew does above, isn’t really fair.

     @timbeau

     From a purely physical point of view a railway might cut through a community, and a road may connect it to another, but I was talking more about accessibility, as well as the local social, economic and community activity. Whether directly (people preferring to drive rather than walk or cycle, reducing human activity and interaction) or indirectly (favouring car provision to the extent that large edge-of-town supermarkets or retail parks start to dominate), the act of increasing road capacity on already existing roads within a neighbourhood causes an increase in the disconnection people feel within that neighbourhood.

402. CLE Central London Employment (an outdated statistical concept these days given Canary Wharf, future OOC businesses etc).

403. 
     [Can we please hold off on discussing East London Thames crossings, until the article comes out. LBM]

404. @Andrew, marckee, Graham H et al

     Transportation researchers have identified three traffic paradoxes that expanding roads to solve congestion is not only ineffective, but also often counterproductive:

     Downs-Thomson paradox States that the equilibrium speed of car traffic on the road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys by public transport. So increasing road capacity can actually make overall congestion on the road worse.

     Pigou-Knight-Downs paradox states that adding extra road capacity to a road does not reduce travel time.

     Braess paradox states that adding extra capacity to a network, when the moving entities selfishly choose their route, can in some cases reduce overall performance and increase the total commuting time.

405. @marckee- the DT paradox is hotly disputed by some academics. Perhaps the best that can be said is that it might apply where public transport is either dominant (only the CAZ really) or is the “swing” capacity provider. TBH – hence my caution – I have seen insufficient examples of both sides’ arguments to draw a general conclusion.

406. @LBM Quite. There’s also an interesting series of interplays between traffic and transit when the latter is given investment.

     This is over half a decade old now, but it still stands up (it quotes from Anthony Downs, as above) :

     http://humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion-1.html

407. Re LBM,

     All the paradoxes have simplifications and caveats so application with broad generic brushes needs caution. A key feature of the new crossings proposed is giving more options for high vehicles thus potentially reducing their mileage as they effectively have few / one sensible route options…
     Also enables double deck buses across the Thames East of Tower Bridge.

     [A repeat of LBM’s request to hold back on river crossings comments due to an impending article. Malcolm]

408. @Andrew at 1101. I think you’re off target. Not a car hater at all. I own both a sports car and a high powered motorbike. But there needs to be a recognition of where private vehicle use is not the optimum solution – and most of London (virtually everything within z1/2) fits that category.

409. re Downs-Thomson, it does only really apply where the road network is saturated and works because each extra car on the road adds to congestion on the road and so brings down average traffic speeds. In contrast, on railways, each extra passenger on the train may add to congestion and discomfort on the train but does not materially slow down the speed off the train. Indeed, by providing extra income, the extra train passengers may justify an increase in frequency of services thus reducing average journey times (where waiting time is included). Again, in contrast, each extra car journey does not generate any specific extra income (albeit that to the extent that more fuel is consumed there is an increased take for the Treasury).

410. quinlet: It is true what you say, but “only really apply[ing] where the road network is saturated” is somewhat of an unnecessary stipulation, at least as far as rush hour is concerned. If you happen to know of a conurbation where the road network is not saturated at rush hour, please do not mention it, because if you do, before you can say Martin Mogridge enough people will have moved there to saturate it.

411. @quinlet – what you say is perhaps true but onlyso where there is a substantial public transport element. It is most unlikely that the speed of public transport is relevant in places where it is a minor player.

412. @ Tim – one other factor with hydrogen buses is their weight. They have fuel tanks, usually on the roof, and these can cause axle loading problems. I believe the buses on the RV1 had a tank removed to try to improve their carrying capacity. Nonetheless the buses have a restricted overall capacity which is a pain given the loadings the RV1 can get in the rush hour due to the main line stations it runs past. There will be two further Van Hool manufactured hydrogen buses on the RV1 sometime in the future. I believe they are of a similar design to those being trialled in Aberdeen and in Europe. The axle weight and carrying capacity issue is pretty fundamental for London given the loadings that many routes face. Not a lot of point in adopting hydrogen if you need many more vehicles and drivers to provide a given level of capacity especially when the vehicles are not exactly cheap.

     Given there now appears to some progress on developing gas powered double deckers (Reading have ordered some and Nottingham hopes to) I do wonder if TfL may be forced to change its apparent resistance to gas powered buses. We also need to see how well the all electric double deckers perform on route 98.

413. @timbeau: A new railway would sever a community just as effectively, if not more so, as a new road

     A new high-capacity road will always be wider than a railway of equivalent capacity. Stretches of new above-ground railway have been built in densely populated parts of London (Southwark, Shoreditch) in recent times without seeming to affect the (growing) popularity of those areas, in places where a new motorway would be likely to cause significant blight.

414. @Graham H
     where there is not an adequate rail based public transport supply the equilibium speed, to which road based journeys will gravitate, is walking speed. If you need examples, look at cities such as Istanbul or Sao Paulo where the rail based public transport is limited and where road based journeys typically take 2 hours for ludicrously short distances.

415. @quinlet – I dare say one could select other examples to disprove that (I have in mind those medium-sized French towns, say, with no, or little public transport, many rurban areas in many different countries, and almost all rural areas, for example). Jeux academiques

416. Trying to even hypothesise (let alone “prove”) a general rule for road transport speeds world-wide is over-ambitious. But I’m not sure that anyone here is doing that.

     The interesting finding, to me, is that sometimes building new roads fails to speed up journeys. This might seem obvious, but it is not, going by the repeated cries of “it took me umpteen minutes just to get from Ugg to Bing yesterday, we’ve got to knock some houses down and widen the road.”.

     To go on and find rules as to what actually does govern the traffic speed is of course also interesting, and necessary if traffic problems are to be solved. We already know that there will probably be no universal rule applicable everywhere. Good scientists do not give up in the face of such complexity, they build up answers bit by bit. Downs-Thompson, and quinlet’s proposed extension, are just that – partial answers to a multi-faceted question.

417. @Malcolm – just so – and there are many different and difficult factors to try and assess such as culture, price, topography and so on. The research I mentioned applied to London,and London alone, with no claims of universality.

418. @Ian J
     “A new high-capacity road will always be wider than a railway of equivalent capacity. Stretches of new above-ground railway have been built in densely populated parts of London (Southwark, Shoreditch) in recent times ”

     Width is not the important factor. It is “permeability” Any road other than a motorway, even at ground level, can have crossing points for pedestrians and other local traffic.

     Most of the new (as distinct from re-opened) above ground railway built in Shoreditch is on viaduct and a significant part of it spans the Great Eastern Main Line. I’m not sure which stretch of line you have in mind in Southwark but the new viaduct west of London Bridge station and the Bermondsey diveunder are adjacent to existing tracks, and the Silwood Link (actually in LB Lewisham) follows a pre-existing alignment and, like the one in Shoreditch, crosses an existing multitrack route.

419. Roads suffer from the ‘open access’ problem. That’s something that was very soon abandoned on the railways after the Stockton and Darlington tried it.

420. Fandroid that zombie still stalks the land as the recent ECML timetable malarkey & other moreorless off topic examples show.

421. fandroid / OB
     A legacy of John Major’s regime, I’m afraid.
     See also a quote in the current issue of Modern Railways (In an article on 150 + years of South Eastern ) Along the lines of :
     “We don’t own the trains, the track, the signalling or the stations …”
     Is this utter madness, well past Upney, or not?
     [ Rhetorical question – please don’t attempt to answer directly ]

422. Greg,

     In general any comment along the lines of strong-controversial-comment followed by it-was-rhetoricial-don’t-answer is going to get rejected. It effectively gives you free right to say what you like without right of reply to others.

     So, as a reply, could I just put the alternative point of view. In freeing a TOC to not have to worry about infrastructure they can do what they should be doing best. I would also point out the many, many companies basically based on intellecual property have very few tangible assets. I work for a company with million pound plus turnover. I doubt if our assets make it up to five figures. We don´t have to worry about looking after the office at all as it is a serviced office or admin on company cars as we have none. This is not unusual in this day and age. We concentrate on what we do best.

     Having put a counterview to equal the balance I will just add that this a massive topic for another time.

423. @Greg re open access: it’s more than that. It’s a very powerful tool to attack and restrain monopolists and make markets work better. It’s also particularly hard to apply to railways. And like the related questions of industrial structure and individual company organisation, “a massive topic for another time”.

424. And here was me thinking that as hydrogen is lighter than air that hydrogen-powered buses must be lighter than diesel/petrol ones. Oh well…

     On quinlet’s point about different countries’ experiences with building new roads I’d relate that prior to my de facto retirement* I used to talk about internationalisation and the issues it raises. One of the questions I’d ask an audience was “I drive to work, it takes me an hour. How far away is my office from my home?”

     The answers varied from four miles (most India-based people) through to eighty miles (USA). The actual answer was around 15 miles. What is “normal” and within the realms of being an acceptable timeframe to commute depends very strongly on your other experiences, not on any absolute value.

     (* happy to do one-offs still 🙂 )

425. I must admit I was thinking the answer to “How far away is my office from my home?” was “one hour”, and I was wondering why the question was asked.

426. “Hydrogen is lighter than air”. This means that a given volume of hydrogen weighs less than the same volume of air. Clearly, a given weight of hydrogen weighs exactly the same as the same weight of air.

     When the substance is used as fuel, what is relevant is the calorific (fuel) value. Air is not an effective fuel, but it is possible to compare the weights of the same calorific value of, say, hydrogen and diesel oil. If I have done the sums right, you can theoretically obtain 1 MJ of energy from 22 grams of diesel, but you need 77 grams of hydrogen. (In practice of course the extraction of energy cannot be 100% efficient, nor anything like, but the efficiencies may be comparable for the two fuels).

     The situation is even worse for hydrogen, of course, as it is a gas in normal conditions, so you have to either liquefy it (needing cold and/or pressure, both requiring more weight to be lugged about, and using energy), or tolerate an enormous container (which would weigh a lot even if you had the space available).

427. Thank you Malcolm for showing I really hadn’t thought it through!

     Hello dog! Welcome to my world. Yes, people are quite odd in measuring distance in units of time. It is called making assumptions, and often leads to errors.

     Woof woof!

428. If the hydrogen were to be stored at atmospheric pressure in a gas bag on the roof(as in the episode of Dads Army where Jones’s van is converted to run on gas) it would indeed provide some buoyancy. However, modern systems store it at high pressure (and thus density) .

429. ……and, I should have added, the tanks themselves have to be quite robustly built to withstand the high pressures

430. PoP
     I will just add that this a massive topic for another time.
     Agreed, & I look forward to the article ….

     Hydrogen
     Massively compressed & therefore in heavy, strong tanks, with very secure sealings & pipery, especially as you don’t want Hydrogen leaking anywhere near where there might be a spark or flame.
     These little practical difficulties are how & why engineers make a living, hint.

431. @timbeau – surely, Jones’ van was converted to run on coal gas, not hydrogen, along with a number of experimental conversions of buses in London and elsewhere? [timbeau knew that, and phrased his comment accordingly. Malcolm] (And yes, some relied on a trailer to produce the gas rather than a bag on the roof).

432. However, any hypothetical buoyancy which a (highly) hypothetical bag of hydrogen on the roof could provide would not help with the axle weight limits (which is where we came in) because a vehicle which complies with limits only when it is fully fuelled, and flouts those limits when the fuel is nearly exhausted, would not be considered compliant by any rational tester!

433. Thankyou Malcolm.
     As I learned in my school chemistry lessons, hydrogen is the main active ingredient in coal gas – which was what came out of our gas taps back in the olden days when I was at school. According to Dr Wiki, it is about 50% hydrogen, most of the rest being methane, which is also lighter than air, and about 10% carbon monoxide, which isn’t.

434. @Malcolm:

     I suspect low bridges might also cause issues for buses with large bags of highly flammable gas on the roof. Glazing companies would love them.

435. To bring this gas thing back down to earth. What London Buses should be seeking is the most efficient system that allows them to comply with emissions requirements, and (possibly) allows the government of London to offset other polluters by having zero (or very low) emissions buses. Hydrogen and natural gas are both fuels that might get them there. After all, the weight of the high pressure tanks is probably comparable with that of batteries. While both are not carbon neutral , the immediate problem is air pollution on London’s streets, not global warming. Hydrogen is probably equivalent to batteries, in that the power source can make use of renewables. Gas is definitely a fossil fuel, but is not as polluting as diesel and is probably a lot easier to source than hydrogen.

436. Err, historical note ( probably ignored by the series’ producers – PUN!) of “Dad’s Army” ..
     NOT, by any stretch of the imagination Coal-Gas, but either Producer Gas or Wood Gas
     Confusingly, the latter was sometimes also called the former … and some British Buses certainly use some form of “Producer” system during WWII

437. Fandroid says “Gas is definitely a fossil fuel”

     Not all that definitely. There is also biogas, which is sometimes used in transport and/or injected into the “natural gas grid”. But to be fair, each of these is only done on a pretty small scale at present, but small or not, it does provoke enthusiasts to claim big prospects for its future use (“just sign a big cheque here and we’ll fix global warming, don’t bother about the details”).

438. Greg: while there was widespread use of producer gas and/or wood gas during WW2 (particularly with trailers gasifying anthracite), some internet sources claim that town gas was also used, complete with pictures looking very much like Jonesy’s van.

     However, we’ve probably gone as far as we need to down that particular side-track.

439. Well I never expected such a set of responses by commenting on the RV1’s buses. Thanks to those who are more informed than I am explaining *why* the buses are heavier – I never was any good at chemisty and physics.

440. Re Malcolm,

     There is also a UK company that supplies Bio-LNG (sourced from Landfill gas in Surrey) for road transport use and there has been a good uptake among big fleet users (typically out of Daventry logistics hubs) and a London Borough for some of their own vehicles. BOC have their own logistics company that has used (fossil) CNG for decades with a number of big retail clients.
     LNG /CNG offers the possibility of 80% reductions in NOx and particulates vs diesel which is what London probably cares about for air quality.

     Coal Bed Methane (CBM) is likely to become very popular in the UK in the next few years.
     CBM and Bio Methane both need cleaning and upgrading to be injected into the gas grid so liquefaction for transport use to improve the density also has useful side effect of removing everything you don’t want in at the same time!

     Hydrogen: the storage tanks tend to be at 350bar so the Hydrogen (when tanks full) is circa 24.2 times more dense than the air outside so no buoyancy effect and then there is the huge weight of the tanks themselves…

441. @timbeau: Width is not the important factor. It is “permeability” Any road other than a motorway, even at ground level, can have crossing points for pedestrians and other local traffic.

     Yes, but there is always a trade-off between maintaining the traffic flow along the road, and allowing it to be crossed – Oxford Street being a case in point. Or ‘transport’ versus ‘place’ functions in modern planning jargon.

     I’m not sure which stretch of line you have in mind in Southwark but the new viaduct west of London Bridge station and the Bermondsey diveunder are adjacent to existing tracks

     I had the new viaduct across Borough market in mind – which is not immediately adjacent to existing tracks, and was actually moved further away from them during the planning process (to enable some buildings immediately next to the tracks to be preserved). The viaduct was hugely contentious at the time (eg. the campaign to ‘save Borough Market’), but it is hard to argue that it has seriously damaged the area.

442. @Malcolm: a vehicle which complies with limits only when it is fully fuelled, and flouts those limits when the fuel is nearly exhausted, would not be considered compliant by any rational tester!

     But what if the axle load regulations, written with heavier than air fuel in mind, specify the vehicle should be weighed fully fuelled? Surely a tester following the letter of the law would have to pass the vehicle even though it flouted the spirit behind the regulations.

     Which might sound like a silly and irrelevant point, but is pretty much what has happened with diesel emissions regulations in recent years – engines are designed with regard to passing a narrowly-defined test rather than to minimise real-life emissions.

443. I accept that my statement that ‘gas is definitely a fossil fuel’ was not totally correct. The irony is that the most common way of turning biogas into usable energy is for it to fuel generators, thereby pushing the advantage towards hydrogen. Biogas as a vehicle fuel is a minority use of of a minority energy source. Does anyone have any data on the comparative weight and space penalties of batteries vs LNG and hydrogen? LNG single deckers carry the gas on the roof. I suspect that electric bus batteries are carried lower down where they compromise potential passenger space. However, buses powered by hydrogen or LNG also still have conventional engines, taking up space above floor level, whereas I assume that electric buses have motors on their axles.

444. Re Fandroid,

     The Hydrogen buses on RV1 are fuel cell rather than internal combustion engines.

     Battery vs Hydrogen vs LNG vs CNG. Not sure on buses by the industry work done on HGVs suggested focusing on LNG and CNG as second choice. Battery was non starter because of lack of space. (LNG works because you can remove large parts of the diesel exhaust system added in recent years)

     On electric buses the motors aren’t on the axles as the size of the motors would block passenger access to the area behind the rear axle… (even worse with low floor)

     Single deck battery and hybrid buses tend to have most of the batteries and charging electronics on the roof.

     Interestingly the new Van Hool buses on RV1 will actually be Hydrogen Hybrids to reduce the hydrogen requirement and thus the size and weight of hydrogen tanks needed!

445. ngh: “Hydrogen Hybrids”. I would have thought that any vehicle with fuel cells is automatically a hybrid, as the fuel cells produce electricity rather than mechanical power. But maybe you are referring to added batteries/supercapacitors, so that energy captured from electric braking can be used for subsequent acceleration, and power can sometimes be delivered to the wheels without the fuel cells operating. Or?

446. @Fandroid
     “I suspect that electric bus batteries are carried lower down where they compromise potential passenger space. ”
     The electric buses on routes 507 and 521 are noticeably taller than the standard Citaros, but are still low floor. I assume the extra height is batteries in the roof.

447. Re Malcolm,
     ” I would have thought that any vehicle with fuel cells is automatically a hybrid”
     Electric drive-system or fuel cell doesn’t not mean hybrid.

     Hybrid refers to 2 or more different power sources or energy sources (or both). Fuel cell is a single power source until you added batteries / supercapacitors for regenerative braking and energy reuse which will be new on the Van Hool buses.

448. Re timbeau,

     Indeed as per my penultimate comment 0906 they are in the roof, good cooling vastly improves performance and is apparently common to all the single deck buses in London at the moment.

     The hybrid double deckers seem to have the batteries spread around to improve cooling performance and weight distribution.

449. @ Ngh – the BYD single deckers that run on the 507/521 have batteries stacked in columns near the front wheel arches. That explains the rather clunky styling and blocked views out of the bus near the front.

     https://www.flickr.com/photos/hertsman_images/11452706744/ (not my photo)

     That has been designed out of later deliveries and won’t feature on the ADL bodied BYDs that are being built for the new contract on the 507/521.

     https://www.flickr.com/photos/122507681@N02/27136690905/in/photostream/ (not my photo).

450. @WW
     The BYD version is seen here – note the unglazed section above the front wheels http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4P-k3PCc1mw/VRwOBI2_F-I/AAAAAAAARFQ/VT_RVflxlJo/s1600/London%2BGeneral%2BEB1%2BWaterloo%2B19Aug14%2B(Copy).jpg

     The Irizar version don’t appear to have this problem
     http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WQAzgY_TdUc/VabJZ-y6wAI/AAAAAAAASW8/0hnYpGYIsmw/s1600/London%2BGeneral%2BEI1%2BHorseferry%2BRoad.jpg
     (note the higher roofline)

451. @WW

     The Irizar version don’t appear to have this problem
     http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WQAzgY_TdUc/VabJZ-y6wAI/AAAAAAAASW8/0hnYpGYIsmw/s1600/London%2BGeneral%2BEI1%2BHorseferry%2BRoad.jpg
     (note the higher roofline)

452. Thank you everyone for clarifying the situation with the current non-diesel buses in London. I admit I was fishing somewhat for more expert knowledge, having previously decided that a subscription to a technical buses magazine was one sub too far.

     As for fuel-cell buses, I was on a demonstrator (in commercial service) in Stuttgart ( home of Benz Daimler) and on the screen was a real-time flow diagram showing electrical flows between the fuel cell, batteries and motors. Definitely a hybrid.

     So it seems as if hybrids are worth looking at even for non-diesel buses. The savings on fuel and brownie points gained for reduced CO2 emissions outweigh the problems/cost of batteries.

     Fuel cell- no NOX emissions, CO2 dependent on original grid power source.
     LNG – reduced NOX emissions, CO2 a bit better than a diesel
     Electric – no NOX emissions, CO2 as for fuel cells

453. Re Fandroid,

     All the latest Hydrogen fuel cell buses appear to be hybrids but earlier generations weren’t always. The turning point appeared to be the availability and use of (water cooled) permanent magnet motors making regenerative braking more efficient.

     “Fuel cell- no NOX emissions, CO2 dependent on original grid power source.”
     Where grid power source includes the gas network as hydrocracking (bio)menthane to produce the hydrogen you could run the surplus steam etc. through a turbine and export electricity to the electric network as a by product…

454. It appears that the new Mayor fare freeze is quite as frozen as one might have thought…

     Apparently it won’t include Travelcards or Daily oyster or contactless

     “However on Tuesday Mr Khan told the London Assembly that his fares freeze would not cover travelcards, or daily and weekly Oyster and contactless card caps”

     http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/sadiq-khan-accused-of-breaking-election-promise-after-travelcard-costs-set-to-rise-each-year/

     Some very interesting implications on competitiveness of point to point oyster / contactless usage…

     DfT set fares aren’t included in the fares freeze either.

455. ngh: yep. Some quite bitchy comments on social media, too – so no change there then.

     I liked his appeal – if that’s the word – for the DfT to fund his promise to Londoners. Seems highly unlikely in the circs.

456. Re OB,

     If he actually thinks DfT have any available cash left then oh dear but probably just a bit of politics on his side.

     Interesting to note the huge TfL cost of 1.9bn over 5 years contained a lot of DfT controlled fare issues. SK’s costing pre election of £450m has increased to £640m now (and not even a full freeze of TfL fares).

457. ngh, SK was a junior Transport minister I believe, so he may think he knows something about how it works. And, yes, politics – but not for these pages.

458. Not mentioned in the media but surmisable is that National Rail PAYG fares will likely be rising by above inflation while Tube fares are frozen. This in effect makes the policy a £600m subsidy to North London while South Londoners pay more for an inferior service. What an extraordinary misuse of scarce resources.

459. WAGN: the first map in this article may help explain:

     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36215186

     I could go on about the politics but I won’t.

460. @WAGN: National Rail PAYG fares will likely be rising by above inflation while Tube fares are frozen

     Not if National Rail routes in London get transferred to the Overground…

461. Ian J: discussed at length under “Turning South London Orange”. Briefly, it will take time & will only happen for South Western part way through the new franchise.

462. @OB: But the (in retrospect rather carefully-worded) commitment to freeze TfL fares could interact interestingly with this: if fares on SWT go up in accordance with RPI per national government policy, do they then have to drop again to 2016 levels when the inner suburbans are Overgrounded and the fares become set by TfL? Or do they get frozen at the level they were at when TfL took them over?

463. What a mess & all for the sake of political grandstanding.
     Grrrr

464. I should just point out here that I did predict this would happen on this blog as JB reminded the world via Twitter yesterday. I am not in the least bit surprised. The wording was always very careful and it is to Mr Khan’s opponents’ detriment that they were not savvy enough to spot what was being said. They could have made his life extremely difficult during the campaign and could probably have destroyed the manifesto commitment by forcing him to clarify or prevaricate. I’m amazed Caroline Pidgeon didn’t spot what was being said (or more pertinently not being said). Still too late now and perhaps they’ll learn for next time?

     There are a number of implications here. TfL could get round some of the issue by introducing a TfL only cap or season ticket product. Those fares / prices could then be frozen. It may, though, create a lot of turbulence around Travelcard revenues and affect TOC franchise incomes which would incur the DfT’s wrath. The other issue is that we have a number of long standing instances plus a few more recent ones where TOC services are charged on the TfL farescale. C2C, bits of TSGN and Chiltern are long standing examples whereas Greater Anglia have two more recent deals (Lea Valley fares / move of Stratford to Z23). The latter certainly involve TfL paying for the revenue “loss” by moving fares from the more expensive NR tariff to the cheaper TfL West Anglia / Shenfield tariff. I am less clear if there are revenue transfers for C2C, TSGN and Chiltern but there may be an issue if fares within Greater London don’t rise as expected.

     The other issue where there is a “transfer” payment possibility is the revised daily capping arrangement brought in two years ago. If revenues declined then TfL faced a possible payment to TOCs. I’ve not seen anything that states if this transfer was triggered after the capping arrangement changed. Given the continued rise in ridership it’s possible it hasn’t been.

     We must also bare in mind that there are multiple TfL tariffs and TfL are “on the hook” to the DfT to not “negatively impact” cross boundary fares. If TOC fares keep rising and TfL ones don’t then TfL run the risk of creating the impacts it can’t make. This principle also applies to any future transfer of NR services but is reinforced in the “partnership” terms (remember the Kent CC issues about fares?).

     As said above there is close to zero propsect of the DfT turning into Father Christmas and not increasing NR fares. The SoS has already said there will no financial aid to TfL if a future Mayor changes the assumptions about fares increase (written when Boris was at City Hall). No elections to be won for 5 years! I don’t believe the commitment can hold where NR fares are involved nor where TfL take on new NR services as part of the Overground. I also think that DfT and TfL will be forced to look at things like season ticket multipliers in order to progressively boost the take from seasons and to scale back the discounts for buying for longer periods. TfL already have form for looking at this particular issue.

     Perhaps I will still be writing an annual Fares Increase article for LR rather than having a 4 year sabbatical? 🙂

465. The part which people will notice is that Travelcard fares will go up because the price includes an element for NR travel – even though there will be many, particularly north of the river, who never use them. Short of reintroducing the “Capitalcard”, it seems that most regular travellers will see their fares go up.

466. @WW – a very helpful analysis of why we are standing the middle of a wood without a compass.. One issue that springs out of what you say is the impact on the Mayor’s willingness to get enmeshed in the takeover of further DfT franchises.

467. About the wording always being very careful:

     “Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today”

     said the manifesto.

468. @ Graham H – I think the much anticipated takeover of TOC suburban services could become something of a battleground. DfT have no great reason to be “nice” as they’ve made no commitments about anything. It is Mayors who have wanted this policy to be delivered dating back to Ken (and the aspiration is far older than that). This means the negotiations are tilted rather more in DfT’s favour as they have the power to say “yes” or “no” and to set whatever detailed conditions they wish. It will be hard for TfL and the Mayor to row back from commitments they’ve signed up to and enacted for Crossrail and West Anglia devolution. The fares freeze just compounds the risks of a “stand off” over further rail devolution. Of course many people living south of the Thames will want devolution and lower / frozen fares as soon as possible which just piles pressure on the Mayor and TfL to deliver. Fun times and “difficult” politics ahead I think!

469. @ Rich Thomas – yes I know that was said. I also know plenty of other things were said and if you are a “fares and ticketing nerd” as I am then you’d spot the subtle references to “fares” and not “prices”. Season tickets have “prices” not fares. Therefore I always took the view that season tickets were out of scope of the freeze. I know that’s a very detailed point to make and almost no one else would spot it but manifestos are always written with wriggle room. We also know politicians never quite do what they say they will do. The way to undermine the fares freeze was not to focus on the macro “cost” but to attack it with detail. The Mayor’s opponents failed to do this and now they’re all in a “huff” over his “clarification”. Anyway we have four years of increases to consider plus lots of other fun like Hopper Tickets.

470. Sadly this disappointment about the fares freeze is just going to add to disillusion with the whole political process. Many people will have supposed that their travel costs were going to stay unchanged for four years, however technically unfounded such a belief might be. The most naïve believers may be among young voters, not yet cynical enough to realise that, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. And it may reinforce any tendencies they may have to stay at home next time round. Sad.

471. Re OB and WW,

     I can’t see anything connected with services running on NR and hence within DfT’s remit with fares not increasing in line with national policy.

     As Graham H will point out, Crossrail is also somewhat within TfL’s remit. The currently GWR stations to the west of Paddington will be locked into DfT remit via GWR as GWR will still call at most.

     The taking over parts of franchise south of the river I suspect partnerships will be the most likely outcome with TfL not controlling the fares.

     I can’t image DfT will allow differential pricing between Waterloo and Richmond depending on whether you travel with SWT on a Reading service or TfL SW Metro on an all stops Hounslow/ Kingston loop which could cause some big additional capacity issues that would need sorting. In SE land I can’t see DfT allowing TfL control over the pricing at stations where the Gillingham’s stop or allowing Crossrail from Abbey Wood to be competitively priced against SE.
     DfT need rail to take less subsidy and it is going to cost TfL lots the more they oppose it.

     How long before LB Bromley bring a court case for subsidising users north but not really south of the river? 😉

472. Re WW,

     DfT may of course appreciate Sadiq Khan for sticking his head above the parapet on the season ticket multiplier issue, so they can follow his lead after he has taken all the flack!

473. @ngh
     “I can’t see anything connected with services running on NR and hence within DfT’s remit with fares not increasing in line with national policy.”

     “Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel in 2020 than they do today”

     It says “Londoners”, not “Transport for London’s customers”

     @ngh
     “I can’t image DfT will allow differential pricing between Waterloo and Richmond ”
     There is already differential pricing, depending whether you go via Mortlake or via Turnham Green

     “I can’t see DfT allowing Crossrail from Abbey Wood to be competitively priced against SE.”
     Why not – the situation will be no different from the DLR/SE anomaly at Greenwich, Lewisham, and Woolwich, or the LU/SE differential at Brixton.

474. Re Timbeau,

     Agree on point 1. Londoners is bending the truth quite bit.

     The others you are missing the point in the that DfT would have ultimate control of Waterloo via Clapham Jn to Richmond pricing as it is 100% on NR/DfT turf. Ditto DfT have some Crossrail control as it coughed up a large contribution Graham H has previously obliged on the detail on LR…

475. @ Ngh – I’m going to disagree with you. TfL took over pricing of almost all stations that have transferred to its remit. The Crossrail Agreement has a load of NR related pricing restrictions. A fares advice paper to the Mayor that was published a couple of years ago set out the constraints for West Anglia. DfT have been happy to transfer pricing responsibility for inner area routes. What hasn’t transferred are those stations which are used as “pricing points” with ramifications for fares over a wider area – e.g. Watford Junction and Shenfield. As Timbeau has pointed out we already have endless examples of differential fares between given origin and destination fares. Of course Crossrail will undercut South Eastern into Zone 1 (beyond the terminal) just as it does from Woolwich via the DLR. We will only move away from that if we ever get to a single rail tariff for all services and a deal can be done to remove the Zone 1 add on fare.

     Just been looking at comments from Val Shawcross’s confirmation hearing in front of the Transport Cttee. Seems that the Mayor, Val and Gareth Bacon Tory AM are off to see the SoS on rail devolution and to push progress. This is clearly a priority item so we may see the “fares crunch” emerge earlier than expected.

476. RT @ 12.05
     In which case Kahn’s “promise” is already worth nothing – he’s broken a manifesto commitment already, if strictly interpreted.
     Ditto the Garden Bridge, of course.

     ngh
     How long before LB Bromley bring a court case for subsidising users north but not really south of the river?
     I almost hope they do, because this mess needs sorting, before TfL’s finances crash & burn, or worse still, stagger on, bleeding money until the next election.

477. @ Greg – There are no grounds for a court challenge. There is no supplementary rate being levied on ratepayers in respect of any specific policy. There would also be no benefit whatsoever from such a challenge. The Mayor is newly elected and his agencies are still working out how to meet his commitments (however loosely defined). When we see a revised TfL business plan and budget then we might have a basis on which to be concerned but that is several months away.

478. It’s worth remembering that while cross-subsidy of tube users by Bromley residents was the political argument used at the time of Fare’s Fair, the actual legal argument in the court case was about whether London Transport was allowed to run a deficit (they weren’t).

479. Ian J
     So: the “old” LT were not allowed to run a deficit.
     What’s the position for TfL?

480. @ Greg – define “deficit”. Does its fares revenue and charges meet all of its expenditure? – clearly not. However TfL receives substantial grant funding (in future solely for investment) plus a share of business rates, the council tax precept and borrowing. Conveniently the draft accounts for the last year have been published so you can read the summary and see what money comes from what sources and how it is spent. You will see the substantial scale of borrowings and the interest payments being made to fund it.

     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/aac-20160614-part-1-item06-tfl-statement-of-accounts.pdf

481. Re LT International: International consultancy has its advantages and disadvantages. I worked for LTI for some years both in London and overseas. In my time, the market was a lot less competitive than it is now so these days you can spend a lot of time and money bidding against major consultancies. Gone are the days when you would be contacted by a transport authority and asked to help them with an operating problem or proposals for a new line. Now it is all open tendering and cut-throat competition. The best solution is probably a joint venture where you can spread the risks.

     Consultancy is invaluable experience for the staff sent overseas, if you can get them released from their existing job. You need to send good people but the good people are wanted at home to keep the core business going. It often causes conflicts. Then you have to find people. Some suitable experts might not want to decamp their families to, say, Nigeria for two years.

     Then, what do you do with staff returning home who have been replaced during their absence? There was no suitable vacancy for me in the organisation after working overseas for years residentially on three different projects and it ended my employment after more than 20 years service. LU lost the investment in my experience and I immediately got a job with a consultancy company and a big pay rise to boot. Now I’m a self-employed international consultant.

482. Expensive Consultants: Well yes, they may seem expensive to someone in a full time job with a full time salary, several weeks’ holidays and sick pay but, as a sole trader you are responsible for everything yourself. Without boring you with all the details, you can only expect to actually earn money for around 150 days a year so you have to assume that 150 day’s pay will be needed to cover 365 days of living. Some organisations like TfL require you to include travel and accommodation in your fee as well. Then, there is no guarantee that you will get work. You might be out of work for months. It’s not for the faint-hearted.

483. @Tubeprune

     ” you can only expect to actually earn money for around 150 days a year so you have to assume that 150 day’s pay will be needed to cover 365 days of living … to include travel and accommodation in your fee as well. ”

     I just thought I would say that I find this highly accurate.

484. 365 days a year minus 104 weekend days – 30 days holiday would equal 231 working days.

     150 maybe not as drastic as some think?

485. Alan Griffiths……Someone on a salary is paid for roundly 253 days a year (365 – weekends – bank holidays). That person’s 30 days holiday are “paid” and if that person is sick then s/he can expect some sick pay. The consultant has to cover all those costs and risks out of the fees.

     I would accept that anyone who takes a full time (5 days a week) job but is paid as a consultant would reasonably be in a prudent employer’s sights for a “gypsy’s warning”.

486. 100andthirty,

     It is very notable that in this country many transport consultants (and I suspect consultants in other industries) are past or close to normal retirement age.

     I obviously can’t speak on their behalf but my suspicion is that we are comparing apples and oranges. These older consultants, who tend to be very experienced in the industries they come from, are not relying on full-time employment to survive. It is more a case of maintaining a higher standard of living after retirement than would otherwise be possible. As such they are in a better position to survive a work famine.

     My suspicions are that some of them wouldn’t want full time employment over a long period and enjoy the opportunity, to some extent, to pick and chose which work they do whilst maintaining industry contact.

     This is not to disparage such people. I see it as a good way of retaining knowledge and at the same time to allow such people to work in a manner they consider appropriate to their current circumstances. In a way, the insecurity actually works in their favour as it makes it more difficult for younger people with a greater need to have a steady income to enter the market.

     As I am sure C Northcote Parkinson would have said, if you can’t survive for a least a year without any income then consultancy is not for you.

487. @PoP 🙂 Even fully paid consultants employed by someone else have real difficulty in filling up the 220 days of time available for work. The problem is one of how much time has to be spent looking for the next job. For one job to finish and the next to start seamlessly is virtually unknown (unless you are a very junior consultant or a technician). This is something that, so far as I am aware, few if any of the major consulting houses have cracked. They do not employ serious marketing departments, and expect senior staff to both market to new clients and work for existing clients simultaneously, with the result that a great deal of ingenuity goes in to time sheets – and then they wonder why consultancy has a poor reputation. The list of those who have collapsed as a result of this approach is long but it does explain the 150 figure or similar…

488. PoP – very well put, but there are a lot of youngsters who are making a pretty good crust out of consultancy – or put it another way – long term agency working. The railway industry particularly relies on these. There are not enough people to go round in some disciplines.

489. Re Graham H,

     Previously while working in-house for 2 different consultancies (non transport) I did just over 220 days in 3 separate years – it is not to be recommended this only really happens when there are framework type contracts in place. The later did have a serious marketing /bidding department (which clients didn’t particularly like because they though they could get it cheaper if that department didn’t exist!)

     135-160 is probably more realistic to take account of sales and business development work.

     Re 130,

     I think HMT will be after a bigger cut on long term agency in the the next autumn statement/ budget as this is not far of being one of the lowest hanging fruit given the other areas they have already started targeting even if changes don’t fully take effect for a while.

490. @ngh -lucky those who can subsist on long-term framework contracts! (the trouble is that, as your comment to 130 implies, the cost of employing long term consultants compared with inhouse options tends to be noticed after a bit,and matters usually seemed to end with either the consultant being taken inhouse or the role being retendered).

491. Confirmed this morning is the removal of all customer assistants from the 6 bus routes operated with the New Bus for London in “open platform” mode. So it’s goodbye to open platform NB4Ls in the near future (date yet to be confirmed). The tight budgetary situation at TfL is now starting to bite in all sorts of ways.

492. WW – you never know, perhaps having the back door closed will improve the performance of the HVAC. Instead of trying to cool the whole of London it can concentrate on cooling the inside of the bus – pure speculation!

     I have started to use NBfL routinely on non-attended routes and do see the benefit of having three doors for speedier boarding and alighting.

493. I’ve regularly travelled on Borismasters with the rear door closed and it hasn’t helped ventilation in the slightest.

     The ones with opening windows on the upper deck have finally started appearing and it helps a bit, but not too much as there are still no opening windows towards the front, so the first few rows don’t get much extra ventilation.

494. @WW: The tight budgetary situation at TfL is now starting to bite in all sorts of ways

     To be fair, TfL and its predecessors have been trying to move to driver-only operation for buses for many years, and it has only been political interference that has caused occasional reverses to this policy.

     Now that both the former mayors who attempted to bring back bus conductors have each imploded their political careers in their own inimitable way, platform attendants just become one more bit of political lost property for the new Mayor to dispose of. Maybe jobs could be found for them supervising boarding on the dangleway?

495. @ Ian J – TfL achieved 100% opo (ignoring the Heritage RM routes) during Ken’s tenure as low floor buses were introduced. We had a short term expansion in the numbers of conductors between 2000-2004 because Ken expanded service levels on many routes. I don’t recall any routes being converted to crew operation at that time but my memory might be defective. Having secured a fully OPO accessible bus network it was Mayor Johnson who decided to unravel this by two of the three threads of bus policy he had – removing bendy buses and introducing the Roastmaster. He forced TfL to go backwards in terms of the basic cost efficiency of the network but at the same time also forced up fares and reduced the extent of subsidy on the bus network (the third policy thread). This then resulted in a gradual plateauing of usage growth and then a move into decline. Other factors like increasing congestion and road schemes also caused problems.

     Being generous let’s say it’s not a great legacy after 8 years in power. It takes someone “special” to reverse the long term trend (since 1993/4) in bus patronage growth in London. Not even government direct control of LRT managed to do that.

496. The only total OPO to crew conversion in TfL days was the 55 with low floor vehicles in October 2001; that only lasted until January 2003.

     A number of routes did revert from OPO to crew at weekends for a while.

497. I don’t recall any conversions to crew operation other than the 55, but there was one new route, the 390, that was launched with Routemasters (and very odd a red RM with a 3xx number looked).

498. Some routes were operated by different garages at weekends which is no doubt why they went to crew operation. Some garages wee 100% OPO well before others.

499. I wonder if these plans will now change given the new man in number 11?

500. @ SHLR – I don’t see why there would be any change. The policies are those of the Mayor and I assume he was confident he could work within the constrained budget he inherited from Mr Johnson. I suspect there is lobbying going on with respect to capital funding as that would “fit” within the very loose “direction” set by Mrs May. I don’t see the government suddenly restoring revenue grant to London, more’s the pity, as they’d no doubt view it as “waste” given the never ending desire to screw more money out of passengers and it could be perceived as “endorsing” the Mayor’s fares freeze and they couldn’t be seen to do that.

     The problem we have with TfL now is that there are only big ticket items with any obvious support – CR2 and the later stages of Tube line modernisation / upgrade. TfL may want to do something with stations but there’s no great “sell” going on with a wider programme. We know Camden are broadly on side with Holborn and Camden Town but beyond that? This is where 8 years of indolence with respect to creative ideas and planning (courtesy of Boris) suddenly creates a problem. We have historically low interest rates, an obvious need to boost the economy, a continued lag in infrastructure development and “oh bleep, we’ve got nothing ready”. Network Rail are hamstrung because of project delays, cost overruns and rescheduling works by up to 10 years meaning nothing more for CP5, next to nothing extra for CP6 and CP7 is so far away Number 11 won’t be thinking about it. A nice programme of accessibility and congestion relief works at stations would provide a steady stream of construction and other jobs and would deliver a more accessible and passenger friendly railway. They need not be massive schemes but I expect they’d be popular. They could be done as much on NR as on LU / Overground thus spreading the benefits around. I’m not going to hold my breath about such a common sense bit of work being done in the short term.

501. @WW – whilst I agree absolutely with you, my bitter experience (and those of colleagues – even John Palmer!) is that the Treasury hate “programmes”; they fear that somewhere in the work stream are some decided pups and therefore they want to know about individual schemes. Remember the BR rolling electrification programme x 2? Or LU’s brave attempt to do the same for tube stations? (Quite how we managed to slip NSE’s total route modernisation programme past the gamekeepers is interesting – having turned poacher, my successor as gamekeeper was asleep at the wheel and never asked any questions – and we deliberately never told him anything either…)

502. @Graham H: I also suspect that the treasury likes small chunks so it makes it easier to salami slice things…. Cancelling bits and pieces and thereby ending up with something that is only half baked, which then never gets quite finished….

503. @SHLR – yes. Of course, your cunning investment manager deliberately stacks the slices of salami; the departmental gamekeeper’s job is to spot that (or conspire with the client by letting it pass – hmm,did I say that?). “Passive provision” and “staging of works” can conceal a multitude of things. Pareto eat your heart out…

504. I’ve noticed that TfL are already starting to take ownership of the Southeastern (suburban) network… I have had two reminders from them in less than a week about the blockade over the weekend. At London Bridge… This has never happened before!

505. Ian J – 12th July 2016

     “Now that both the former mayors who attempted to bring back bus conductors have each imploded their political careers in their own inimitable way ……. ”

     Boris Johnson is foreign secretary, I believe. Whether this post ends his political career remains to be seen.

     “To be fair, TfL and its predecessors have been trying to move to driver-only operation for buses for many years, and it has only been political interference that has caused occasional reverses to this policy.”

     It took about 40 years to achieve driver-only operation in London, as against 10 years in the rest of the country, because the conditions in London were much more unfavourable than anywhere else in the country. Decisions about how fast to move ahead have at times been political decisions because they are linked to decisions about investment in bus priority and ticketing systems, and it has depended on how much weight each political leader has given to the travelling conditions of bus passengers.

     In the 2001-2008 Livingstone period, bringing back conductors on some routes in Sundays (and on a couple of routes during the week) was one of a series of experiments to improve bus services, which included articulated buses, road-side ticket machines, cardboard saver tickets and bus priority schemes. Eventually the experiment that worked was Oyster, after which a reasonable quality of journey was possible by driver-only operated bus in London.

     Johnson’s bus was completely unnecessary, though it was an interesting example of how remote from reality many politicians and journalists are.

     [Please no responses to the end of political careers here. LBM]

506. @ Guano – it is worth adding that if you look back at TfL Board papers from the Ken era (yes some of us are so sad that we do this!) you can see that there was an enthusiasm to move to a cashless bus network fairly early on plus a desire to rationalise LU’s ticketing provision. A bit of the latter happened but was then pounced on by Bozza as an electioneering point to “keep ticket offices open”. Of course even Bozza had to yield to the need to make these changes in order to get costs down. We may complain about stop dwell times in London but a lot of that is down to the sheer numbers travelling. Watch a bus queue outside London and buses spend minutes going nowhere while (fewer) people (than in London) board and pay cash or tap ITSO smartcards on the tortoise slow readers and then wait for their paper ticket to be printed. I know deregulated bus companies *love* cash in the bank but there must come a point where they realise that their dwell times are ludicrous and injurious to their ability to operate an efficient, frequent and reliable service.

507. I’ve completely lost track as to where we last mentioned TfL taking on suburban rail services. (Mods – feel free to shift this post somewhere more relevant if you wish). I see various bits of London media are advertising a “new” TfL suburban rail map showing a lot of orange routes. There’s also a quote about a “business case” being presented to the government next month with the think being linked to the Autumn Statement process rather than an approach to the DfT. Assuming the newspaper report is accurate this is at odds with the “next steps” in the TfL Board Paper. I assume this all deliberately planned just before the TfL Board meet tomorrow. I have tried and tried to find a relevant press release on the City Hall and TfL websites but it’s not propogated there yet – usually takes a wee while to do so.

     The new map is a bit odd in that it includes the Wimbledon loop but omits the Catford Loop and MML / Thameslink. I am not surprised that Thameslink services are excluded but I’d have thought that would warrant a “peak only” type designation on the map for the Wimbledon loop as the main service will be provided by Thameslink. It also appears to show TfL’s services stretching to Windsor and Weybridge in SWT land. While I understand why I’m a tad surprised to see the tentacles reaching Windsor. It also includes the GN locals to Letchwork and SE locals as far as Gravesend – presumably reflecting today and not post 2018. It also does not include *any* services via East Croydon or south thereof even where the lines terminate in Greater London. I assume that reflects old Thameslink plans with the Caterham and Tattenham Corner services previously in scope.

508. Walthamstow Writer 21 September 2016 at 15:57

     “The new map is a bit odd in that it includes the Wimbledon loop but omits the Catford Loop and MML / Thameslink. … … I assume that reflects old Thameslink plans with the Caterham and Tattenham Corner services previously in scope.”

     I suspect that its not a new map.

509. @WW: the thing being linked to the Autumn Statement process rather than an approach to the DfT

     Attempting to route around the new minister and go straight to the Chancellor?

510. AG/WW: I believe the new map is dated July 2016.

511. Original high res version of the TfL map:
     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/vision-for-london-map.jpg

     Wimbledon loop, Southern even before the current consultation would have operated services there in the peak again in the future (just in slightly different form of Blackfriars – Tulse Hill – Wimbledon – Sutton – Tulse Hill – London Bridge if the consultation proposal is confirmed).

     The map is very out of date / incomplete and also shows a lack of TfL knowledge south of the river hence plenty of scepticism from lots of parties as to TfL’s expertise (especially when the mayor offered help and step in with TSGN):
     1. Blackfriars – Herne Hill – Bromley South (- Orpington) was always due to return to SE so will be an extra service that is their problem if they want to take over, presumably along with the 2tph extra peak Catford Loop SE services mentioned in the consultation
     2. 100+ Southern Metro services in each direction through East Croydon on weekdays with more possibly added with the resumption of Palace – East Croydon direct services that were diverted to West C. to enable London Overground ELL to start. What they “forgot” at the time was it altered the balance of services / movements thought the Windmill Bridge complex which the proposal in the consultation is to reverse!!!

     I suspect DfT won’t allow TfL to cherry pick because they didn’t know so TfL will have some scope and cost creep on take over vs current expectations. (see Romford – Upminster)

512. @ Ian J – alternative view – it’s just part of the standard lobbying that takes place between City Hall and the Government prior to every Autumn Statement? I can’t see the Treasury people agreeing to anything without also saying “you have cleared this with the DfT haven’t you?” given who has the requisite legal authorities over certain bits of legislation / can enact Statutory Instruments [1]. Anyway I can’t reconcile the Mayor saying in the Standard that he wants Government funding for any transfer when the TfL Board paper says the costs and revenues fall as they currently do and there is no extra cost for the government as TfL will bear the costs of any transfer. On the face of it those two statements contradict each other *unless* the Mayor is pushing for an enlarged capital funding settlement despite the fact TfL has a settlement through to 2020/21.

     [1] these are required to effect any transfer of responsibility for franchised services from DfT to another contracting party such as TfL.

513. Well the Mayor has sent his updated Business Case for Devolution to the DfT – all 99 pages of it.

     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-devolution-business-case-narrative.pdf

     There are nice some diagrams showing “simplified” possible future service patterns and frequencies. Not doubt steam will be emerging from people’s ears when they see their beloved particular train has vanished in the TfL’s brave new (possible) future. I’m not qualified to comment on the practicalities of achieving the suggested frequencies but some of them look reasonably impressive – 6tph Victoria to Lewisham for example.

514. Re WW,

     The team has already been having very good look (i’ve only got to p20) and an article may emerge…

     1. The first (London connections type) map is not correct as there are some services missing like the peak on Blackfriars – Orpington via Herne Hill that will return to SE operation in 2018 missing, if you start out with incorrect assumption then it isn’t going to end well.

     2. Ignores GTR timetable consultation proposals this will effect the service level via Nunhead that TfL can run as GTR have got in first… Again no surprises as the Thameslink service level was always going to increase.

     3. By the time of take over, TfL won’t be able to produce some of the proposed performance improvements as it will already have happened e.g. Moorgate post new stock.

     4. All the proposed infrastructure improvements have already been discussed extensively on LR.

     5. Having read the first 20% of the report some worrying omissions from the TfL list of root causes for performance issues e.g. they haven’t read NR report on performance issues from 2 years ago. Interestingly all the expensive to solve ones are missing…

515. FYI the map ngh links to (“Original high res version of the TfL map”) is now absent at that URL.

516. Re AlisonW,

     It appears SK has had a self-importance episode so there has been a slight file renaming:
     http://content.tfl.gov.uk/mayors-rail-vision-map.pdf

517. Diamond geezer has a condensed summary of the latest proposals to reduce bus routes using Oxford Street. My initial worries:

     Removing the C2 north of Oxford Circus doesn’t seem to me to do anything to reduce the number of buses using Oxford Street, and from my own observations the Oxford Circus-Great Portland Street axis already seems a bit underserved given the number of people frequently seen waiting at the Margaret Street stop at peak times.

     I worry about whether Great Russell Street has the capacity to add the 3 to the current 10. It’s already very easily snarled up by inconsiderately parked delivery vans and taxis and the constant floods back and forth across the zebra crossings.

     The changes to the 242 and 23 will significantly reduce the current number of buses between the City and the Oxford Street area, which will be unpopular.

518. PS: How long until complaints about these changes get their first explicit response of “people will be more willing to change buses with the Hopper ticket”?

519. PPS: And the fact that TfL are happy to put two routes down Great Russell Street suggests that they won’t be impressed with the “no buses ever down Wigmore Street” lobby, given Wigmore Street’s greater capacity.

520. @Philip

     There are no plans to remove route C2 from north of Oxford Circus. The consultation proposes to withdraw it from south of Oxford Circus.

     Route 10 is unlikely to survive for much longer anyway once the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street starts at the eastern end.

     Route 242 is being withdrawn between St Paul’s and Tottenham Court Road due to ‘excess capacity’ and routes 25 and 8 offer an alternative on that corridor.

     Very few people would chose to travel from the City to Oxford Street on route 23, it takes forever.

     It is sad that patronage of the bus network in Central London is in decline due to longer journey times and declining reliability resulting from increasing traffic congestion caused by increasing population, the congestion charge price no longer being a sufficient disincentive to drivers, disruption from major construction projects and road improvement schemes, the loss of road capacity following construction of cycle superhighways, increasing private hire traffic from UBER and the like, increasing delivery traffic from internet shopping etc. It is especially ironic given that buses are the cheapest, easiest and most flexible form of public transport to provide to deal with an increasing population. What is not clear is where those lost bus passengers are going instead, if they have switched to the Underground then that puts pressure on an already overcrowded network which costs much more to operate and maintain. Upgrading Underground infrastructure to cope with short trips in Central London is a false economy and is a role that buses could and should be playing if they were given sufficient bus priority measures.

521. http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9006

     “The Southern Rail Access proposals, reliant on the rail lines between Windsor and Waterloo, cannot provide the capacity to support an expanded Heathrow.

     “There are alternatives which could deliver the capacity and connectivity required – including direct links to Waterloo – and these are being investigated by TfL.

     “While the Airports Commission identified Southern Rail Access as the only rail scheme required for Heathrow expansion, it emerged last month that the Government now deems no new rail infrastructure essential for an expanded Heathrow.

     “Such an approach is deeply concerning and risks worsening congestion on the roads and a further deterioration of air quality around Heathrow.”

     I wonder what TFL would prefer? Plus I can’t but wonder what the government is thinking in regards to no increased rail investment at Heathrow. It kind drives a coach horses through through Heathrow plans to reduce toad traffic at Heathrow to get the air quality down. They want to drastically reduce employee parking at the airport. Politically it makes the pro airport case harder with yet more traffic.

     On the other hand it’s just the opening salvo on who pays for what and whether the airport should be expanded at all.

522. @Rational Plan – I do love the occasional felicitous typo. I’ve had a good hour chuckling at the thought of all the congestion caused in the Heathrow access tunnel by the queue of toads making their way to the departure terminals – parp parp!

523. Don’t get me started on those Central London bus changes. Badly argued, sloppily presented and incoherent. Also it’s only the first of several phases of changes that TfL aren’t able / willing to reveal at this point in time.

524. Looks like devolution to TfL of the SouthEastern suburban services has been parked in a siding for now…

525. Grayling’s record on delivering workable solutions is not good, even before this, is it?

526. I try to refrain from political comments as I know the moderators don’t like them…

     But the comparison with the Minister for Administrative Affairs is sometimes uncanny!

527. No surprise here, the signals coming from DfT have been pointing this way ever since Grayling came. He just doesn’t believe in devolution and belief is more important for someone like Grayling than evidence.

     Khan should go to town on this – it’s potentially a major political sore point for the government. TfL’s plans were not without fault, but it had backing from neighbouring councils, voters and businesses. There is deep mistrust of TOCs and DfT from voters.

528. Anonymous**
     Indeed, including most importantly from the purely-political POV, several tory administrations, both in London & Kent.
     Could lead to “interesting” discussions.
     [ I’m reminded, again, of Lord Dawlish’s remarks on Ridley … ]

529. LR article on the NR issues and changes to future franchising structures, investment funding, devolution will be emerging in a few days so if we can hang fire on the comments till then…

530. Given Khan fares freeze on TFL services we could see differences opening up on fares especially single tickets especially between North and South London which could have politicians concerned when the next election approaches and differences between two stations on say north London Line can be compared with similar distance services on South Eastern services.

     Transfer of services is not just about services but also the need to upgrade infrastructure to cope with growth and the artificial boundaries created by Southern, South East and South West Trains compared to the unified Southern network or a unified Overground in south London allowing plans to build new links etc as discussed elsewhere on this site makes these plans more difficult to deliver.

     One could even argue that with the exception of mainline terminals all local stations in Greater London should be transferred to the Mayor and TFL so they could have same opening hours, staffing etc as current Overground.

531. @ Melvyn – the argument has been lost for as long as Grayling is at the DfT and there is a Labour mayor. It’s politics and nothing else. Mr G is in “do something” mode as a relatively new DfT SoS and we need only look at prisons and the justice system to see what happens when he “does something”. He was never going to hand a likely easy short term success to Mayor Khan which would be in complete contrast to other franchises. The whole thing is a wretched mess and an awful lot of effort and goodwill is likely to be lost as a result of all of this. I can’t see SWT and Southern being devolved either for as long as Mr G is SoS. The same basic political considerations will apply this side of 2020. I rather feel that if Mr McLoughlin was still resident at Horseferry Rd the whole thing would have ticked through with barely a murmur. He struck me more as a pragmatist rather than an ideologue.

532. @WW: The editorial in The Guardian is particularly withering.

     You would have thought that given the mess on his doorstep (Southern from Epsom & Ewell), he might be a bit less dogmatic. But then given his large majority he might not be too fussed.

533. @WW
     How long is the typical term of office for a DfT SoS these days?

534. WW & SHLR
     Given Grayling’s record at the Home Office (etc), how long before he’s moved on, & a new minister has to clean up the mess ???

     [ P.S. Recommended – compare & contrast – as they say – the Wiki entries for Grayling & Ridley ]

535. Re SH (LR),

     Except he uses SWT into Waterloo so doesn’t face those issues personally!

     Many of the southern trains through his constituency (Dorking- Horsham and – Guildford) have needed guards to join them for the last few stops only which has lead to frequent cancellations over the years hence the local expectation that DOO will improve service reliability.

536. @ngh: I know several people who live there, they all use SWT in preference over Southern. For two reasons:

     1. Speed
     2. Reliability

     All of them would also like Oyster to be available on the trains as they can already use it on the buses outside…

537. @SH(LR)
     Notwithstanding his comments in the Standard yesterday about having to queue to buy paper tickets, six of the eight stations in Grayling’s constituency already have contactless payment and indeed Oyster. The easiest way of getting it added to the other two would have been to have TfL take over the services.

538. Who needs Wikileaks?

     In today’s Standard

539. @ SHLR 1105 – rather proves my point doesn’t it? He won’t change his mind though no matter what pressure comes with the possible exception of Mrs May’s handbag. I suspect she’s a bit preoccupied with other matters though. I see Mr Barwell, appearing in front of the Assembly on housing matters, is having a “difficult” morning though given the stated link between better rail services and new housing development.

540. WW: Given Mr Barwell, the right honourable member for Croydon Central, has a majority of a mere 165, he can’t be too happy with Mr Grayling’s decision…

541. Now if TOCs in areas where there has been TfL devolution on rail services “might” have gone to DfT showing how TfL devolved rail services “might” have impacted their services and performance on a like for like basis then that may have stopped DfT in it tracks on devolution as the SoS now has evidence for what he was worried about 3 years ago in that letter…
     (though it doesn’t matter who the mayor is as that doesn’t change anything operationally in this case)

542. @ Ngh – so you’re suggesting that GTR and Greater Anglia have been “telling tales out of school” in some sort of fit of pique? That’s a bit pathetic isn’t it when TfL could do precisely the reverse in respect of those self same operators screwing up their services? Is it not the case that TfL and its contracted operators have acted proactively to try to get NR to improve asset resilience as well as changing their timetables to reduce their exposure to the cock ups caused by others? Perhaps I was imagining that? 😉

543. Not to mention those defective trains they were given on handover….

     So far, this announcement hasn’t gone down very well with certain colleagues of Mr. Grayling, namely in Eltham and Chislehurst. Both are within London, but I would expect there to be some noise from across the border soon from areas such as Dartford and Sevenoaks…

544. Re WW,

     Indeed but TfL /operators have been unhelpful in other ways especially as the comparative delays can be very asymmetric… TfL /operators may not be aware all the issues being causes.

545. Grayling has been in post at the DfT for a week short of five months. Even by the revolving door traditions of that post, this could turn out to be the shortest tenure since Tom King’s promotion, after just over four months, to Employment in 1983, (in the reshuffle following Cecil Parkinson’s resignation).

     The average tenure since the post was first created in 1919 has been less than two years.

546. Southern Heights,

     The fact that Mr Barwell has a majority of only 165 will be completely irrelevant if his constituency goes as a result of boundary changes – as is currently planned.

547. Well it seems he has the full confidence of the Prime Minister ! ( Seem to have heard that one before ….) .

     It seems his letter and decision may have legal consequences given it seems to be a political decision against in this case a London Mayor based on that Mayors party ( So if Goldsmith had won services would have been transferred ?) especially as agreement to transfer South Eastern services had already been announced under Boris by Patrick McGlocklin.
     With further services to follow as Franchises were relet .

548. Melvyn: What sort of “legal consequences” do you forsee? Politicians are legally permitted to reverse actions of their predecessors – it happens quite a lot, and an “announcement” does not usually bind anyone to anything.

549. Melvyn: Judging by past experience, that would normally mean that he’ll be gone as soon as the P.M. has recovered from jet lag?

     I think the big question is this: Will it be seen as “controversial” or “courageous”? 😉

550. @Melvyn
     I don’t think Goldsmith being mayor would have changed Grayling’s opinion. He was against rail devolution when Johnson was still mayor, because he foresaw the possibility of a Labour mayor at some time in the future.

     Of course, he might have had a different view if Milliband had won in 2015 and Goldsmith in 2016.

551. @ Malcolm – I suspect Melvyn is referring to what Bob Neill, MP for Bromley said on BBC London News. His basic point was that it appeared that Mr G had taken a decision for purely (personal) political reasons and not on a wider basis that considered the needs of passengers. Mr Neill is normally very much a “team player” for the Tory side so his really quite strident (for him) remarks are a surprise and indicative of how annoyed he is. You really have to be failing really pretty spectacularly to get someone like Mr Neill, in the same party, to react in the way he had.

     I don’t expect Mr G will be going anywhere anytime soon. Mrs May has far bigger issues to deal with unfortunately and a rail issue is London is utterly insignificant if only 1 Tory MP is cross about it. It would have to start escalating far more than it has to start causing issues and I actually don’t think Mr G really cares one way or the other. There is also the issue of “be careful what you wish for” – we could end up with someone far, far worse at the DfT. There are plenty of possible candidates for that “crown”.

     [Let’s not allow that last sentence to trigger general objections to particular politicians. However deeply felt, that is not what this site is for. Malcolm]

552. @Timbeau @Melvyn: well, decisions by Ministers are open to “judicial review”, if irrelevant matters are taken into consideration.

     Gosh, this comments box is laggy!

553. The question may be just when Mr Grayling (I understand his parliamentary nickname is ‘failing’) will go.

     [Rest of comment too political. Short and pithy first sentence allowed to stay due to being slightly amusing. PoP]

554. quinlet
     [deleted]
     

     [And this is what happens if we don’t delete comments quickly enough. Comment on Quinlet’s original deleted. PoP]

555. PoP
     Next topic – the ouzlem bird!

556. @SHLR – Dartford’s MP won’t be speaking out against this, he’s never supported TfL taking over the services. Both Croydon and Bexleyheath and Crayford are behind Grayling too, so the whips’ office has done its job successfully leaving Bob Neill as a lone voice. And Brokenshire is schtum too.

     Still, I got to rant about it on BBC Radio Kent this morning 🙂

557. Do TfL run services in Brokenshire?

558. Graham H

     They don’t run services in Northern Ireland either (JB’s new home after a valiant 6 years at the Home Office).

     And Greg – Mr Grayling was never at the Home Office, he did time at the Ministry Of Justice: some of those responsibilities were once Home Office ones, but not in the Transport Secretary’s time in Ministerial office.

559. @Anonymous of Croydon – let me introduce you to the concept of the irony filter.

560. @ WW that is indeed what I was referring to .

     As for this decision on South Eastern trains well in the short term TFL is presently engaged in the upgrade of the West Anglia network together with turning Crossrail into the Elizabeth Line .

     Ah the Elizabeth Line which TFL have only received the Shenfield service so far so I take it they will still get the GWR part of the project which will see services going as far as Reading in Berkshire after passing through and serving Mrs May Maidenhead constituency!

     TFL will still be making an incursion into Southeastern territory when services to Abbey Wood begin giving commuters in that area sight of the type of brand new trains they could have had TFL taken over their services given the West Anglia Overground network will be getting sister units to those on Elizabeth Line .

     Of course the fact this decision appears to be political does raise questions over other schemes not just in London and even raises questions as to whether people like Mike Carne and Sir Peter Hendy might loose confidence in Grayling decisions when similar projects linked to Local Government arise ?

561. @ Melvyn – I think we can say that Crossrail’s extent and the associated service migration / transition is safe. To start unravelling that now would probably need parliamentary time given a lot of what is happening is government by legislation and associated agreements. Mr G has a fair number of rights / obligations as SoS but it would be suicidal for him to start interferring with Crossrail at such a late stage. Faffing around with project scope, funding and delivery now is to invite a disaster after 6-7 years of good progress during the construction phase.

     I am more interested to see what his attitude will be to signing off the Barking Riverside extension powers – assuming the planning inspector says the extension should proceed. I doubt Mr G is quite so churlish to wreck the delivery of the associated new housing but one can never be certain.

562. Popping back to the C2 being cut back to Oxford Circus (effectively) this is just taking it back to where it went when the route was first introduced as a replacement for the northern half of the 53. It never really made sense to me why it was extended to Victoria as that was clearly going to introduce additional difficulties in maintaining service intervals, so as an occasional user of the service (I live near its northern terminus) I hope it will improve things.

563. @ AlisonW

     The C2 was extended to Victoria to replace the withdrawn part of route 8 between Oxford Circus and Victoria.

564. @ Alison W – the more likely consequence of changing the C2’s terminal is that it will become much less attractive to the current operator, Abellio, to run it. They run the route from a garage at Battersea so within a short distance of Victoria. Given the garage location it means any need to get drivers back for breaks / changeovers results in buses being turned short of the northern terminal. Route management techniques can change hugely if garage locations change – route 24 is the classic as it’s moved operators every 5-10 years with a move between northern and southern garages. When the C2 comes up for retender (March 2019) I’d not be surprised if Metroline regain the route meaning more of a bias to buses running to the north end for reliefs / breaks (assuming it runs from Holloway garage).

     You may have your doubts about it running to Victoria but the latest proposals from TfL remove a very considerable number of buses from Victoria. I understand why – the Victoria Line – but the more I read of the TfL Business Plan it’s pretty clear to me that there is a not very subtle move in the bus changes to force people on to the Tube and Crossrail because the revenue yield is so much higher and profitable. Given the massive sums that have to be screwed out of the tube and Crossrail to make the new business plan even remotely viable with a fares freeze it’s no wonder there is such a push towards forcing people on to rail.

     In the brave new world of Mr Khan’s TfL we are in the moderately ridiculous situation that subsidy on the bus network will be vastly higher than under Boris’s last business plan with vastly less service volume being operated and far fewer passengers being carried and earning much less revenue. That strikes me as the worst of all possible outcomes and at least confirms my own personal bias, if no one else’s, that the fares freeze is going to be vastly damaging. I know people hate fares going up but London’s bus fares are ridiculously cheap compared to anywhere else in the UK once you get above the “short hop” length of journey of 2-4 stops.

565. @WW: vastly less service volume being operated

     Do you have a source for that? The business plan shows bus service km static at just under 500 million for each future year.

566. @Melvyn

     South Eastern commuters can see TfL operated Overground trains already, at New Cross. Indeed, the 378s are technically very similar to their own 376s.

567. @ Ian J – in comparison to the plans in the 2014/15 business plan the entire programme of planned bus network expansion – remember the “500 extra buses” headlines in late 2014 – has been scrapped. I agree the new plan shows a flat volume but I’m a horrible person who tracks variances between plans. So much for making “flabby” TfL “efficient – it’s a massive cut and takes us back to the discredited and hopeless bus policies of Boris Johnson. There was no “protection” of the planned improvements – they’ve been killed and we have the prospect of a vastly reduced and less effective bus network in the centre. Heaven help the Mayor if there is ever a tube strike after all these cuts go through as the buses won’t be there to take up the excess demand.

     The stark issue we have now is that the subsidy forecast buys us vastly less service volume than previously. To be honest that’s not sustainable – someone at some point is going to cry foul.

568. WW
     But that cannot possibly be … after all the current Mayor is always going on about how his dad was a bus driver, so surely all will be well in this rosy future?
     *cough*

569. @ Greg – I am not surprised that things have turned out as they have budget wise. I am, though, very disappointed at the lack of even a small level of expansion. The Mayor very carefully avoided making any material promises about expanding the tube or the bus network. He knew he would inherit some LU projects which he could nothing about (Battersea ext, Met ext etc) but there’s little commitment beyond that. I remain sceptical about the Bakerloo ever being extended despite recent restatements on that. It doesn’t cost too much to keep having consultations.

     The big tests are what actually happens to increase capacity on the Jubilee and Northern Lines (see past articles on here) and when / if Picc Line modernisation starts and what the scope is. These will be the big ticket items on the tube during the Mayor’s tenure and the Picc Line modernisation is a crucial step for the future as what happens here sets the “tone” in a whole number of ways for subsequent modernisations.

570. @WW – And here’s a news report from Friday explaining how £100m of ring-fenced funding for the Sutton Tramlink extension has been ‘moved’ to a central fund:

     http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/100million-tram-link-between-croydon-and-sutton-in-doubt-as-mayor-of-london-shelves-funding/story-29969181-detail/story.html

571. it’s a massive cut and takes us back to the discredited and hopeless bus policies of Boris Johnson

     That would be the Boris Johnson who promised the extra 20 million km or so in question (to be delivered after the end of his Mayoralty)? Whether not implementing an increase promised by others constitutes a ‘cut’ is one of those ineffable questions. As with Sutton Tramlink, it was easy for the previous Mayor to make promises he knew he wouldn’t be around to keep, funded by future fare increases that were higher than those he delivered during his own term in office.

     a vastly reduced and less effective bus network in the centre

     But if the total volume is constant, the corollary must be an expanded and more effective bus network in the outer suburbs (where there aren’t so many Tube and Crossrail alternatives).

572. The Business Plan for buses bears further scrutiny, as unless I have a faulty calculator, it suggests the following scenario, the elements of which do not appear to be consistent.

     1. A fares freeze
     2. No significant change in bus miles
     3. 10% increase in bus passenger numbers
     4. 15% increase in bus costs
     5. 20% increase in bus revenue

     In particular, 1×3 does not equal 5. This may cause hair loss in the Walthamstow area.

573. Man of Kent: It would be necessary, for a proper analysis, to throw in a few more issues. To start the list:

     6. Introduction of the Hopper fare.

     The simple answer to the multilemma is probably as follows: “There is no simple answer”.

574. Re Man of Kent and Malcolm,

     1. Fare Freeze but not travelcards/ oyster cap… So a couple of % a year compounded over the business plane period and it starts to not look completely impossible.

     Agree with Malcolm that there is no simple answer especially when you look at transferring some bus users to crossrail especially if slow moving buses in Z1 are being reduced.
     The picture on revenue /cost on per route basis will be very interesting.

     The economics of delivering more passengers by to stations that will be on Crossrail in 2018/19 will very much depend on the frame of reference.

575. There is the problem that never mind Z1 … getting a bus, almost anywhere is becoming a futile exercise … said he from Walthamstow in Z3 ….
     The traffic snarl-ups, even here [SNIP] make taking a bus a dubious option for transport – something Khan appears to be ignoring or not even addressing, unless, I’ve missed something.

576. That’s a massive exaggeration Greg – busses down here in deepest south London are basically OK, maybe because we have no tubes to get in the way…

577. @ Ian J – I think Boris was persuaded by Sir Peter Hendy that he couldn’t carry on with the old policy given at that time bus patronage was still rising and there were demonstrable problems in some areas. Some of those issues have been fixed by increasing frequencies and converting routes to double decks. The increased budget in the last year has paid for those changes while little has happened in Z1 recently. I accept we have had a dire two years patronage wise on many routes – directly the result of other Mayoral policies that caused a wholly “political deadline” driven programme of road works across London that caused utter chaos. I take your point about “promises you won’t deliver” but I am comparing what is in the public domain as to what was intended. Even with my massive levels of cynicism I can’t see how you can make a comparison unless you assume a level of trust in what was published. If we can’t do that then we might as well just give up and not publish or monitor anything.

     @ Greg – as critical as I am I would not say all buses in London are in a complete mess. The facts say otherwise given millions of people do manage to get around by bus every day.

578. @ Man of Kent – I agree those four parameters look odd. My view of it is as follows and I accept there’s a lot of guesswork.

     1. Ongoing revenue increases – some comes from Travelcard revenues not being frozen. Some also comes from assumed patronage increases. Nonetheless the numbers are fairly modest and way down on what’s been assumed in previous plans.

     2. I assume the patronage increases are deemed to come from

     a) better Outer London services as resources are transferred from Zone 1.
     b) better assumed reliability from more bus priority (although detail on the funding for this is vague in the latest plan).
     c) the impact of the Hopper ticket revisions in 2018 offering unlimited rides in 1 hour plus a free ride after a preceding bus/rail journey if done within an hour.
     d) a patronage increase on routes feeding into Crossrail.

     3. I think costs are inflated because of the huge costs of a “cleaner fleet” are reflected in the assumed bus contract prices which is the biggest element of opex for TfL. There is a lot of fleet replacement and engine conversion work to be done within the next few years. There will also be assumptions around inflation on tender costs plus the net cost of any improvements within the assumed kilometrage cap. The cost base will also change as more electric vehicles enter service and there must be some risk around that in the numbers. Operators are used to hedging fuel costs for years in advance but bulk buying electricity will involve some level of learning curve for them and TfL (although LU obviously has a lot of expertise here ).

     What is clear from the numbers is that subsidy increases considerably because of the cost and revenue pressures. Even though I can see what some of the influences will be on the bus network I agree with your basic conclusion that there is not enough info to make sense of all of the numbers and the changes in them over time.

579. @WW: better assumed reliability from more bus priority (although detail on the funding for this is vague in the latest plan).

     Could this be the ulterior motive for moving the 100 million from Sutton Tramlink to a more general local connectivity fund?

     bulk buying electricity will involve some level of learning curve for them and TfL (although LU obviously has a lot of expertise here ).

     Interestingly TfL is expanding it power generation business.

     Arguably it would make more sense for TfL to take/hedge the price risk on electricity, by purchasing/generating it as an add-on to their existing enormous electricity consumption, and supplying it to the operators as part of the contract, rather than pay the operators to take on that risk. Future battery life and performance is another big financial risk, given the problems with the New Routemaster batteries.

580. @Ian J – Interesting re proposed expansion of TfL’s power generating capability at Greenwich. From this short extract from the documents:

     “This Permit Variation is for the additional operation of up to six CHP ready spark-ignited lean-burn gas engines burning natural gas (only), running up to 24 hours a day, 365 days per year (8760 hours), in combination with the operation of the existing seven open cycle gas turbines (OCGTs), running for up to 500 hours per LCP/per year.”

     it appears that TfL may be reverting to the previous wisdom of its predecessor in having its own power supply for the traction supply in tunnel sections at least of the tube, which it indeed had until Lots Road generating station was decommissioned, rather than rely on the National Grid or any other London supply, the latter replacing the Lots Road facility.

     When Lots Road was running, Greenwich was used as the back-up and hence the comparatively small number of hours it operates even today, whilst of course historically Greenwich supplied the LCC tramways and the trolleybuses that replaced them.

581. @Graham F: The other interesting aspect is the comeback Combined Heating and Power (CHP) is making – using the waste heat to provide hot water and heating to local housing – like Battersea Power Station was but I think unlike Lot’s Road (ironically this page suggests one of the problems with Lot’s Road was the ecological effect of the warmer waste water it discharged into the Thames). Obviously CHP only works if the power station is located in a fairly densely populated area and a network is constructed to distribute heat.

582. Re Ian J and Graham F,

     The largest Gas Engine CHP maxes out at about 3MWe and 4.8MWth per engine so the contribution of the 6 proposed gas engines is small compared to the capacity of GTs (at Greenwich).

     The waste heat from the gas engines is very low grade unlike (CC)GTs so the heat users need to be very very close.

     Gas Engines are also incredibly cheap to buy and maintain…

Comments are closed.