This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/davehillblog/2012/mar/05/london-mayor-public-transport-policy
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| London mayor: your ideas for public transport policy | London mayor: your ideas for public transport policy |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The powers of London mayors are limited and often vague, but in public transport they are large and clear. Transport for London (TfL), the organisation that plans and runs most of the capital's transport system, is there to implement mayoral policies. It also has responsibilities for road management, cycling and pedestrians – issues I'll address in separate articles next week – but the capital's underground, overground, bus, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and tram services are absolutely core concerns. | The powers of London mayors are limited and often vague, but in public transport they are large and clear. Transport for London (TfL), the organisation that plans and runs most of the capital's transport system, is there to implement mayoral policies. It also has responsibilities for road management, cycling and pedestrians – issues I'll address in separate articles next week – but the capital's underground, overground, bus, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and tram services are absolutely core concerns. |
| Transport also provides the mayor with a measure of financial autonomy. TfL's roughly £8bn annual budget comes mostly from £3.3bn in government grants and other sources, from congestion charging to property sales and borrowing, but around £3.5bn comes from fares, whose level the mayor sets. Labour's Ken Livingstone is promising to reduce these by 7% by 7 October or resign, and raise them by no more the rate of inflation from 2014 if elected on 3 May. Tory incumbent Boris Johnson is committed to yearly increases of the inflation rate plus 2% and claims that Livingstone's proposals would damage TfL's investment programme. Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick is proposing selected fare reductions in the form of "early bird" morning rates and a one-hour bus pass aimed at helping some of London's low-paid workers. | Transport also provides the mayor with a measure of financial autonomy. TfL's roughly £8bn annual budget comes mostly from £3.3bn in government grants and other sources, from congestion charging to property sales and borrowing, but around £3.5bn comes from fares, whose level the mayor sets. Labour's Ken Livingstone is promising to reduce these by 7% by 7 October or resign, and raise them by no more the rate of inflation from 2014 if elected on 3 May. Tory incumbent Boris Johnson is committed to yearly increases of the inflation rate plus 2% and claims that Livingstone's proposals would damage TfL's investment programme. Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick is proposing selected fare reductions in the form of "early bird" morning rates and a one-hour bus pass aimed at helping some of London's low-paid workers. |
| Most passengers want fares to be as low as possible, of course – and London's fares are the highest of any big city in the world – but the Model Mayor would also need a solid plan for the future of London's public transport infrastructure and how it's going to be paid for. | Most passengers want fares to be as low as possible, of course – and London's fares are the highest of any big city in the world – but the Model Mayor would also need a solid plan for the future of London's public transport infrastructure and how it's going to be paid for. |
| Completing the underground upgrade programme is a given, and the trans-London Crossrail line is on its way. How strong, though, is the case for Crossrail Two? What about High Speed Two? Should other, smaller, projects mothballed by the current mayor, such as the DLR extension to Dagenham Dock or the Cross River Tram be revived? Should there be more trams? How persuasive are alternative forms and sources of investment, such as those TfL has been exploring for a Northern line extension to Nine Elms? Green party candidate Jenny Jones says £1bn a year could be raised for public transport from a London-wide pay-as-you-go road-pricing scheme (a policy we'll concentrate on later this week). What principles should guide future investment in bus and rail services? | Completing the underground upgrade programme is a given, and the trans-London Crossrail line is on its way. How strong, though, is the case for Crossrail Two? What about High Speed Two? Should other, smaller, projects mothballed by the current mayor, such as the DLR extension to Dagenham Dock or the Cross River Tram be revived? Should there be more trams? How persuasive are alternative forms and sources of investment, such as those TfL has been exploring for a Northern line extension to Nine Elms? Green party candidate Jenny Jones says £1bn a year could be raised for public transport from a London-wide pay-as-you-go road-pricing scheme (a policy we'll concentrate on later this week). What principles should guide future investment in bus and rail services? |
| The Model Mayor would also need solid human resources strategies. Behind the rows over London Underground ticket office opening hours lurks a political consensus that staff are best deployed outside them. Are you part of it? Are industrial relations improved by bringing the unions on to the TfL board or by keeping them at arms length? Should the mayor be directly involved with pay and conditions negotiations? | The Model Mayor would also need solid human resources strategies. Behind the rows over London Underground ticket office opening hours lurks a political consensus that staff are best deployed outside them. Are you part of it? Are industrial relations improved by bringing the unions on to the TfL board or by keeping them at arms length? Should the mayor be directly involved with pay and conditions negotiations? |
| I'll end by mentioning a couple of other public transport topics doing the rounds. Both Livingstone and Johnson have proposed that the mayor takes control of National Rail services within London. Would it be worth the trouble? How can the Oyster card system be improved on? Should it be completely replaced? It's been argued that the current zoning of the public transport system should be changed. And here's a final thought: many young Londoners enjoy free bus travel at the moment. Might charging them a token fare encourage them to appreciate the service more? | I'll end by mentioning a couple of other public transport topics doing the rounds. Both Livingstone and Johnson have proposed that the mayor takes control of National Rail services within London. Would it be worth the trouble? How can the Oyster card system be improved on? Should it be completely replaced? It's been argued that the current zoning of the public transport system should be changed. And here's a final thought: many young Londoners enjoy free bus travel at the moment. Might charging them a token fare encourage them to appreciate the service more? |
| I'll be responding to your thoughtful comments until around noon. The best will be appended to the main article later today. | I'll be responding to your thoughtful comments until around noon. The best will be appended to the main article later today. |
| • Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree | • Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree |
| Whitesteps suggests: | Whitesteps suggests: |
| I think we need an independent evaluation of the value for money offered by the Tube upgrade program - despite constant reassurances that the program is proceeding well, and constantly rising fares to pay for it, I just can't see any evidence of it leading to any significant improvements. I take the Victoria line - the introduction of the new train stock offers minimal (if any) additional capacity, but continues to cause delays as the doors are far more sensitive to disruption that the old stock. | I think we need an independent evaluation of the value for money offered by the Tube upgrade program - despite constant reassurances that the program is proceeding well, and constantly rising fares to pay for it, I just can't see any evidence of it leading to any significant improvements. I take the Victoria line - the introduction of the new train stock offers minimal (if any) additional capacity, but continues to cause delays as the doors are far more sensitive to disruption that the old stock. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| Good morning! An independent evaluation of the upgrade programme's cost-effectiveness would be interesting. Who do you think could and should conduct it? If the evaluation concluded that it wasn't worth the money, what would the Model Mayor do next? | Good morning! An independent evaluation of the upgrade programme's cost-effectiveness would be interesting. Who do you think could and should conduct it? If the evaluation concluded that it wasn't worth the money, what would the Model Mayor do next? |
| newenergyspace suggests: | newenergyspace suggests: |
| The main problem with transport in London is capacity, they have to keep it expensive to stop everyone using it. What is needed is an expansion of the number of Tube trains and buses to accommodate a decrease in ticket prices across each. | The main problem with transport in London is capacity, they have to keep it expensive to stop everyone using it. What is needed is an expansion of the number of Tube trains and buses to accommodate a decrease in ticket prices across each. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| Thanks. Increasing Tube capacity has, of course, been the point of the upgrade programme. Do you enviage adding still more to Tube capacity, and if so can you explain how - and how you think it could best be paid for? Do you think Ken Livingstone's reducing all public transport fares would help or hinder? | Thanks. Increasing Tube capacity has, of course, been the point of the upgrade programme. Do you enviage adding still more to Tube capacity, and if so can you explain how - and how you think it could best be paid for? Do you think Ken Livingstone's reducing all public transport fares would help or hinder? |
| Hooloovoo suggests: | Hooloovoo suggests: |
| Much greater control over the unions please. Bring in driverless trains, like the DLR. Something like 47 tube strikes we've had in 4 years and we're absolutely sick of it. | Much greater control over the unions please. Bring in driverless trains, like the DLR. Something like 47 tube strikes we've had in 4 years and we're absolutely sick of it. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| Tube industrial relations are not good, but what's the best way to improve them? There have been far more Tube strikes under Boris than there were under Ken. There a number of possible reasons for that, including luck. A while back the LSE's Tony Travers told the Evening Standard that Ken had "spooked" them. He knows his way around the backwaters of the left. Could be an advantage. | Tube industrial relations are not good, but what's the best way to improve them? There have been far more Tube strikes under Boris than there were under Ken. There a number of possible reasons for that, including luck. A while back the LSE's Tony Travers told the Evening Standard that Ken had "spooked" them. He knows his way around the backwaters of the left. Could be an advantage. |
| antgunvoy suggests: | antgunvoy suggests: |
| BJ's early decision to wipe out the proposed Peckham to Camden tram link was a real shame. This would be a great opportunity to regenerate rundown and relatively central areas such as Peckham and Walworth and should be looked at again. The politicians have to start thinking long-term if we're to see a fairer, more mobile city. Something has to be done about the disgusting and selfish behaviour which civilised Londoners have to bear, particularly on the buses - streams of fluid, mounds of litter, dirty tissues and chicken bones (yes, really!) left on seats, on-board spitting (yes, truly!) ridiculous noise levels from phones and phone conversations. Would limiting the amount of free travel for young people help here? I'm not sure. They're not the only group guilty of making such a mess and such a racket. I've never witnessed such filthy behaviour in any other major, developed city. Conductors - bring em back. Transport police - make yourselves visible. One thing is for sure, the whole system needs absolutely massive investment. I can't see how fares can be lowered in view of the state of this shameful, creaking, overcrowded network. | BJ's early decision to wipe out the proposed Peckham to Camden tram link was a real shame. This would be a great opportunity to regenerate rundown and relatively central areas such as Peckham and Walworth and should be looked at again. The politicians have to start thinking long-term if we're to see a fairer, more mobile city. Something has to be done about the disgusting and selfish behaviour which civilised Londoners have to bear, particularly on the buses - streams of fluid, mounds of litter, dirty tissues and chicken bones (yes, really!) left on seats, on-board spitting (yes, truly!) ridiculous noise levels from phones and phone conversations. Would limiting the amount of free travel for young people help here? I'm not sure. They're not the only group guilty of making such a mess and such a racket. I've never witnessed such filthy behaviour in any other major, developed city. Conductors - bring em back. Transport police - make yourselves visible. One thing is for sure, the whole system needs absolutely massive investment. I can't see how fares can be lowered in view of the state of this shameful, creaking, overcrowded network. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| You mention bringing back conductors, or their modern day equivalent. I'm sure most Londoners would love that especially if it improved civility. But they're expensive... | You mention bringing back conductors, or their modern day equivalent. I'm sure most Londoners would love that especially if it improved civility. But they're expensive... |
| osbournecox suggests: | osbournecox suggests: |
| Suspend free travel for the elderly and children between 7:30am - 9:30am and 4:30pm - 6:30pm. Introduce a token fare instead. This would discourage unnecessary journeys at these peak commuting times but keep necessary journeys affordable. | Suspend free travel for the elderly and children between 7:30am - 9:30am and 4:30pm - 6:30pm. Introduce a token fare instead. This would discourage unnecessary journeys at these peak commuting times but keep necessary journeys affordable. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| Where the elderly are concerned, that would reduce the power of the Freedom Pass. Political suicide? | Where the elderly are concerned, that would reduce the power of the Freedom Pass. Political suicide? |
| newenergyspace suggests: | newenergyspace suggests: |
| It seems to me that in terms of public transport, the best policy to adopt is one of charging many many people less than charging a few more to use a smaller system. | It seems to me that in terms of public transport, the best policy to adopt is one of charging many many people less than charging a few more to use a smaller system. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| That's very much my instinct too, which is why I think the principle behind Ken's Fare Deal pledge is sound, even though it's also nakedly populist. But more people using public transport means a demand for more capacity. That's fine by me too, but providing it costs money at a time when government funding seems more likely to go down than up. Would total fares income increase under lower fares and by enough to pay for more capacity? My abacus already has a headache. | That's very much my instinct too, which is why I think the principle behind Ken's Fare Deal pledge is sound, even though it's also nakedly populist. But more people using public transport means a demand for more capacity. That's fine by me too, but providing it costs money at a time when government funding seems more likely to go down than up. Would total fares income increase under lower fares and by enough to pay for more capacity? My abacus already has a headache. |
| Monty2001 suggests: | Monty2001 suggests: |
| Some thoughts: Increase congestion charge further into West London. Paddocks idea's about one hour bus passes are good. Promote flexible working hours to ease rush hour(s). A real time measure of how busy different routes are (rather than just notices of delays), available to view, would be helpful in chosing with route to a given destination. A bit like a public transport version of road cogestion updates. Free transport for people with baby buggies so long as they travel out of peak hours. A fast route from zone 3/4 into zone 1 for all those people currently using the northern line in south London. I'd like to see extentions to the London overground or something like Chicago's 'L' to offer an alternative in area's that get far too busy (most London terminals at 6pm). Automate the tube and/or remove the 'right' to strike for London unerground workers (with conditions). | Some thoughts: Increase congestion charge further into West London. Paddocks idea's about one hour bus passes are good. Promote flexible working hours to ease rush hour(s). A real time measure of how busy different routes are (rather than just notices of delays), available to view, would be helpful in chosing with route to a given destination. A bit like a public transport version of road cogestion updates. Free transport for people with baby buggies so long as they travel out of peak hours. A fast route from zone 3/4 into zone 1 for all those people currently using the northern line in south London. I'd like to see extentions to the London overground or something like Chicago's 'L' to offer an alternative in area's that get far too busy (most London terminals at 6pm). Automate the tube and/or remove the 'right' to strike for London unerground workers (with conditions). |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| Thanks for these thoughts. I think congestion charging is part of an ideal solution, and we'll be looking at that in detail on Thursday. I wonder if your flexible working hours idea will get a shove forward from people trying it out during the Olympics? Am I alone in knowing little about Chicago's "L" ("El" - short for elevated, i gather)? Further reading here. | Thanks for these thoughts. I think congestion charging is part of an ideal solution, and we'll be looking at that in detail on Thursday. I wonder if your flexible working hours idea will get a shove forward from people trying it out during the Olympics? Am I alone in knowing little about Chicago's "L" ("El" - short for elevated, i gather)? Further reading here. |
| LibDemCurmudgeon suggests: | LibDemCurmudgeon suggests: |
| Perhaps this - set up incentives and some seed money for London to establish a city-wide broadband network to rival the speeds experienced in South Korea (they are working on 1 Gbps lines). Then offer incentives to companies that allow their employees to work from home. This should then knock out at least a segment of workers who travel in the mornings and evenings, thus reducing the strain on the system. | Perhaps this - set up incentives and some seed money for London to establish a city-wide broadband network to rival the speeds experienced in South Korea (they are working on 1 Gbps lines). Then offer incentives to companies that allow their employees to work from home. This should then knock out at least a segment of workers who travel in the mornings and evenings, thus reducing the strain on the system. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| That tickles my fancy. How much would it cost? Home working strikes me as very sensible. I'm doing it at this very moment - while eating a lump of Christmas pudding, as it happens. | That tickles my fancy. How much would it cost? Home working strikes me as very sensible. I'm doing it at this very moment - while eating a lump of Christmas pudding, as it happens. |
| P0kerFace suggests: | P0kerFace suggests: |
| Key principle: Remove the need to commute long distances into central london. This can be done mainly through decentralisation. Connect up parts of the city that have few or slow public transport connections, meaning people choose not to live in them and businesses not to set up in them. Shorter journeys also encourages friendlier forms of transport such as walking/cycling. This can save the average person a lot of money too by opening up areas with lower rents and reducing transport costs. | Key principle: Remove the need to commute long distances into central london. This can be done mainly through decentralisation. Connect up parts of the city that have few or slow public transport connections, meaning people choose not to live in them and businesses not to set up in them. Shorter journeys also encourages friendlier forms of transport such as walking/cycling. This can save the average person a lot of money too by opening up areas with lower rents and reducing transport costs. |
| DaveHill responds: | DaveHill responds: |
| It's a good principle, I think. However, providing transport connections that aren't radial - linking the suburbs to the centre - does present challenges. Boris promised to trial orbital bus services. He did, but they didn't catch on. I'm sure you're thinking on a wider canvas than that, but perhaps it's a question of continuing to figure out what works. | It's a good principle, I think. However, providing transport connections that aren't radial - linking the suburbs to the centre - does present challenges. Boris promised to trial orbital bus services. He did, but they didn't catch on. I'm sure you're thinking on a wider canvas than that, but perhaps it's a question of continuing to figure out what works. |
| SimonLegg suggests: | |
| The problem with transport isn't transport, but the pattern of settlement, and, to his great credit, that's something that Ken was attempting to get to grips with. London is a suburban city with few dense concentrations of population. Londoners commute great distances, and, if their commutes don't run along the radial tube, bus and rail routes, they're choices are few. Town planners have, historically, applied a picturesque policy to suburban centres - it beggars belief that it took so long to develop high rises in places like Ilford and Croydon, and, even now, it's usual for high streets to be restricted to three or four storeys, whereas the average Italian high street in medium sized towns is six or eight. The key to making London a walking and cycling city is not to carve up the streets by putting in cycling lanes or wasting millions on signposts for pedestrians, but, rather, to encourage the redevelopment of our late nineteenth century and early twentieth century high streets, giving the businesses at ground floor a dogs chance of competing against the superstores and bringing dwellings closer to the main radial routes. We could, as a city, further redress the balance by taxing car park spaces (£2000 a year would be a decent start) because these generate congestion, firming up the bus lanes (why on earth are there no bus lanes down Streatham High Road) and taxing private cars on radial routes. | |
| DaveHill responds: | |
| Thank you in particular for these thoughts, among your others: | |
| London is a suburban city with few dense concentrations of population. Londoners commute great distances, and, if their commutes don't run along the radial tube, bus and rail routes, their choices are few... | |
| The key to making London a walking and cycling city is not to carve up the streets by putting in cycling lanes or wasting millions on signposts for pedestrians, but, rather, to encourage the redevelopment of our late nineteenth century and early twentieth century high streets, giving the businesses at ground floor a dogs chance of competing against the superstores. | |
| Is your thinking in line with Edward Glaeser's? | |
| Up not out. He is an advocate of building "up" (the elevator) rather than building "out" (the car). Building up often involves tearing down what already exists (our heritage) and rebuilding in a new character (taller) that fits new demands for more concentrated and productive living. Suburban living, he points out, is surrounded by greenery, but is not "green." The suburbanite is tethered to a car to get anywhere, and separated (as opposed to stacked) living units cost more to heat and cool. Preservation should be focused and limited. In this same vein, he argues that preservation should be limited and focused rather than widespread and indiscriminate. He says preservation restrictions should target only the most significant or beautiful structures, but not every old structure. Cities must be allowed to remake themselves if they are to remain productive and affordable. | |
| thereverent suggests: | |
| Rather than fiddle around with congestion charges for different types of vehicles. How about reducing on-street parking in central London? If you can't park there you aren't going to drive. There are still plenty of people who will drive into central at the moment and getting them on other forms of transport would greatly reduce congestion. It would also make the streets more pleasant for pedestrains and cyclists. The Evening Standard would hate it, of course. Westminster Council charging for single lane parking changes was a good idea, it's a shame it got shouted down. There were plenty of car park spaces available, but people wanted to park for free. | |
| DaveHill responds: | |
| Hello thereverent. Always good to hear from you. The Standard certainly would hate it and so would Nick Ferrari and so would the Westminster Council Labour group. The furore over Colin Barrow's proposals was quite amazing I thought, and serves as a warning to all those who, like me, think London as a whole would benefit from using market mechanisms to reduce car use. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make the case for it, though. But how? |