This blog has moved to a new location here:
http://northofthethames.wordpress.com
Please head on over there - all posts and comments have been migrated.
Read more on I have moved!
Friday Reads | 25 September 2026
1 day ago
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Must Try Harder - Oona's Transport Policies
Any candidate for London Mayor will not deserve to be elected without a coherent and comprehensive vision for London's transport system. The current Mayoralty's policies have been hijacked by special interests and lack ambition. So any alternative candidate will need a compelling plan to get London moving in the right direction again. Oona King's policies, whilst having some positive ideas, are too timid and derivative to set that direction.
If there is one area where the current Mayoralty's limitations are most obvious, it's transport. It is true that Boris has been seen at many a transport scheme opening, that he's managed to fit in alongside other important engagements. The trouble is these have mostly been started by his predecessor. When you look at what he's specifically done himself the cupboard is pretty bare. Many of the manifesto promises he's fulfilled (WEZ removal, bikes in bus lanes) provided payback to special interest groups that supported him during the election. His "cycling revolution" is certainly costing a great deal but whether the benefits are as large is unclear at this stage. Any incoming alternative to Boris in 2012 will need to get things back on track pretty quickly and with limited money. Its with this context that we should judge the ideas that Oona King has put forth in her transport proposals.
Dave Hill has a good piece on some of the specifics and there's now a PDF on Oona's site with more details. I want to pick up on a few items because I think they show both a timidity in its approach and a tendency to re-cycle superficially attractive, but ultimately flawed policies.
Congestion Charge confusion
It took Oona a while to come round to the view that re-instating the WEZ was a good idea. In the early part of her campaign she prevaricated and I'm not sure that's an approach likely to gain her much support in the Labour select-orate. Whilst the change to something more positive is very welcome, a commitment to use the income to lower bus fares displays an alarming naivety of the financial situation that TfL is in. True enough any and all additional income would be good and very welcome. She is right on the money when she says that the current cash being squandered on Boris's new Routemaster and bendy replacement are a scandal. But the latest leaked warning from Peter Hendy should have alarm bells ringing. The best that the £55M to £70M that the WEZ would likely bring in will do over the long term is reduce the level of increase required, not deliver a cut.
Of course she could have proposed an increase in the level of the congestion charge or increased its geographic scope. That potentially might have increased the funds available, but on this the document is silent. This might be because its unpopular with certain groups in the 'burbs she's assiduously courting. Whatever the reason its a missed opportunity.
A tube line along the river
Superficially, the river looks like a useful adjunct to the land based forms of travel we have and its not that much of a surprise that Oona has landed on it. Everyone likes the idea of tootling down the river as opposed to be on a cramped, hot train underground train. It was of course the subject of a report by that well-known right wing think-tank Policy Exchange. There were a number of the Mayor's contributing to the report, so it makes you wonder why we've not seen any great moves to implement any of the recommendations if they are so good.
This is an idea that has been kicked around for a long time. I can't do a better job of articulating why its flawed than the Political Animal has done in this comments underneath a puff piece for the report. Given the article itself written by Andrew Gilligan (one of the authors of the report) you might want to judge the main body in that context.
If I look at where the "Thames Tube" service really fails for me, its in two areas discussed. Firstly we would need to significantly increase the subsidy to allow for a viable service. In times of surplus this might be possible, under current pressures that means something else is going to be cut. In effect someone, somewhere is going to lose their bus service to allow another set of customers to take the boat. That's not a good trade off to me. Secondly you might make that trade-off if you could show that the areas that would be served by a boat service were undeserved. That's not the case along the river with many areas already well served by a combination of the Jubilee Line, DLR and National Rail. River transport can work and this is not to say that the current Thames Clipper service isn't valuable but if this is the major plank of your transport policy shows a skewed sense of priority.
School buses - not again surely?
Not a new idea and both the Lib Dems and Conservatives on the London Assembly have proposed this before I believe. Oona makes the claim that providing more buses will reduce congestion associated with the school run. I see no evidence for this.
For a start most schools are already served by existing bus routes (possibly with a short walk) - why do we need more? More importantly, the argument fails to address the fact that according to TfL's figures 80% of the pupils live within 2km of their school. For these children the options that parents should be being encouraged to consider are cycling and walking not additional buses on the road.
For the remaining 20%, will an additional bus make all the difference? I doubt it. Looking at the local primary here in NW10, the parents that choose to drive make every attempt to get as close to the school entrance as they can possibly manage. I sometime think they would be most comfortable if there was an airport style airbridge that could connect to their car door so that their kids would not need to touch the pavement before entering school property, causing traffic chaos in the process. Its inconceivable that this group of parents would be happy to deposit them on a bus miles away.
Its shame that the big ticket items are ill-thought through because on cycling she's probably closer to what needs to happen then Boris or even Ken. Encouraging commuting by cycling with better workplace facilities might have a real impact on participation and would likely be much more cost effective a measure than the current cycle hire scheme.
Overall the document is disappointing and I haven't even mentioned Oona's ill-advised foray into the area of the Freedom Pass. For something that the Mayor doesn't control or pay for, its seems illogical (and poor judgement) for her to have become embroiled in an argument as to whether it should be means-tested or not.
For someone so adamant about being 'new' and 'different' this transport policy represents a real missed opportunity.
Read more on Must Try Harder - Oona's Transport Policies
If there is one area where the current Mayoralty's limitations are most obvious, it's transport. It is true that Boris has been seen at many a transport scheme opening, that he's managed to fit in alongside other important engagements. The trouble is these have mostly been started by his predecessor. When you look at what he's specifically done himself the cupboard is pretty bare. Many of the manifesto promises he's fulfilled (WEZ removal, bikes in bus lanes) provided payback to special interest groups that supported him during the election. His "cycling revolution" is certainly costing a great deal but whether the benefits are as large is unclear at this stage. Any incoming alternative to Boris in 2012 will need to get things back on track pretty quickly and with limited money. Its with this context that we should judge the ideas that Oona King has put forth in her transport proposals.
Dave Hill has a good piece on some of the specifics and there's now a PDF on Oona's site with more details. I want to pick up on a few items because I think they show both a timidity in its approach and a tendency to re-cycle superficially attractive, but ultimately flawed policies.
Congestion Charge confusion
It took Oona a while to come round to the view that re-instating the WEZ was a good idea. In the early part of her campaign she prevaricated and I'm not sure that's an approach likely to gain her much support in the Labour select-orate. Whilst the change to something more positive is very welcome, a commitment to use the income to lower bus fares displays an alarming naivety of the financial situation that TfL is in. True enough any and all additional income would be good and very welcome. She is right on the money when she says that the current cash being squandered on Boris's new Routemaster and bendy replacement are a scandal. But the latest leaked warning from Peter Hendy should have alarm bells ringing. The best that the £55M to £70M that the WEZ would likely bring in will do over the long term is reduce the level of increase required, not deliver a cut.
Of course she could have proposed an increase in the level of the congestion charge or increased its geographic scope. That potentially might have increased the funds available, but on this the document is silent. This might be because its unpopular with certain groups in the 'burbs she's assiduously courting. Whatever the reason its a missed opportunity.
A tube line along the river
Superficially, the river looks like a useful adjunct to the land based forms of travel we have and its not that much of a surprise that Oona has landed on it. Everyone likes the idea of tootling down the river as opposed to be on a cramped, hot train underground train. It was of course the subject of a report by that well-known right wing think-tank Policy Exchange. There were a number of the Mayor's contributing to the report, so it makes you wonder why we've not seen any great moves to implement any of the recommendations if they are so good.
This is an idea that has been kicked around for a long time. I can't do a better job of articulating why its flawed than the Political Animal has done in this comments underneath a puff piece for the report. Given the article itself written by Andrew Gilligan (one of the authors of the report) you might want to judge the main body in that context.
If I look at where the "Thames Tube" service really fails for me, its in two areas discussed. Firstly we would need to significantly increase the subsidy to allow for a viable service. In times of surplus this might be possible, under current pressures that means something else is going to be cut. In effect someone, somewhere is going to lose their bus service to allow another set of customers to take the boat. That's not a good trade off to me. Secondly you might make that trade-off if you could show that the areas that would be served by a boat service were undeserved. That's not the case along the river with many areas already well served by a combination of the Jubilee Line, DLR and National Rail. River transport can work and this is not to say that the current Thames Clipper service isn't valuable but if this is the major plank of your transport policy shows a skewed sense of priority.
School buses - not again surely?
Not a new idea and both the Lib Dems and Conservatives on the London Assembly have proposed this before I believe. Oona makes the claim that providing more buses will reduce congestion associated with the school run. I see no evidence for this.
For a start most schools are already served by existing bus routes (possibly with a short walk) - why do we need more? More importantly, the argument fails to address the fact that according to TfL's figures 80% of the pupils live within 2km of their school. For these children the options that parents should be being encouraged to consider are cycling and walking not additional buses on the road.
For the remaining 20%, will an additional bus make all the difference? I doubt it. Looking at the local primary here in NW10, the parents that choose to drive make every attempt to get as close to the school entrance as they can possibly manage. I sometime think they would be most comfortable if there was an airport style airbridge that could connect to their car door so that their kids would not need to touch the pavement before entering school property, causing traffic chaos in the process. Its inconceivable that this group of parents would be happy to deposit them on a bus miles away.
Its shame that the big ticket items are ill-thought through because on cycling she's probably closer to what needs to happen then Boris or even Ken. Encouraging commuting by cycling with better workplace facilities might have a real impact on participation and would likely be much more cost effective a measure than the current cycle hire scheme.
Overall the document is disappointing and I haven't even mentioned Oona's ill-advised foray into the area of the Freedom Pass. For something that the Mayor doesn't control or pay for, its seems illogical (and poor judgement) for her to have become embroiled in an argument as to whether it should be means-tested or not.
For someone so adamant about being 'new' and 'different' this transport policy represents a real missed opportunity.
Read more on Must Try Harder - Oona's Transport Policies
Sunday, 1 August 2010
Hooray for Oyster!
It's easy to forget what an innovation Oyster was and in many ways still is. As well bringing convenience to everyone who use London's transport system, it has undoubtedly increased the use of public transport. Whilst the rollout to National Rail is imperfect and has added complexity, the experience of other cities shows London has much to be proud of.
I have just returned from a trip to San Francisco and as usual in cities
that I visit I made use of the local public transport system where I can as opposed to taxi or hire cars. SF is just rolling out an Oyster-like smart card that allows travel on a number of public transport systems in and around the city. That card is called Clipper. Looking how the card is being rolled out there were a number of interesting questions that came to mind, not least why uptake of the card has been so low.
After an examination of the history of the system though its probably not surprising at all however. Clipper is just getting to the stage of being a mainstream payment method in the area, with period tickets soon to transition to plastic. You might expect this if Clipper (or Translink as it used to be called) were a new development. In fact it was introduced as a pilot as early as 2002. That's only a few months before Oyster was introduced to the public which now accounts for over 80% of transactions on London's public transport network. Clipper still only accounts for 600,000 transactions a month - a fraction of the total number of journeys completed.
As an outsider it seems to me that the reason for the low take-up shouldn't be a mystery. Surprisingly you can't buy the card at most public transport stations in the city as they don't have ticket offices. I bought mine at the stunning Ferry Building which does have a staffed office. A look at the map of selling locations looks sparse compared to Oyster. This will inevitably inhibit take-up. The other thing that's very surprising is the lack of publicity within any of the stations and on the trains/trams themselves. Go into any station on the TfL network and you'll find posters extoling the virtues of Oyster and how you can add value to it, and that's many years after launch.
All of this detracts from the fact that SF has a pretty decent public transport network which would benefit from a unified ticketing system.
The city itself has a good tram network, supplemented by a very extensive bus service - and of course there's the city's famous Cable Cars (pictured). Further out there is BART and Caltrain which offer service to many suburban locations. Using the trams it was striking how few people were using Clipper. On a journey from Ocean Beach into the city I saw just one person use the card. But it might be unfair to blame the authorities in SF for this. It does seem to be a difficult problem for many cities to solve. Sydney is going through a similar exercise and is also making heavy weather of it. In fact TCard has probably had even more problems than Clipper.
All this underlines what a real success story Oyster is. It is certainly true that the rollout to National Rail took far too long and wasn't helped by Boris's unwillingness to play hardball with the train operating companies. And the limited availability on river services is a gap. But bar a few isolated incidents however, the rollout to the main modes of transport was smooth and timely. It's been a great advert for TfL's ability to deliver and we should celebrate that.
Read more on Hooray for Oyster!
I have just returned from a trip to San Francisco and as usual in cities
that I visit I made use of the local public transport system where I can as opposed to taxi or hire cars. SF is just rolling out an Oyster-like smart card that allows travel on a number of public transport systems in and around the city. That card is called Clipper. Looking how the card is being rolled out there were a number of interesting questions that came to mind, not least why uptake of the card has been so low. After an examination of the history of the system though its probably not surprising at all however. Clipper is just getting to the stage of being a mainstream payment method in the area, with period tickets soon to transition to plastic. You might expect this if Clipper (or Translink as it used to be called) were a new development. In fact it was introduced as a pilot as early as 2002. That's only a few months before Oyster was introduced to the public which now accounts for over 80% of transactions on London's public transport network. Clipper still only accounts for 600,000 transactions a month - a fraction of the total number of journeys completed.
As an outsider it seems to me that the reason for the low take-up shouldn't be a mystery. Surprisingly you can't buy the card at most public transport stations in the city as they don't have ticket offices. I bought mine at the stunning Ferry Building which does have a staffed office. A look at the map of selling locations looks sparse compared to Oyster. This will inevitably inhibit take-up. The other thing that's very surprising is the lack of publicity within any of the stations and on the trains/trams themselves. Go into any station on the TfL network and you'll find posters extoling the virtues of Oyster and how you can add value to it, and that's many years after launch.
All of this detracts from the fact that SF has a pretty decent public transport network which would benefit from a unified ticketing system.
The city itself has a good tram network, supplemented by a very extensive bus service - and of course there's the city's famous Cable Cars (pictured). Further out there is BART and Caltrain which offer service to many suburban locations. Using the trams it was striking how few people were using Clipper. On a journey from Ocean Beach into the city I saw just one person use the card. But it might be unfair to blame the authorities in SF for this. It does seem to be a difficult problem for many cities to solve. Sydney is going through a similar exercise and is also making heavy weather of it. In fact TCard has probably had even more problems than Clipper.All this underlines what a real success story Oyster is. It is certainly true that the rollout to National Rail took far too long and wasn't helped by Boris's unwillingness to play hardball with the train operating companies. And the limited availability on river services is a gap. But bar a few isolated incidents however, the rollout to the main modes of transport was smooth and timely. It's been a great advert for TfL's ability to deliver and we should celebrate that.
Read more on Hooray for Oyster!
Friday, 30 July 2010
The Economics of Cycle Hire
Boris is about to launch his signature (and very expensive) cycle hire scheme. To assess what benefits this might produce I have asked TfL for some help with additional information. They seem to be taking longer than would normally be expected. I can't help but speculate why they are taking quite so long.
Its been a big few weeks for Boris's cycle policy. His trial cycle superhighways are now live (to mixed reviews) and on July 30th the Cycle Hire scheme goes live. If you've seen my previous posts you'll see I am sceptical that the large amount of cash being spent on the scheme represents the best value for money. Indeed on the surface I can't see any evidence that this is the case and it seems to me Cycle Hire is neat way for Boris to look like he is helping cycling whilst not enraging his core constituency of private motorists.
One way to establish the viability of the scheme would be to look at the business case for the project. This should clearly articulate the benefits, weigh them against the costs and determine whether the project is indeed worthwhile. It might (if you have the data) also help you compare it against other options that might be better (or worse) value for money. So I asked TfL for it and also any research that they held that looked at whether Cycle Hire was likely to encourage a greater degree of modal shift compared to other possible options like cycle lanes and other priority measure. Naively I thought this was a simple request. After all you either have the business case or you don't surely? As for the other stuff it seems a fairly standard piece of research that you would have to hand to support the decision process in progressing Cycle Hire versus other measures.
I was quite surprised therefore that the request was still outstanding after 28 days and, after some prodding, TfL suggested they needed a further 10 working days to produce even a partial response. Now I am sure that there is a perfectly innocent explanation for the delay (although I wasn't provided with one) but it does seem odd that its taking quite such a while. Perhaps they lost my intial request - who knows?
On a completely separate note I am sure Boris will be in full ribbon cutting mode on the 30th - from the two plus years he's been in office its clearly what he likes doing best. Its a shame therefore that before that we're not able to assess whether this really is the best use of £100M plus of taxpayers money. Read more on The Economics of Cycle Hire
Its been a big few weeks for Boris's cycle policy. His trial cycle superhighways are now live (to mixed reviews) and on July 30th the Cycle Hire scheme goes live. If you've seen my previous posts you'll see I am sceptical that the large amount of cash being spent on the scheme represents the best value for money. Indeed on the surface I can't see any evidence that this is the case and it seems to me Cycle Hire is neat way for Boris to look like he is helping cycling whilst not enraging his core constituency of private motorists.
One way to establish the viability of the scheme would be to look at the business case for the project. This should clearly articulate the benefits, weigh them against the costs and determine whether the project is indeed worthwhile. It might (if you have the data) also help you compare it against other options that might be better (or worse) value for money. So I asked TfL for it and also any research that they held that looked at whether Cycle Hire was likely to encourage a greater degree of modal shift compared to other possible options like cycle lanes and other priority measure. Naively I thought this was a simple request. After all you either have the business case or you don't surely? As for the other stuff it seems a fairly standard piece of research that you would have to hand to support the decision process in progressing Cycle Hire versus other measures.
I was quite surprised therefore that the request was still outstanding after 28 days and, after some prodding, TfL suggested they needed a further 10 working days to produce even a partial response. Now I am sure that there is a perfectly innocent explanation for the delay (although I wasn't provided with one) but it does seem odd that its taking quite such a while. Perhaps they lost my intial request - who knows?
On a completely separate note I am sure Boris will be in full ribbon cutting mode on the 30th - from the two plus years he's been in office its clearly what he likes doing best. Its a shame therefore that before that we're not able to assess whether this really is the best use of £100M plus of taxpayers money. Read more on The Economics of Cycle Hire
Sunday, 18 July 2010
The Hidden Danger in Ending PPP on the Tube
The acquisition of Tube Lines by Transport for London effectively ended the PPP experiment on the Tube. There are potentially many advantages to the end of the deal, but has it left the Tube more exposed now to cutbacks on desperately needed upgrades.
PPP is dead. That's the headline from TfL's purchase of Tube Lines completed at the end of last month. PPP's had a pretty ill-starred existence and many people will be happy to see the back of it. In many ways its demise has been a long time coming. Metronet, the biggest of the PPP contractors, managed to survive over 4 years before falling into administration. The most visible evidence of their failure was in their station upgrade programme that was significantly behind schedule and even further over budget. They never even got to many of the big ticket items they were charged with upgrading, like the re-signalling of the sub-surface lines and they left the Victoria line half done.
Tube Lines looked to be making a better go of it until recently. Station upgrades were being completed on time and within budget and the Jubilee Line upgrade was broadly on track. But then things started going wrong. Quality issues on the new signalling system for the Jubilee line pushed the date out past the point required in the PPP contract, opening up Tube Lines to paying significant liquidated damages. The TfL board minutes show a project going from bad, to worse, to pretty disastrous. At the same time the problems on the Jubilee line were pushing out upgrade work on the Northern line. This combined with a poor outcome from the PPP Arbiter's Periodic Review meant the end wasn't entirely unexpected. TfL's offer to buy the company was probably a blessed relief in some respects for Tube Lines shareholders.
So is the removal of PPP wholly good news? Well there plenty of it in there. TfL thinks its made significant reductions in back office costs as a result of combining Metronet into London Underground. Alone this has saved £570M up to 2017/18. They also have greater flexibility in how they spend and when they do it. No doubt there are similar savings to be made when Tube Lines are
Amongst the good news there's a danger though I think. Under PPP there was a legal and contractual commitment on the part of Tube Lines to complete the work to upgrade the tube, and a corresponding requirement on Government to pay for it. That's gone now. Now was that anyway a cast iron guarantee, well no. A change in the law (with maybe a compensation payment) and anything can happen. But at the very least there was a framework in place to ensure the work happened. Now the only thing standing between the Tube and cuts at the behest of the Conservative-led coalition is ... Boris Johnson. Still sitting comfortably?
The Tube is the prime target for cost-cutting as Crossrail is mostly funded from other sources, as London Reconnections shows here there is little scope to cut the Central Government contribution much of which has already been spent.
On the whole most people will be glad to see the back of PPP. As a Labour supporter its difficult to see it as one of our finest moments. But there could be some pain in store as well as a result of its passing. More reason than ever to have someone in City Hall that can advocate the case for London and why doing nothing on the Tube is not an option. Read more on The Hidden Danger in Ending PPP on the Tube
PPP is dead. That's the headline from TfL's purchase of Tube Lines completed at the end of last month. PPP's had a pretty ill-starred existence and many people will be happy to see the back of it. In many ways its demise has been a long time coming. Metronet, the biggest of the PPP contractors, managed to survive over 4 years before falling into administration. The most visible evidence of their failure was in their station upgrade programme that was significantly behind schedule and even further over budget. They never even got to many of the big ticket items they were charged with upgrading, like the re-signalling of the sub-surface lines and they left the Victoria line half done.
Tube Lines looked to be making a better go of it until recently. Station upgrades were being completed on time and within budget and the Jubilee Line upgrade was broadly on track. But then things started going wrong. Quality issues on the new signalling system for the Jubilee line pushed the date out past the point required in the PPP contract, opening up Tube Lines to paying significant liquidated damages. The TfL board minutes show a project going from bad, to worse, to pretty disastrous. At the same time the problems on the Jubilee line were pushing out upgrade work on the Northern line. This combined with a poor outcome from the PPP Arbiter's Periodic Review meant the end wasn't entirely unexpected. TfL's offer to buy the company was probably a blessed relief in some respects for Tube Lines shareholders.
So is the removal of PPP wholly good news? Well there plenty of it in there. TfL thinks its made significant reductions in back office costs as a result of combining Metronet into London Underground. Alone this has saved £570M up to 2017/18. They also have greater flexibility in how they spend and when they do it. No doubt there are similar savings to be made when Tube Lines are
Amongst the good news there's a danger though I think. Under PPP there was a legal and contractual commitment on the part of Tube Lines to complete the work to upgrade the tube, and a corresponding requirement on Government to pay for it. That's gone now. Now was that anyway a cast iron guarantee, well no. A change in the law (with maybe a compensation payment) and anything can happen. But at the very least there was a framework in place to ensure the work happened. Now the only thing standing between the Tube and cuts at the behest of the Conservative-led coalition is ... Boris Johnson. Still sitting comfortably?
The Tube is the prime target for cost-cutting as Crossrail is mostly funded from other sources, as London Reconnections shows here there is little scope to cut the Central Government contribution much of which has already been spent.
On the whole most people will be glad to see the back of PPP. As a Labour supporter its difficult to see it as one of our finest moments. But there could be some pain in store as well as a result of its passing. More reason than ever to have someone in City Hall that can advocate the case for London and why doing nothing on the Tube is not an option. Read more on The Hidden Danger in Ending PPP on the Tube
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Time's running out, Oona
Ken Livingstone needed a strong challenger with a coherent vision in the race for Labour Mayoral nomination. Whilst Oona King has many positive qualities she's so far failed to articulate a clear vision for London and time's running out fast. If she's to stand a chance at getting the nomination (or my vote for that matter) she needs to quickly fill in the significant gaps in her policy positions and steer clear of recent personalised attacks.
Unfortunately I am going to miss the Labour Mayoral hustings in Brent at the end of this month due to a prior committment. That's a pity as I had been looking forward to seeing more of Oona King and what she might deliver for London if elected. I am far from certain that Ken is necessarily the best choice for Labour, indeed I would have been pleased to see Alan Johnson join the race. Sadly that wasn't to be. So, given I might now not see either her or Ken in the flesh I am going to have to make my mind up on who to vote from other sources. The appearance of both candidates on the Politics Show this week was one such opportunity and I'm not sure some of the content reflected that well on Oona.
The last Mayoral election was, of course, marked by a highly partisan campaign by the Evening Standard against Ken Livingstone. The central allegation that Ken had indulged in cronyism now looks ever more ironic given who was in charge of the Evening Standard at the time and subsequent events. Its unfortunate then that Oona chose one of the few opportunities members like me may have to get a sense of her approach to re-heat those Standard allegations one more time by banging on about Ken's supposed cronyism. If that was the end of you could possibly pass it off as an aberration but from @MayorWatch in the world of Twitter I understand she also circulated a briefing note at MQT containing other elements of the Standard campaign.
What's surprising is that I think this is highly unlikely to help her cause in any case. You would have to have been living under a rock for the past 3 years not to know the ins and outs of the Lee Japser story. Anybody who is tending towards supporting Ken this time round will certainly have taken that into account by now. In my view the only outcome from the strategy will be the convince wavering voters outside of the party that Labour is divided, at war with itself in London and unworthy of support.
A more profitable approach would be to concentrate on new policy ideas. These have left me underwhelmed to say the least. On housing I can't see any great difference between her and Ken. She is for example suggesting that we revert back to the standard that new developments must contain 50% affordable housing, something he first implemented. And whilst nobody would disagree that knife crime is an extremely serious problem in London, the challenge for the Mayor is that they have control over relatively few of the levers that might exert a significant influence on it. There is a real danger of over promising and then failing to deliver, something Boris is struggling with right now.
By contrast the Mayor has extensive powers over both transport and planning and I can see precious little that might give an insight into what she would do in these areas. Transport policy in particular affects the lives of most Londoners every day and is an area where, more than most, the current administration's lack of a coherent approach is most evident. I don't believe any candidate will deserve to be elected without a vision for how Londoners will get about the city now and into the next decade.
Finally, I like 'new' and 'fresh' as much as the next person but nothing in politics has intrinsic value simply because its 'new'. The 'new' thing has to be in some way demonstrably better than the 'old' thing its replacing. So simply talking about how 'new' you are won't cut it. And by the way neither will:
because actually I don't want a raver as Mayor of London. I'd quite like some who can convince me they can manage a multi-billion pound organisation and put London back in the place it deserves to be, as the greatest city on the world. There still time to do that but don't wait, its running out fast
Read more on Time's running out, Oona
Unfortunately I am going to miss the Labour Mayoral hustings in Brent at the end of this month due to a prior committment. That's a pity as I had been looking forward to seeing more of Oona King and what she might deliver for London if elected. I am far from certain that Ken is necessarily the best choice for Labour, indeed I would have been pleased to see Alan Johnson join the race. Sadly that wasn't to be. So, given I might now not see either her or Ken in the flesh I am going to have to make my mind up on who to vote from other sources. The appearance of both candidates on the Politics Show this week was one such opportunity and I'm not sure some of the content reflected that well on Oona.
The last Mayoral election was, of course, marked by a highly partisan campaign by the Evening Standard against Ken Livingstone. The central allegation that Ken had indulged in cronyism now looks ever more ironic given who was in charge of the Evening Standard at the time and subsequent events. Its unfortunate then that Oona chose one of the few opportunities members like me may have to get a sense of her approach to re-heat those Standard allegations one more time by banging on about Ken's supposed cronyism. If that was the end of you could possibly pass it off as an aberration but from @MayorWatch in the world of Twitter I understand she also circulated a briefing note at MQT containing other elements of the Standard campaign.
What's surprising is that I think this is highly unlikely to help her cause in any case. You would have to have been living under a rock for the past 3 years not to know the ins and outs of the Lee Japser story. Anybody who is tending towards supporting Ken this time round will certainly have taken that into account by now. In my view the only outcome from the strategy will be the convince wavering voters outside of the party that Labour is divided, at war with itself in London and unworthy of support.
A more profitable approach would be to concentrate on new policy ideas. These have left me underwhelmed to say the least. On housing I can't see any great difference between her and Ken. She is for example suggesting that we revert back to the standard that new developments must contain 50% affordable housing, something he first implemented. And whilst nobody would disagree that knife crime is an extremely serious problem in London, the challenge for the Mayor is that they have control over relatively few of the levers that might exert a significant influence on it. There is a real danger of over promising and then failing to deliver, something Boris is struggling with right now.
By contrast the Mayor has extensive powers over both transport and planning and I can see precious little that might give an insight into what she would do in these areas. Transport policy in particular affects the lives of most Londoners every day and is an area where, more than most, the current administration's lack of a coherent approach is most evident. I don't believe any candidate will deserve to be elected without a vision for how Londoners will get about the city now and into the next decade.
Finally, I like 'new' and 'fresh' as much as the next person but nothing in politics has intrinsic value simply because its 'new'. The 'new' thing has to be in some way demonstrably better than the 'old' thing its replacing. So simply talking about how 'new' you are won't cut it. And by the way neither will:
@Oona_King: Popped into Ministry of Sound this afternoon for a quick meeting. If you want a raver vote Labour!
because actually I don't want a raver as Mayor of London. I'd quite like some who can convince me they can manage a multi-billion pound organisation and put London back in the place it deserves to be, as the greatest city on the world. There still time to do that but don't wait, its running out fast
Read more on Time's running out, Oona
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Bus Lane Trial Should End Now
Boris' scheme to put motorbikes into bus lanes was always ill-conceived. Today's data from the first trial period shows its downright dangerous for many road users. He should swallow his pride and scrap the extension of the trial now before more people get hurt unnecessarily.
Remember this? At the time Boris's rather grumpy remarks were ascribed to the fact that he'd been held up by protesters in Trafalgar Square. With hindsight might there have been an additional cause for his displeasure? Namely that bikers behaviour in bus lanes had come perilously close to scuppering one of the few manifesto promises he's managed to keep. As it is TfL have had to 'fess up today that putting powered two-wheelers into bus lanes has increased accidents by a considerable margin. You'd think that ought to be enough to have the trial scrapped. Not a bit of it. No-one outdoes the current Mayor on stubbornness and he's not about to change his ways now. Through TfL Boris announced an extension of the trial claiming:
From the data presented, I fail to see what these could possibly be. There are two main areas for concern. TfL commissioned detailed research from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to determine if safety, amongst other things, had been affected by the change. This report compared sites where motorbikes were allowed in bus lanes with areas where they were not. The results for motorbike safety are pretty clear. For cyclists the conclusions leave something to be desired in my view.
Firstly, collisions of motorcycles with other road users have increased. The report produced concludes clearly that there is statistically significant increase in collisions involving motorbikes where they have been allowed access to bus lanes compared to where they have not been.
Secondly, collisions involving cyclists have also increased (again by a statistically significant margin) in those bus lanes where motorbikes have been allowed. Unfortunately, however here the report gets a bit hazy. It suggests that an analysis of the particular mode of collisions indicates that the presence of motorbikes is not the cause of the increase, and that an increase in cycle flow will "partially" explain the increase. There are a number of problems with this analysis as far as I can see. The report itself identifies that this analysis depends on a subjective assessment by a traffic officer of the cause of a particular collision. You have therefore introduced opinion into your (up-to-now) strictly factual analysis of collision data. It also relies on the the traffic officer giving the cyclist a fair-go. I would not impune the professionalism of our police in London, but I am not sure they always understand the difficulties that cyclists have navigating the city.
Perhaps more substantially the report presents no firm conclusion as to why the accident rate did increase beyond a partial explanation. To my mind that should indicate that you know there's an increase but you don't know why. Consider this for example, the reports suggests most collisions involving cyclist were as a results of poor observation (i.e. I didn't see the bike, car etc.). Is it possible that a general increase in traffic in bus lanes with bikes zipping past you at 30MPH has made situational awareness a more difficult task for cyclists. Intuitively, as a cyclist myself I think it has. Has it made it more likely I will have an accident with something other than a motorbike? I have no way of knowing and importantly neither do the authors of the report. The assertion therefore that the increase is not connected with the presence of motorbikes is flawed in my view. There's either a real impact on cyclists from motorbikes by a mechanism that has not been considered, or alternatively there's a significant confounding variable that makes comparisons between the test and control sites unreliable generally.
Either of these changes in road safety should have meant the trial wasn't extended. Why? Well imagine if Boris' had introduced the initial trial run as follows:
Sadly that is exactly what he effectively said to us today. It would have been nice for him to be interviewed perhaps on why he thinks the extension is a good idea. Sadly he doesn't seem to be around:
@mayoroflondon: By the spectator zone at the Cape Town Waterfront http://twitpic.com/1x95yi
Nice life isn't it?
Read more on Bus Lane Trial Should End Now
Remember this? At the time Boris's rather grumpy remarks were ascribed to the fact that he'd been held up by protesters in Trafalgar Square. With hindsight might there have been an additional cause for his displeasure? Namely that bikers behaviour in bus lanes had come perilously close to scuppering one of the few manifesto promises he's managed to keep. As it is TfL have had to 'fess up today that putting powered two-wheelers into bus lanes has increased accidents by a considerable margin. You'd think that ought to be enough to have the trial scrapped. Not a bit of it. No-one outdoes the current Mayor on stubbornness and he's not about to change his ways now. Through TfL Boris announced an extension of the trial claiming:
...the initial trial has shown some positive results
From the data presented, I fail to see what these could possibly be. There are two main areas for concern. TfL commissioned detailed research from the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to determine if safety, amongst other things, had been affected by the change. This report compared sites where motorbikes were allowed in bus lanes with areas where they were not. The results for motorbike safety are pretty clear. For cyclists the conclusions leave something to be desired in my view.
Firstly, collisions of motorcycles with other road users have increased. The report produced concludes clearly that there is statistically significant increase in collisions involving motorbikes where they have been allowed access to bus lanes compared to where they have not been.
Secondly, collisions involving cyclists have also increased (again by a statistically significant margin) in those bus lanes where motorbikes have been allowed. Unfortunately, however here the report gets a bit hazy. It suggests that an analysis of the particular mode of collisions indicates that the presence of motorbikes is not the cause of the increase, and that an increase in cycle flow will "partially" explain the increase. There are a number of problems with this analysis as far as I can see. The report itself identifies that this analysis depends on a subjective assessment by a traffic officer of the cause of a particular collision. You have therefore introduced opinion into your (up-to-now) strictly factual analysis of collision data. It also relies on the the traffic officer giving the cyclist a fair-go. I would not impune the professionalism of our police in London, but I am not sure they always understand the difficulties that cyclists have navigating the city.
Perhaps more substantially the report presents no firm conclusion as to why the accident rate did increase beyond a partial explanation. To my mind that should indicate that you know there's an increase but you don't know why. Consider this for example, the reports suggests most collisions involving cyclist were as a results of poor observation (i.e. I didn't see the bike, car etc.). Is it possible that a general increase in traffic in bus lanes with bikes zipping past you at 30MPH has made situational awareness a more difficult task for cyclists. Intuitively, as a cyclist myself I think it has. Has it made it more likely I will have an accident with something other than a motorbike? I have no way of knowing and importantly neither do the authors of the report. The assertion therefore that the increase is not connected with the presence of motorbikes is flawed in my view. There's either a real impact on cyclists from motorbikes by a mechanism that has not been considered, or alternatively there's a significant confounding variable that makes comparisons between the test and control sites unreliable generally.
Either of these changes in road safety should have meant the trial wasn't extended. Why? Well imagine if Boris' had introduced the initial trial run as follows:
I am going to allow motorbikes into bus lanes. I am aware that this will impact their safety and will produce more road accidents and injuries. In addition there will be more collisions involving cyclists, some of whom will also be injured. I will pretend I understand why, by some mechanism not fully explained, collisions with cyclists increase and insist it is nothing to do with the motorbikes. In reality I will be clueless.
Gentlemen, please start your engines!
Sadly that is exactly what he effectively said to us today. It would have been nice for him to be interviewed perhaps on why he thinks the extension is a good idea. Sadly he doesn't seem to be around:
@mayoroflondon: By the spectator zone at the Cape Town Waterfront http://twitpic.com/1x95yi
Nice life isn't it?
Read more on Bus Lane Trial Should End Now
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
How Not to Encourage Cycling
A house move and lack of internet connection are not conducive to blogging. So, its rather late but I thought I'd write a quick blog about Boris's cycle hire scheme. Dave Hill had the details earlier in August. It is a subject that I am somewhat conflicted on. As I commented in the post itself, it seems rather churlish to have a go at a scheme which might increase cycling generally as this can only be a good thing. My problem isn't really with the scheme itself but in why Boris has determined it to be a such a priority.
Its a problem that commercial enterprises have all the time. Ideas, by their nature, are cheap and almost limitless in quantity. The resources, knowledge and ability to put them into practice are not. The question you're asking therefore is not:
Will this idea produce some specified benefit?but rather
Will this idea make the best use of the limited resources (whether that's money or something else) that we have?
If you ask the right question then how would cycle hire fare? There are a number of reasons why people are uncomfortable cycling and helpfully Transport for London have summarised them in their Cycling in London report. I'll save you the job of reading it - you won't find lack of a cycle hire scheme in there. It highlights clearly that the number one barrier to people cycling are safety concerns followed by a lack of parking and changing facilities, not the expense or availability of the bike itself. The hard data is backed up by what most people know anecdotally. There are bikes gathering dust in sheds and lofts across the UK. Not having access to a bike isn't the main reason for not cycling.
None of this would matter quite so much if the scheme wasn't so expensive. Boris has trumpeted loudly that he has increased spending on cycling, and indeed he has. What's hidden in that is that the cycle hire scheme is taking so much money (£80 million in Phase 1) that cash is draining from elsewhere. So spending on on LCN+, which directly impacts on cyclist safety, has been cut-back. And there's no attempt to address other areas that might encourage cycle commuting. If you're company doesn't have cycle storage and showering facilities, you'll still be out of luck.
It entirely possible that, at the margins, cycle hire might have an effect, but the fundamental barriers will still be there. Given the evidence on how successful it would be is so weak why would Boris be so keen on it. Well, tellingly on the front page of the LCN+ website, he refers to the need to implement
unpopular traffic schemes
to progress the network. Well, unpopular with who? That's right the type of car driver who doesn't really believe cyclists have any place on the road. There might just be a nice intersection between those people and Boris's core support at the last mayoral election. And that's the real beauty of the cycle hire scheme. It gives everyone the impression that Boris is keen on cycling without him actually take any difficult decision that might improve the lot of cyclists but might inconvenience the odd motorist.
Back to questions. If Boris isn't asking the right question then what is he asking. If you've ever watched Jeopardy! then you'll know every answer has a question. Here's my guess:
Q: What can I do to look as if I am encouraging cycling, without doing anything meaningful or alienating the likes of the SUV-owning class in Kensington and Chelsea that I've already buttered up with a £70 million handout by scrapping WEZ?Oh yes. Read more on How Not to Encourage Cycling
A: Implement an expensive but ineffectual cycle-hire scheme
Friday, 29 May 2009
Boris Wants You To Look The Other Way
The House of Commons Transport Select Committee published its report into the disruption caused to London's transport system by the heavy snowfalls in February this year. Predictably its been fairly critical of Boris's role in managing the impact of the incident. You'll remember his appearance in front of the committee - its the occasion he threatened to flounce out of the meeting when the questioning got a bit too tough. So perhaps just as predictably its not a surprise that Boris has pronounced himself not too impressed with their conclusions. Calling the report
the BBC also reports his spokesman saying:
Whilst the first comment can be dismissed as politics as usual, the second is a piece of deliberate misdirection that would make Derren Brown proud.
Having read the report, in particular, the sections that relate to the Mayor, at no time is there any suggestion that safety should have been compromised. Unless I've missed it in the small print, the suggestion that Boris should have been out on the streets of London in the early hours of the February 2nd with a cattle prod herding unwilling transport operatives into their vehicles, does not exist. Its simply a way of changing the subject from his failings. Indeed the report says:
What certainly is in the report is a very valid criticism that London lacked visible leadership over those two days and that Boris seems unconcerned by this. Regardless of whether the ultimate decision would still have been different with his participation, the evidence is that he should have engaged. Its the equivalent of a CEO of large business letting his direct reports flounder with no strategic direction, whilst the shareholders (us) look on in dismay as company goes down the pan.
Is this likely to change? Not any time soon seemingly. The other theme of the report is Boris extreme sensitivity to any level of scrutiny. There's a bit of a pattern here: no press conferences, the Keith Vaz incident and now his antics in front of the committee. Its apparant he's just not a good listener.
We deserved better, more visible leadership - its concerning Boris doesn't see that. Maybe he doesn't believe he can do it, which ought to be a warning for us all. If he wants a few useful hints and tips I can recommend a good book.
Read more on Boris Wants You To Look The Other Way
"partisan and wholly opportunistic"
the BBC also reports his spokesman saying:
"With the benefit of hindsight it is even clearer to the Mayor that putting buses on icy roads, which could not be cleared, would have been irresponsible, dangerous and potentially lethal. The Mayor is pleased that today we are arguing over a select committee report, rather than giving evidence at an inquest into why Londoners have been injured unnecessarily on the icy roads."
Whilst the first comment can be dismissed as politics as usual, the second is a piece of deliberate misdirection that would make Derren Brown proud.
Having read the report, in particular, the sections that relate to the Mayor, at no time is there any suggestion that safety should have been compromised. Unless I've missed it in the small print, the suggestion that Boris should have been out on the streets of London in the early hours of the February 2nd with a cattle prod herding unwilling transport operatives into their vehicles, does not exist. Its simply a way of changing the subject from his failings. Indeed the report says:
"The Committee does not, as the Mayor seemed to imply, consider that more meetings before the snow fell would have been a panacea for the problems London faced on 1 and 2 February. Nor do we suggest that operational decisions after snow falls should be overruled by the Mayor." [My Italics]
What certainly is in the report is a very valid criticism that London lacked visible leadership over those two days and that Boris seems unconcerned by this. Regardless of whether the ultimate decision would still have been different with his participation, the evidence is that he should have engaged. Its the equivalent of a CEO of large business letting his direct reports flounder with no strategic direction, whilst the shareholders (us) look on in dismay as company goes down the pan.
Is this likely to change? Not any time soon seemingly. The other theme of the report is Boris extreme sensitivity to any level of scrutiny. There's a bit of a pattern here: no press conferences, the Keith Vaz incident and now his antics in front of the committee. Its apparant he's just not a good listener.
We deserved better, more visible leadership - its concerning Boris doesn't see that. Maybe he doesn't believe he can do it, which ought to be a warning for us all. If he wants a few useful hints and tips I can recommend a good book.
Read more on Boris Wants You To Look The Other Way
Monday, 25 May 2009
Cycle-highways - just more paint on the road?
As you might have seen Boris Johnson, our cycling mayor, had a near-miss over the weekend. Along with Kulveer Ranger (his Transport Director), Peter Hendy (TfL Commissioner) and Lord Adonis (Transport Minister) he was on a scouting mission around London for routes for his 'cycle highways' policy. Looking at video of the incident, it looks truly horrendous and exactly the sort of accident that could easily have given rise to serious injuries, if not worse. So we should be grateful that nobody was hurt. I can certainly sympathise - as a daily cyclist from North into Central London I can attest that whilst potentially serious incidents aren't common they are still too frequent for comfort.
From a policy point of view this should highlight something that most of us already know. Cyclists are particularly vulnerable road users and need additional protection. Whilst we as a group have to take more responsibility for our own safety, by not running red lights for example, there will always be a fundamental conflict between heavy traffic comprised of large vehicles and cyclists. The previous Mayor explicitly recognised this in his transport planning which gave priority not only to cyclists but to other groups such as pedestrians. Boris has chosen to eschew this in favour of what he considers a more 'fair and balanced' approach that refuses to value any one group over another. Kulveer Ranger was particularly strident in rejecting the previous approach when he appeared in front of the London Assembly last year. Yet it is precisely because the relationship between cycles and motorised traffic is so unequal that a 'level playing field' will always favour cars and lorries.
The idea for a series of priority routes for cycles that the Mayor was researching is a pretty good one, but like all policies its the execution that will determine success or failure. Boris has shown himself to be particularly loathed to implement any policy that inconveniences motorised traffic. Witness his decision on motorbikes in bus lanes, implemented despite the strong objections of cyclists and the abolition of the Western Extension of the Congestion Charge zone. He's also not been averse to having TfL meddle in local traffic schemes where he feels they are not sufficiently favourable to car traffic. Boris is very keen to talk about his cycle hire scheme and its not hard to see why. Its bolsters his cycling credentials without actually having to take any of the more difficult but tricky decisions that may not be popular with other road users but would substantially increase cycling. As others have pointed out a lack of cycles may not be the primary reason why people are not venturing out on the roads. What the scheme's unlikely to do is change people's perception of the risk of cycling or indeed the objective risks of doing so. Conversely cycle highways have the potential to make a real impact but not if the difficult decisions around cycle priority are dodged.
London has the opportunity to become a real cycling city. But we'll come up short unless there's a recognition from politicians that from time-to-time the requirements of cyclists will directly conflict with those of motorised traffic and fudge is not a valid option. How Boris handles the implementation of his new cycle highways will determine whether they are a step change in how cyclists are treated in London or just more paint on the road. Read more on Cycle-highways - just more paint on the road?
From a policy point of view this should highlight something that most of us already know. Cyclists are particularly vulnerable road users and need additional protection. Whilst we as a group have to take more responsibility for our own safety, by not running red lights for example, there will always be a fundamental conflict between heavy traffic comprised of large vehicles and cyclists. The previous Mayor explicitly recognised this in his transport planning which gave priority not only to cyclists but to other groups such as pedestrians. Boris has chosen to eschew this in favour of what he considers a more 'fair and balanced' approach that refuses to value any one group over another. Kulveer Ranger was particularly strident in rejecting the previous approach when he appeared in front of the London Assembly last year. Yet it is precisely because the relationship between cycles and motorised traffic is so unequal that a 'level playing field' will always favour cars and lorries.
The idea for a series of priority routes for cycles that the Mayor was researching is a pretty good one, but like all policies its the execution that will determine success or failure. Boris has shown himself to be particularly loathed to implement any policy that inconveniences motorised traffic. Witness his decision on motorbikes in bus lanes, implemented despite the strong objections of cyclists and the abolition of the Western Extension of the Congestion Charge zone. He's also not been averse to having TfL meddle in local traffic schemes where he feels they are not sufficiently favourable to car traffic. Boris is very keen to talk about his cycle hire scheme and its not hard to see why. Its bolsters his cycling credentials without actually having to take any of the more difficult but tricky decisions that may not be popular with other road users but would substantially increase cycling. As others have pointed out a lack of cycles may not be the primary reason why people are not venturing out on the roads. What the scheme's unlikely to do is change people's perception of the risk of cycling or indeed the objective risks of doing so. Conversely cycle highways have the potential to make a real impact but not if the difficult decisions around cycle priority are dodged.
London has the opportunity to become a real cycling city. But we'll come up short unless there's a recognition from politicians that from time-to-time the requirements of cyclists will directly conflict with those of motorised traffic and fudge is not a valid option. How Boris handles the implementation of his new cycle highways will determine whether they are a step change in how cyclists are treated in London or just more paint on the road. Read more on Cycle-highways - just more paint on the road?
Welcome!
Hello - and welcome to the blog. The posts here mostly about the things I care about, (London) politics, cycling and life in North London. Occasionally you might see one about IT Product Management which is what I do between the hours of 9-5 daily. Of course if you did see one of those then view expressed there would naturally be my own and not those of my employer.
Feel free to comment and most of all enjoy!
DavidM
Read more on Welcome!
Feel free to comment and most of all enjoy!
DavidM
Read more on Welcome!
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Disclosure statement
Disclosure statement (last updated 08/08/10) Things to note so you don't think I'm hiding anything:
I am currently a memeber of the Labour Party and have been for many years. Although it would be pushing it to suggest I was anything close to an activist, you can assume that I am generally in support of the party's aims and policies.
Outside of this blog I am a (product) mananger for an IT security company. The views expressed here are entirely my own and not those of my employer. Although by virtue that I have a small amount of influence over the company's direction of travel, they will nevertheless sometimes overlap.
You'll also see me in some places using the name deej1 (especially on The Guardian website) for comments etc.
Read more on Disclosure statement
I am currently a memeber of the Labour Party and have been for many years. Although it would be pushing it to suggest I was anything close to an activist, you can assume that I am generally in support of the party's aims and policies.
Outside of this blog I am a (product) mananger for an IT security company. The views expressed here are entirely my own and not those of my employer. Although by virtue that I have a small amount of influence over the company's direction of travel, they will nevertheless sometimes overlap.
You'll also see me in some places using the name deej1 (especially on The Guardian website) for comments etc.
Read more on Disclosure statement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
