TfL’s boss is right: good public transport is key to social inclusion
|
Version 0 of 1. Peter Hendy, head of Transport for London, is right to highlight the dangers of a divided London. However, in many respects it is the policies of his boss, Boris Johnson, that are responsible for the trouble he says is brewing. As I have toured the capital talking to local groups in my quest to obtain the Labour nomination for mayor, it has become clear that people are not interested in London’s status as a world city; rather, they are worried about their ability to survive in the capital. Rising fares are a key issue, which is why I have developed policies based on affordability, livability and sustainability – concepts that seem alien to Johnson but are essential to make life bearable for Londoners. Hendy, perhaps sensing that the wind is changing now that Johnson is seeking what the mayor sees as higher office, has used strong language to attract attention in demanding a better, affordable transport system. And, rightly, he has stressed that the failure to develop the right transport policies could lead to wider societal upheaval. However, this is not about transport alone. It is about a raft of policies that seem designed to exclude poorer people from the city centre, and indeed London as a whole. Some of these, such as the bedroom tax and other cuts to benefits, have been introduced by the coalition government but been greatly exacerbated by Johnson’s policies. First, in terms of housing, swaths of council blocks are being demolished to make way for luxury developments, as at Earls Court, a scheme approved by the mayor in 2013. Johnson has allowed several major developments through with just a tiny proportion of affordable housing (which for the most part is not affordable as they are allowed to charge up to 80% of market rent, out of range of anyone but those with an income two or three times the median of £26,500). For example, the two local councils that cover Mount Pleasant, the old Post Office building on the borders of Islington and Camden that is being converted into flats, wanted 50% affordable housing, while Johnson wants to push through a scheme that would allow just 12%. Second, transport policies have exacerbated the problem, especially for those in outer London. Not only have bus fares gone up by 60% during Johnson’s tenure – a policy that until now Hendy has supported – but bus users are penalised because tickets are not transferable. It is often the poorest, who may well not be able to afford trains or the tube, who are penalised because they may have to take two or three buses – at £1.45 each, capped at £4.40 daily – for journeys that begin in relatively remote parts of outer London. Hendy has so far backed these rises. Indeed, he recently warned the various potential candidates for the mayoralty not to campaign on the issue of keeping fares down since rises were essential to maintain the investment programme. However, large increases in fares have not only become unpalatable for poorer members of society, but also politically unacceptable. Johnson has already been forced into saying that fares would only go up at the rate of RPI in January, rather than the customary RPI+1%, by George Osborne, who announced the RPI formula for the national rail network. But even that means that only fare rises are capped not fares themselves, and given that wages are rising at a slower rate than inflation, most people are still facing real increases. Hendy’s attention-grabbing interview has put the spotlight on transport as a key policy in terms of social equity, a connection that is rarely made. However, TfL has pursued a “let’s have more of everything” policy in respect of trying to meet transport needs. Therefore, Johnson has talked of tunnels under London to relieve road congestion as well as new rail schemes. This is both fanciful and naive. Ultimately, those governing historic cities with their higgledy-piggedly road networks and inadequate public transport services have to recognise that providing for cars should not be part of a solution to 21st-century transport needs. Hendy and his colleagues must push for entirely public transport-based solutions, supported by a more sophisticated congestion charge scheme that would ensure it is affordable and efficient. Anything else is unrealistic. |