Wolmar for London?

[TheNewNo2]

As you may be aware, RAIL columnist Christian Wolmar is running to be the Labour candidate for Mayor of London. I'm curious to know what the forum's views are on who should succeed Boris, and whether a transport journalist is better positioned than a politician to be a good mayor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well in a couple of weeks Labour Party members in London will be receiving their ballot papers for selecting the Labour candidate for Mayor of London, and at the moment my intention is to vote for Christian.

I don't see not having been a politician in the past as a huge issue. It may well mean he's less experienced at the kind of networking etc. that's required to get things done politically, but I would have thought that what matters more is having the vision of what you want to do, the managerial skills to implement it, the understanding of what you can do as Mayor, and the ability to inspire others and work with others to achieve it. Some of those skills are impossible to judge until you see how a person performs in office, but Christian certainly seems to have the vision and the ability to inspire that is required. I attended a hustings for all the prospective Labour candidates last week and thought Christian spoke well and authoritatively on most topics that were asked (not just transport).

I'm also incidentally very happy that the fact of Christian being in the race seems to have caused all the other prospective Labour candidates to give more priority to sustainable transport and the environment. At the hustings last week there was even some friendly banter between the candidates about some of the others 'stealing' Christian's ideas (such as pedestrianizing Oxford Street)

 

[SS4]

Old Rent a Quote will be able to give excellent soundbites although I question the substance behind them. It is largely moot for me though

 

[deltic]

I have mixed views about Wolmar - I remember reading his small pieces in the Independent over 20 years ago when he was beginning to get into transport supposedly about nonsenses brought about by impending rail privatisation which demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge about the rail industry eg pick up and set down only stops which were in place to keep commuters off inter-city services and which had been in place for decades and had nothing to do with privatisation.

He has obviously increased his knowledge over time but I have never liked journalists who use their position to promote their political beliefs -my naive view is that they should report facts and/or other people's opinions.

I dont disagree with most of his transport policies and its good to see other contenders having to improve their offerings in this area but sadly he doesnt stand a chance of becoming the Labour candidated

 

[muddythefish]

I have mixed views about Wolmar - I remember reading his small pieces in the Independent over 20 years ago when he was beginning to get into transport supposedly about nonsenses brought about by impending rail privatisation which demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge about the rail industry eg pick up and set down only stops which were in place to keep commuters off inter-city services and which had been in place for decades and had nothing to do with privatisation.

He has obviously increased his knowledge over time but I have never liked journalists who use their position to promote their political beliefs -my naive view is that they should report facts and/or other people's opinions.

I dont disagree with most of his transport policies and its good to see other contenders having to improve their offerings in this area but sadly he doesnt stand a chance of becoming the Labour candidated

Wolmar's job as a transport journalist commentator is to give his own opinions - he's not a a reporter

 

[Busaholic]

Perhaps he should stand as Labour leader instead - can't see he'd do a worse job than any of the present candidates.

 

[deltic]

Wolmar's job as a transport journalist commentator is to give his own opinions - he's not a a reporter

Fair point - he has become a pundit but states he is a journalist and certainly started of that way at the Independent AFAIK

 

[TheNewNo2]

I wasn't personally keen on Wolmar to begin with, I disagree with him majorly over HS2, but I can't help but feel he might well do a pretty good job. The majority of being mayor is probably TfL - after all, most other stuff is done by the boroughs or the country as a whole. I signed up as a Labour supporter so I could vote for him, and even if he doesn't win it seems some of his ideas are getting taken up by the other candidates.

 

[Busaholic]

I wasn't personally keen on Wolmar to begin with, I disagree with him majorly over HS2, but I can't help but feel he might well do a pretty good job. The majority of being mayor is probably TfL - after all, most other stuff is done by the boroughs or the country as a whole. I signed up as a Labour supporter so I could vote for him, and even if he doesn't win it seems some of his ideas are getting taken up by the other candidates.

There is another major role for London's mayor, albeit it one that has been somewhat funked by both the present and the previous incumbents, and that is being in charge of the Metropolitan Police - it seems like both Livingstone and Johnson deliberately chose not to get involved in anything controversial, of which there have been many these past few years. Red Ken, the scourge of the police in his GLC days, even though much of it was probably a charade, suddenly became Cuddly Ken, particularly where Commissioner Blair was involved and Johnson, having got rid of Blair for being Ken's man, promptly lost interest once Hogan Howe had been appointed. Brian Paddick never came over terribly well in the hustings but I think he would have taken an avid interest in police matters and not just been a 'yes' man to the Commissioner. Teresa May, for all her faults, has shown that she believes the police should be much more accountable.

 

[plcd1]

I'm afraid I'm not convinced by Mr Wolmar. I have asked him various questions on various topics in his "Ask Wolmar" twitter sessions. To be fair he always replied but I wasn't terribly convinced by some of his responses. On transport I actually don't view him as any kind of expert despite his alleged reputation and ability to always appear on screen after whatever disaster has befallen the rail network. I think his approach on a number of topics is unduly simplistic and I doubt his ability to be able to work even semi constructively with some boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea or Bromley. Heck not even Boris has been able to persuade K&C to have a cycle superhighway on Kensington High Street or Knightsbridge so what chance does Mr Wolmar have? He can't force them to do it nor can he act capriciously against them so what would he do?

I disagree with pedestrianising Oxford St which is presented as a panacea but it won't be. It'll be a disaster for a lot of people who rely on buses and no one has a viable working plan for what would happen to provide to bus and taxi users, those who have disabilities meaning they can't walk long distances or how deliveries would be handled.

I asked him why buses were mentioned once in his recent Transport Strategy document and he said "not enough space" in the document. Well that's pretty poor for the busiest public transport mode in London. If that's his attitude there then what can we expect on housing, governance, air quality, the Police, the Fire Service, equalities, planning decisions, health policies, extra devolution, the Council tax etc etc ? I know a lot of those criticisms can be levied at the door of many of the other candidates but many of them have some level of local government / central government experience. We saw with Boris at the beginning what a complete shambles his administration was for several months with appointees being hounded out of office by the media or otherwise resigning. It was only Sir Simon Milton and later Eddie Lister that have kept City Hall ticking over. You need leadership qualities and I'm not convinced Mr Wolmar has them and I also struggle to see him "fighting London's corner" on the national or world stage.

I read recently that what we need is not a "big personality" in 2016 but someone who is boring but relentlessly focussed and efficient on getting stuff done. In some areas we've lost 8 years of progress and planning effort meaning the next Mayor has a massive job on their hands to effect any substantive change by 2020.

 

[Robertj21a]

I read recently that what we need is not a "big personality" in 2016 but someone who is boring but relentlessly focussed and efficient on getting stuff done. In some areas we've lost 8 years of progress and planning effort meaning the next Mayor has a massive job on their hands to effect any substantive change by 2020.

Is Brian Souter available ?

 

[deltic]

I'm afraid I'm not convinced by Mr Wolmar. I have asked him various questions on various topics in his "Ask Wolmar" twitter sessions. To be fair he always replied but I wasn't terribly convinced by some of his responses. On transport I actually don't view him as any kind of expert despite his alleged reputation and ability to always appear on screen after whatever disaster has befallen the rail network. I think his approach on a number of topics is unduly simplistic and I doubt his ability to be able to work even semi constructively with some boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea or Bromley. Heck not even Boris has been able to persuade K&C to have a cycle superhighway on Kensington High Street or Knightsbridge so what chance does Mr Wolmar have? He can't force them to do it nor can he act capriciously against them so what would he do?

I disagree with pedestrianising Oxford St which is presented as a panacea but it won't be. It'll be a disaster for a lot of people who rely on buses and no one has a viable working plan for what would happen to provide to bus and taxi users, those who have disabilities meaning they can't walk long distances or how deliveries would be handled.

I asked him why buses were mentioned once in his recent Transport Strategy document and he said "not enough space" in the document. Well that's pretty poor for the busiest public transport mode in London. If that's his attitude there then what can we expect on housing, governance, air quality, the Police, the Fire Service, equalities, planning decisions, health policies, extra devolution, the Council tax etc etc ? I know a lot of those criticisms can be levied at the door of many of the other candidates but many of them have some level of local government / central government experience. We saw with Boris at the beginning what a complete shambles his administration was for several months with appointees being hounded out of office by the media or otherwise resigning. It was only Sir Simon Milton and later Eddie Lister that have kept City Hall ticking over. You need leadership qualities and I'm not convinced Mr Wolmar has them and I also struggle to see him "fighting London's corner" on the national or world stage.

I read recently that what we need is not a "big personality" in 2016 but someone who is boring but relentlessly focussed and efficient on getting stuff done. In some areas we've lost 8 years of progress and planning effort meaning the next Mayor has a massive job on their hands to effect any substantive change by 2020.

Interesting comments

Having worked on plans to pedestrianise Oxford St which were stopped by Boris it would be relatively easy. However, my approach is one that London Buses is impeccably opposed to! They dont like services operating one way during the day and another at night, ie Oxford St would be closed to all traffic from say 10-16.00 Monday to Friday and 10-18.00 at weekends - allowing rush hour traffic to use it during the week and deliveries early morning and evening and preventing it becoming dead at night.

Small electric buses could operate at all times for concessionary pass holders to allow disabled access. There are relatively fee pensioners who use Oxford St so such a service would not be overwhelmed

 

[Robertj21a]

Interesting comments

Having worked on plans to pedestrianise Oxford St which were stopped by Boris it would be relatively easy. However, my approach is one that London Buses is impeccably opposed to! They dont like services operating one way during the day and another at night, ie Oxford St would be closed to all traffic from say 10-16.00 Monday to Friday and 10-18.00 at weekends - allowing rush hour traffic to use it during the week and deliveries early morning and evening and preventing it becoming dead at night.

Small electric buses could operate at all times for concessionary pass holders to allow disabled access. There are relatively fee pensioners who use Oxford St so such a service would not be overwhelmed

Where do the existing buses go - along parallel streets ?

 

[deltic]

Where do the existing buses go - along parallel streets ?

No - on most corridors into central London there are three bus services the idea was to reroute these so one served Tottenham Court Road, one Oxford Circus via Regent Street and one Marble Arch - so you could still access most parts of Oxford Street by bus from each corridor - there would be limited parallel road running. Also get rid of all terminating routes and make services more cross London - thereby significantly reducing the volume of buses in the west end.

 

[meridian2]

I actually like Christian Wolmar, he says what he thinks, not unlike Tom Winsor. The fact that so many dislike him is possibly due to the fact he isn't restricted by union bosses spoonfeeding him corporate BS.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

deltic - Your comments make much sense, except that I don't understand why this...

No - on most corridors into central London there are three bus services the idea was to reroute these so one served Tottenham Court Road, one Oxford Circus via Regent Street and one Marble Arch - so you could still access most parts of Oxford Street by bus from each corridor - there would be limited parallel road running. Also get rid of all terminating routes and make services more cross London - thereby significantly reducing the volume of buses in the west end.

would imply this.

They dont like services operating one way during the day and another at night, ie Oxford St would be closed to all traffic from say 10-16.00 Monday to Friday and 10-18.00 at weekends - allowing rush hour traffic to use it during the week and deliveries early morning and evening and preventing it becoming dead at night.

Why have different routes for the buses at different times of day? If Oxford Street is pedestrianized during the day, why not leave the buses on their new routes throughout the day? (I'd have thought 10-16:00 Mon-Fri is quite restricted by the way - why not pedestrianize completely except possibly for delivery vehicle access at night?)

 

[TheKnightWho]

Interesting comments

Having worked on plans to pedestrianise Oxford St which were stopped by Boris it would be relatively easy. However, my approach is one that London Buses is impeccably opposed to! They dont like services operating one way during the day and another at night, ie Oxford St would be closed to all traffic from say 10-16.00 Monday to Friday and 10-18.00 at weekends - allowing rush hour traffic to use it during the week and deliveries early morning and evening and preventing it becoming dead at night.

Small electric buses could operate at all times for concessionary pass holders to allow disabled access. There are relatively fee pensioners who use Oxford St so such a service would not be overwhelmed

Both of those solutions seem like a good idea. I was in Florence and Rome recently, and they both operate small electric buses at higher frequencies in the oldest parts of town, which seems to work better in high-pedestrian areas.

 

[deltic]

deltic - Your comments make much sense, except that I don't understand why this...



would imply this.



Why have different routes for the buses at different times of day? If Oxford Street is pedestrianized during the day, why not leave the buses on their new routes throughout the day? (I'd have thought 10-16:00 Mon-Fri is quite restricted by the way - why not pedestrianize completely except possibly for delivery vehicle access at night?)

Oxford Street is unusual in that it is almost entirely retail with few restaurants etc - there was a concern that if the street was pedestrianised 24hrs a day then it would become dead in the evening and at night which happens in other towns and leads to anti-social behaviour. Hence the desire to return some traffic in the evening to increase the number of people using the street. If delivery vehicles were to be allowed at night why not buses. It would also address some of Westminster's concerns of rerouteing buses to more residential areas - with services returning to Oxford street in the evening and at night. Oxford St is a Westminster road and not a TfL one and Westminster is opposed to pedestrianisation so trying to come up with a solution that address their concerns was essential.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Nice enough guy - but in my opinion , not well enough known ....

Might make a good Traffic Commissioner - as he does understand how London works and the transport issues. Mayors job is more than that though ....

 

[Busaholic]

Also get rid of all terminating routes and make services more cross London - thereby significantly reducing the volume of buses in the west end.

Now that is radical i.e. returning services to the patterns that existed for decades prior to the 1970s when opo and increasing traffic problems began to lead to shorter and shorter routes, only very slightly ameliorated by the odd extension e.g. the 88 from Oxford Circus to Camden Town. However, even these can come a cropper - the 159 extension from Marble Arch to Paddington Basin proved so unreliable it was withdrawn without replacement!

Another big problem with cross-London routes is the current tendering system. It would be no good a company only with garages in North London operating through to Streatham for instance, or for a South London one to be able to supply a reliable service to Golders Green.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Oxford Street is unusual in that it is almost entirely retail with few restaurants etc - there was a concern that if the street was pedestrianised 24hrs a day then it would become dead in the evening and at night which happens in other towns and leads to anti-social behaviour. Hence the desire to return some traffic in the evening to increase the number of people using the street. If delivery vehicles were to be allowed at night why not buses. It would also address some of Westminster's concerns of rerouteing buses to more residential areas - with services returning to Oxford street in the evening and at night. Oxford St is a Westminster road and not a TfL one and Westminster is opposed to pedestrianisation so trying to come up with a solution that address their concerns was essential.

Ah OK, thanks, those are fair points.

 

[deltic]

Now that is radical i.e. returning services to the patterns that existed for decades prior to the 1970s when opo and increasing traffic problems began to lead to shorter and shorter routes, only very slightly ameliorated by the odd extension e.g. the 88 from Oxford Circus to Camden Town. However, even these can come a cropper - the 159 extension from Marble Arch to Paddington Basin proved so unreliable it was withdrawn without replacement!

Another big problem with cross-London routes is the current tendering system. It would be no good a company only with garages in North London operating through to Streatham for instance, or for a South London one to be able to supply a reliable service to Golders Green.

Wasnt the 159 curtailed due to Crossrail works closing Eastbourne Terrace at Paddington - a side issue was no-one appeared to be using it beyond Marble Arch anyway? I agree that cross London services are difficult due to garage issues - perhaps there is a need for more collaborative working between operators although that will reduce competition for routes when retendered.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wasnt the 159 curtailed due to Crossrail works closing Eastbourne Terrace at Paddington - a side issue was no-one appeared to be using it beyond Marble Arch anyway? I agree that cross London services are difficult due to garage issues - perhaps there is a need for more collaborative working between operators although that will reduce competition for routes when retendered.

Is it an issue? Is it necessary for garages to exist at both ends of routes? Offhand I've never noticed any large bus garages in the centre of London, so I'd hypothesize that routes that terminate in central London do not have garages at both ends?

I'm guessing that a garage at only one end causes inefficiencies at the beginning and end of service, but presumably in order to service cross-London routes, an operator could seek to hire space in another operator's garage if the cost of doing so was less than the cost of the extra bus journeys?

 

[deltic]

Is it an issue? Is it necessary for garages to exist at both ends of routes? Offhand I've never noticed any large bus garages in the centre of London, so I'd hypothesize that routes that terminate in central London do not have garages at both ends?

I'm guessing that a garage at only one end causes inefficiencies at the beginning and end of service, but presumably in order to service cross-London routes, an operator could seek to hire space in another operator's garage if the cost of doing so was less than the cost of the extra bus journeys?

For servicing running into central London then it is not usually an issue as the first bus in becomes the first out and that matches passenger demand. However, if you want services in the outer areas to start running at the same time then there is quite a bit of empty running.

My initial view was similar to yours - operators would hire space at an other operators garage but then there is the risk of either an operator being held to ransom or operators colluding when bidding.

 

[Busaholic]

Wasnt the 159 curtailed due to Crossrail works closing Eastbourne Terrace at Paddington - a side issue was no-one appeared to be using it beyond Marble Arch anyway? I agree that cross London services are difficult due to garage issues - perhaps there is a need for more collaborative working between operators although that will reduce competition for routes when retendered.

It never seemed to run to anything like its advertised headway at the Paddington end, so I think passengers voted with their feet, or took another route where available. Now Arriva have lost the 159 to Abellio.

With TfL purchasing buses themselves with the LTs perhaps they might consider running them as well, if we're going to return to the 1970s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it an issue? Is it necessary for garages to exist at both ends of routes? Offhand I've never noticed any large bus garages in the centre of London, so I'd hypothesize that routes that terminate in central London do not have garages at both ends?

I'm guessing that a garage at only one end causes inefficiencies at the beginning and end of service, but presumably in order to service cross-London routes, an operator could seek to hire space in another operator's garage if the cost of doing so was less than the cost of the extra bus journeys?

There have not been many central London garages since horse bus days, but inner London used to have a lot more than now. Victoria, Gillingham Street was the only surviving one for decades until Waterloo was (surprisingly) given permission to open. Victoria ran most, but not all, of the Red Arrow services but even forty years ago was finding it hard to recruit enough staff. Hammersmith used to have both a bus garage and a trolleybus depot on the Broadway, both long gone. More positively, Walworth re-opened and has been joined in the area by Mandela Way, so all is not lost! South and S.E. London have the best record in retaining their garages, probably because of the lack of alternative Underground routes, hence bus usage held up better during the dark days of service decline.

 

[Clip]

He got boyed off from appearing on the LBC phone in Bwahaha

 

[DarloRich]

He has obviously increased his knowledge over time but I have never liked journalists who use their position to promote their political beliefs -my naive view is that they should report facts and/or other people's opinions.

Surely he is a columnist and therefore paid to offer opinion pieces? I am assuming a columnist still falls under the banner of journalist