I have been extremely busy with Metronet collapse and other writing, so have failed to blog for a few days but a quote in today's Guardian forces me into the ether. In a piece about rising fares, a Department for Transport spokesbeing defends the government's policy of encouraging above inflation rises by saying: 'The reality is that 6 per cent of the population travels on railways. Why should peopole who don't use the railways regularly fund people who do?'
This is a remarkably ignorant, narrowminded and mistaken view of the transport situation in this country. For a start, far more than 6 per cent of people use the railways. The figure being referred to is that 6 per cent of journeys are made by the railways, but of course the percentage who use the railways in any one year is far greater - I am away from my office at the moment where I could check it but I think the figure is 60 per cent or thereabouts.
Secondly, there are many good reasons why people who don't use the railways should support them financially, just as people who don't have schools should help pay for them - because the people they educate will contribute to the overall wellbeing of society - or indeed, people who never go into hospital should contribute towards the NHS. Even in the most narrow terms, the railways benefit car drivers by keeping many people off the roads and therefore speeding up their journeys. On a wider basis, they are a key tool of economic regeneration.
Put simply, the benefits are an economic phenomenon known as 'externalities'. Essentially the railways cannot capture all their benefits through the fare box and therefore require subsidy. Otherwise there would be no justification for any subsidy at all, which is presumably not what this spokesbeing is suggesting.
The whole theme of my forthcoming book, Fire & Steam, a new history of the railways in Britain is that the railways have never been sufficiently recognised in this country given the wide range of benefits they bring about for everyone in society. For the Department to allow its economically-illiterate spokesbeing to make this statement on the day before the long-awaited huge railway announcements which will include the five year programme for Network Rail and a 30 year strategy for the industry are to be made bodes ill for their content.
Narrow view of the railways bodes ill
Monday, 23 July 2007
I told you so
Monday, 16 July 2007
It is not often that journalists can claim that they were 100 per cent right, but the imminent collapse of the Metronet contract for maintaining and refurbishing two thirds of the London Underground shows that my longstanding doubts about this sort of contract were well founded.
The problem with the London Underground PPP is that it was simply attempting the impossible. Not only did it try to set out the work required on the Underground over a 30 year period - far too long - but it did so through a complex payment by results scheme that was always going to prove unworkable. Moreover, it encouraged far too much work to be carried out simultaneously, stretching the management capabilities of any organisation.
Then there was the specific nature of Metronet, not really a company in itself but a consortium of suppliers all eager to make a profit out of the deal It was never its own master and should never have been awarded the two contracts on the basis that a supplier led organisation was never going to have a transparent and cost effective supply chaing.
While the company with the other third of the Underground contract, Tube Lines, does seem to be working effectively, the whole notion of 30 year PPPs for a task as complicated as maintaining and refurbishing the London Underground just does not make sense. The crucial question now will be whether there will be enough time to sort out a more sensible arrangement, or whether the Treasury will push for the replacement of Metronet with another supplier under the same terms.
It would not make any sense for a PPP Mark Two to be created in this way, but then the PPP in the first place never made any sense, as demonstrated in my book, Down the Tube, which sadly is out of print - though I have a few copies left myself.
The problem with the London Underground PPP is that it was simply attempting the impossible. Not only did it try to set out the work required on the Underground over a 30 year period - far too long - but it did so through a complex payment by results scheme that was always going to prove unworkable. Moreover, it encouraged far too much work to be carried out simultaneously, stretching the management capabilities of any organisation.
Then there was the specific nature of Metronet, not really a company in itself but a consortium of suppliers all eager to make a profit out of the deal It was never its own master and should never have been awarded the two contracts on the basis that a supplier led organisation was never going to have a transparent and cost effective supply chaing.
While the company with the other third of the Underground contract, Tube Lines, does seem to be working effectively, the whole notion of 30 year PPPs for a task as complicated as maintaining and refurbishing the London Underground just does not make sense. The crucial question now will be whether there will be enough time to sort out a more sensible arrangement, or whether the Treasury will push for the replacement of Metronet with another supplier under the same terms.
It would not make any sense for a PPP Mark Two to be created in this way, but then the PPP in the first place never made any sense, as demonstrated in my book, Down the Tube, which sadly is out of print - though I have a few copies left myself.
Cycling still not a priority
Thursday, 12 July 2007
I have just spent a couple of days in Aylesbury, one of the Cycling Demonstration Towns sponsored by Cycling England on whose board I sit. We had a very pleasant welcome and the presentation by the council officers working on the scheme was excellent. They proudly pointed to the fact that there had been a tripling in the number of people cycling regularly to work, though this was from a base of just 3 per cent!
The focus in Aylesbury has been to raise awareness of cycling through marketing and, specifically, through the branding of a series of routes into the town centre with the names of gemstones. It is a great idea, and clearly has raised the profile of cycling in the city.
However, there is a big problem: the routes themselves are pretty basic and mostly put cyclists on pavements alongside pedestrians. While the routes are excellently signed, there are strange ‘end of cycle route’ signs on cross roads, presumably trying to indicate that the route is not in that direction, but in fact, such signage creates confusion.
Worst of all, there are ‘cyclists dismount’ signs which not only will be universally disobeyed but, more important, reinforce the impression that cyclists are secondary road users subservient to everyone else. You would never get a ‘drivers turn off your engines’ sign, would you? Moreover, there are few cycle parking spaces in the centre of Aylesbury, apparently because it is a conservation area and the council is reluctant to put any in.
This goes to show the extent to which joined up thinking is needed to bring about that step change increase in cycling. Marketing is fine, and can bring some benefit. But until government agencies, whether local or national, really understand just what is needed to boost cycling, we will be tinkering at the edges.
Douglas Alexander, the previous transport secretary, did get it and he had started working with Cycling England to boost its income and profile. Unfortunately, with the arrival of a new minister, the learning process has to be started all over again. It is not looking good when one of Ruth Kelly’s special advisers is reported to have said that the money – all of £10m annually – spent on cycling must have been wasted as the transport statistics on usage did not show an upward trend! With that type of boneheaded stupidity, what hope is there?
The focus in Aylesbury has been to raise awareness of cycling through marketing and, specifically, through the branding of a series of routes into the town centre with the names of gemstones. It is a great idea, and clearly has raised the profile of cycling in the city.
However, there is a big problem: the routes themselves are pretty basic and mostly put cyclists on pavements alongside pedestrians. While the routes are excellently signed, there are strange ‘end of cycle route’ signs on cross roads, presumably trying to indicate that the route is not in that direction, but in fact, such signage creates confusion.
Worst of all, there are ‘cyclists dismount’ signs which not only will be universally disobeyed but, more important, reinforce the impression that cyclists are secondary road users subservient to everyone else. You would never get a ‘drivers turn off your engines’ sign, would you? Moreover, there are few cycle parking spaces in the centre of Aylesbury, apparently because it is a conservation area and the council is reluctant to put any in.
This goes to show the extent to which joined up thinking is needed to bring about that step change increase in cycling. Marketing is fine, and can bring some benefit. But until government agencies, whether local or national, really understand just what is needed to boost cycling, we will be tinkering at the edges.
Douglas Alexander, the previous transport secretary, did get it and he had started working with Cycling England to boost its income and profile. Unfortunately, with the arrival of a new minister, the learning process has to be started all over again. It is not looking good when one of Ruth Kelly’s special advisers is reported to have said that the money – all of £10m annually – spent on cycling must have been wasted as the transport statistics on usage did not show an upward trend! With that type of boneheaded stupidity, what hope is there?
Consultation is so often a sham
Sunday, 8 July 2007
Great article by Carole Sarler in today’s Observer. People in her street in Haringey are being consulted over how to reduce traffic speeds in the area and are being asked obscure questions about whether they prefer humps to speed tables or whatever.
All this has come through her door in an expensive glossy brochure for which the council refuses to disclose the cost. Sarler makes the apt point that she has no idea about highway engineers and just wants the experts to get on with it.
Too right. In these days of consumer sensitivity and obsession with ‘rights’, government agencies are always seeking the views of local people. I have been to ghastly consultation meetings over controlled parking zones where there is inevitably a ‘Mr Angry’ who makes the most noise and the least sense.
Look, for example, at the huge amount of hot air over the extension of the congestion zone in west London. Ridiculously, Kensington residents got into a lather over the scheme even though it meant that they would only pay 10 per cent of the congestion fee which would then allow them to drive throughout the zone, including the old part in central London. In other words, many of them are now getting a cheaper deal.
Not surprisingly, since the introduction of the zone in February, there has been virtual silence which means that it has been a success. Democracy is about a balance between elected members making decisions on our behalf, while ensuring that there is broad support for the outcome – and that’s the crucial point. We all want a more environmentally sustainable world but sometimes in the short term difficult and possibly unpopular decisions will have to be made. That is why less consultation and more action should be the norm. Instead, politicians all too often hide behind consultation to avoid making tough decisions which ultimately will benefit all of us.
All this has come through her door in an expensive glossy brochure for which the council refuses to disclose the cost. Sarler makes the apt point that she has no idea about highway engineers and just wants the experts to get on with it.
Too right. In these days of consumer sensitivity and obsession with ‘rights’, government agencies are always seeking the views of local people. I have been to ghastly consultation meetings over controlled parking zones where there is inevitably a ‘Mr Angry’ who makes the most noise and the least sense.
Look, for example, at the huge amount of hot air over the extension of the congestion zone in west London. Ridiculously, Kensington residents got into a lather over the scheme even though it meant that they would only pay 10 per cent of the congestion fee which would then allow them to drive throughout the zone, including the old part in central London. In other words, many of them are now getting a cheaper deal.
Not surprisingly, since the introduction of the zone in February, there has been virtual silence which means that it has been a success. Democracy is about a balance between elected members making decisions on our behalf, while ensuring that there is broad support for the outcome – and that’s the crucial point. We all want a more environmentally sustainable world but sometimes in the short term difficult and possibly unpopular decisions will have to be made. That is why less consultation and more action should be the norm. Instead, politicians all too often hide behind consultation to avoid making tough decisions which ultimately will benefit all of us.
Please, please, no overreaction to the bombs
Sunday, 1 July 2007
‘Britain under siege’ suggests the tabloids after three bomb incidents over the space of 72 hours. A Labour baroness, on Radio 4’s Broadcasting House says that she had been opposed to all the extra security, but now agrees it is necessary. It takes a Libdem, Paddy Ashdown, to point out that this is nonsense since most of the security measures are palliatives, aimed at keeping the police busy and the public appeased.
The truth, which no government politician has the guts to articulate, is that the sort of attack which, fortunately, failed over the past few days is impossible to protect against. New security measures will merely paralyse transport networks rather than do anything to protect people against terrorist attacks.
The introduction of extra security is always a reaction to the last type of attack. We are still asked at airports whether we packed our own bags, because supposedly the Lockerbie outrage was caused by someone taking on board a cassette radio they had been given by the bombers. But it is a daft question to which no one is going to answer in the affirmative. People are simply not stupid enough to take on such items and if they were, then the baggage is screened anyway.
Similarly, the ridiculous extent to which liquids are now controlled when boarding aircraft is a total overreaction and seems designed mostly to boost sales in airside shops. I will believe that they are serious security measures when cutlery, glasses and glass bottles are banned from inside cabins.
The incident at Glasgow airport threatens to lead to a whole new range of restrictions. Yet, like the car bombs in central London, these types of attack are unstoppable without massive added security. The authorities cannot stop cars driving near airports or other potential targets. But watch, now, for thousands of concrete bollards and other ‘protection’ springing up, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions and doing no good whatsoever.
It is dishonest for the government to pretend that these attacks can be stopped. They must be put in perspective. Terrorism kills very few people in this country, far fewer than other preventable dangers such as road deaths. Let’s just keep calm and ride this one out without any added security measures or, worse, legislation. Somehow we survived the IRA without terrorism becoming a threat to our civil liberties. The same should apply now.
The truth, which no government politician has the guts to articulate, is that the sort of attack which, fortunately, failed over the past few days is impossible to protect against. New security measures will merely paralyse transport networks rather than do anything to protect people against terrorist attacks.
The introduction of extra security is always a reaction to the last type of attack. We are still asked at airports whether we packed our own bags, because supposedly the Lockerbie outrage was caused by someone taking on board a cassette radio they had been given by the bombers. But it is a daft question to which no one is going to answer in the affirmative. People are simply not stupid enough to take on such items and if they were, then the baggage is screened anyway.
Similarly, the ridiculous extent to which liquids are now controlled when boarding aircraft is a total overreaction and seems designed mostly to boost sales in airside shops. I will believe that they are serious security measures when cutlery, glasses and glass bottles are banned from inside cabins.
The incident at Glasgow airport threatens to lead to a whole new range of restrictions. Yet, like the car bombs in central London, these types of attack are unstoppable without massive added security. The authorities cannot stop cars driving near airports or other potential targets. But watch, now, for thousands of concrete bollards and other ‘protection’ springing up, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions and doing no good whatsoever.
It is dishonest for the government to pretend that these attacks can be stopped. They must be put in perspective. Terrorism kills very few people in this country, far fewer than other preventable dangers such as road deaths. Let’s just keep calm and ride this one out without any added security measures or, worse, legislation. Somehow we survived the IRA without terrorism becoming a threat to our civil liberties. The same should apply now.
