Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:04:03 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

John wrote:

In article , Dave Arquati
writes

Paul Corfield wrote:
(lots of snip)

Oh and a strategy for the proper development of all of London's
transport would also be a good thing.

Like this?
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/

Well yes there is that document. I just wonder to what extent it is
actually being implemented.

A quick glance suggests that whilst it may be approaching Paul's
objective, the revisions suggest that we are in the normal quasi-
political government cycle of proposal, change, proposal with no
consistency or any actual investment.

Precisely. There are far too many schemes that to all intents are
finalised but which are going nowhere - Thameslink being the biggest
victim of this inertia.

Thameslink being covered by the SRA which has one foot in the grave.
With any luck, the Mayor's proposed new rail powers will enable progress
to be made on Thameslink, although I can see a clash happening between
TfL and the DfT, as TfL would prefer a more local, metro-like scheme
rather than the regional scheme currently on the table.

Like education, you only see the results of a transport policy after a
significant number of years, the changes made today will not be apparent
for some time and so our elected representatives feel obliged to try
other changes before they find out if their first policy actually
worked!!

That may be true for nationwide transport policies, but to me it seems
to be progressing much more quickly in London.
The congestion charge is
in place,

Well yes it is but what purpose does it now serve? It makes very little
money to fund extra public transport investment and in some parts of
town there seem to be as many cars around as before. I think that the
cost has now been absorbed by many businesses and individuals and thus
the deterrent effect will reduce.

It speeds up bus services (except along Oxford Street...); I personally
haven't noticed a large decrease in its efficiency but it seems logical
that traffic will increase without the charge being raised - hence the
proposal to increase the charge to £8 to secure the traffic reductions
for the next few years.

improved bus services are in place,

but no more development can be afforded. There are now cuts being made
to a range of services including the night bus network which is contrary
to the strategy. London Buses are also cutting back on vehicle numbers
for future bids thus risking the reliability improvements made to date.
The bus fleet will also now age significantly following the huge and
rapid push to a low floor fleet over the last 3 years. I am afraid that
I consider TfL to be in breach of the Mayor's strategy so far as the bus
network is concerned.

The problem TfL have had is that they've managed to increase bus
services in the central area but now lack the funds to do the same in
the suburbs. I think they were expecting more money from central
government than they actually received.

What cuts are being made?

the first phase of the
East London Line project has approval and funding,

And I look forward to it being built. However I am nervous that the
slitting of the project into two phases will mean that Phase 2 never
happens. The government are taking over control of the national rail
network and I just cannot envisage the money being made available for
the Highbury and Clapham Junction phases of this project.

The phasing of the project is necessary for *any* of it to get built.
Phase 1 comes under the current TfL spending plan; the Mayor is very
keen to see Phase 2 get built and plans to include it in the next TfL
spending plan in four or five years' time. It's a slower method of
delivery but it avoids the financial problems plaguing the regional tram
systems like Manchester and Leeds, who have been slapped down after
trying to get too much money at once.

The DfT may be taking over direction of the rail network but TfL will be
given ever-increasing powers over the local London network (especially
Silverlink) and the ELLP is being progressed entirely by TfL's Rail
division now rather than the government, so funding is down to them;
unfortunately that's why we now have the fare increases, but at least
something is getting underway.

the DLR extension to City Airport is under construction and the further extension to Woolwich
is ready to go;

I accept that DLR seems to be the exception to all transport ills in
London. Don't know how they do it but they have an exceptional record in
providing a decent service and of expanding the network. If I had a
concern it would be how they maintain service reliability as the
original parts of the network begin to age.

It must be the combination of automated operation and excellent
management. They seem to carry out maintenance fairly regularly during
weekend closures, and I'm sure the ride quality between Tower Gateway
and Westferry has improved in the last few months since the previous
time I used the DLR (the most recent time was last week). The capacity
enhancement project should encompass some general renewals of the older
infrastructure.

the West London Tram, East London Transit and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit are all well-advanced.

For some reason I am somewhat underwhelmed by these schemes. I think the
West London tram will never happen because of public opposition and
escalating costs for tram schemes. I still don't understand the
reasoning for the transit schemes and would prefer that the money set
aside for these schemes were put into development of the bus network
overall.

It's the classic argument about the attractiveness of trams vs. buses
which we've done many times on here. The transit schemes will be an
interesting way of finalising that argument as they will provide
tram-like levels of service and infrastructure provision, whilst still
using conventional bendybuses - we can see whether buses themselves are
a turnoff, or whether the permanent way of the tram is the deciding feature.

I note that you have omitted the Cross River Tram which I do think
should go ahead as a matter of urgency - if only to get trams back into
the centre of London from where further expansion can then take place.
It is strategically important that this tram scheme is built and built
soon.

I also believe that CRT is vital, particularly at King's Cross to act as
a distributor for the new CTRL and TL2K services, and at the Elephant to
help the regeneration plans there progress. I think it's slightly lower
down the agenda because having expanded bus provision in central London,
the Mayor wants to improve public transport quality in the suburbs to
help stem some of the growth in car use there. That fits in with the
Transport Strategy (which I believe includes reducing traffic growth in
central London from 5% to zero, and in outer London from 5% to 3%).

Crossrail would be
ready to go if central government decided how little money it wants to
contribute.

I just wish someone would take the final decision and then we either
bury the scheme or else build it.

The scheme will never be buried; there are a lot of extremely interested
parties very keen to see it constructed, and they won't stop until they
get something. It's not just TfL; the Corporation of London and Canary
Wharf Group are pushing very heavily for it. Hopefully a critical point
has now been reached in both development of the scheme and support, with
a lot of political goodwill at stake if it now gets rejected.

I'd say money is being poured into London's transport, and some of the
effects have already been felt.

Yes plenty of money has been spent but I still wonder about the value
for money aspect. I also question the balance between modes and whether
there is a real "vision" for what a public transport journey will be
like in 10 or 20 years time. The strategy seems to be a way of dealing
with a load of problems rather than recognising that there are issues to
be dealt with but that there is still a target to aim for in terms of
passenger convenience, ease of use and reliability / quick journey
times.

Why do you question the balance between modes?
I think dealing with problems is the essence of the way plans for
London's transport network must be taken forward; you can't achieve the
targets you mention without addressing particular issues. Specifically
target-led approaches have merits but can be very complicated and can
lead to meaningless number manipulation. London Underground is now
following such an approach; look at the complexity of the PPP documents.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - transport projects in London