2008 August Archive at LondonSays

Archive for August, 2008

A Doomed Campaign?

Published by Simon on August 28, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

Posting is light over the summer as we work on other projects, but this story dragged me back to the laptop:

Former London mayor Ken Livingstone is to work as a consultant for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez… The BBC’s James Ingham said the two men, who share left-wing political views, hugged each other like old friends.

Given the interest placed on Boris Johnson’s other jobs in the run up to the last election, for his rival (who wasn’t discrete in pushing the idea that Mr Johnson would be too distracted to do the role justice) to take such a high-profile and controversial contract seems like electoral suicide. Doing so in public shows the (slightly arrogant) surety of purpose which, I believe, put many Londoners off when they reached the ballot box last May.

Whilst the ex-Mayor continues to float his ‘not ruling out’ running again, I fail to see how this move can do anything but harm any attempt to return to power. Your thoughts?

A Lack of Narrative

Published by Simon on August 22, 2008 in LondonSays. 5 Comments

Boris Johnson’s teams should be worried about the recent editorials on his mayoralty found in the FT and Economist. Both come to the same conclusion - that his administration is lacking direction. From the Economist’s article:

Even Mr Livingstone’s critics concede that he had a vision for London: he championed growth, introduced the congestion charge and modernised public transport. It is less evident that Mr Johnson has a similarly clear sense of direction.

If this impression is allowed to become received wisdom then Mr Johnson will face the same trouble as the Prime Minister - seen as able but directionless, keeping the boat afloat rather than taking it anywhere. That is not a compelling narrative for re-election.

Mr Johnson has taken the admirable step of personally taking charge of the MPA and TfL - tasks which even his most fervent backers believed he would delegate to his army of deputies. He now needs to focus on proving that he has a vision for London which extends beyond running the Olympics on the cheap.

Governing London

Published by Simon on August 21, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

Thom Dyke has written an excellent article in The Times detailing the problems faced in governing London:

Attempts to regulate London are almost as old as the city. The post of mayor was created in the 12th century in exchange for Richard I levying taxes on London’s merchants to pay for the Crusades. Since then, the many attempts to reorganise London government have been so chaotic that Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics, has wondered whether it is “an ungovernable city”.

Well worth a read.

Breaking: Tim Parker

Published by Simon on August 19, 2008 in LondonSays. 6 Comments

The following press release has just been issued by City Hall:

The Mayor of London has decided to continue chairing the board of Transport for London.

Boris Johnson was due to hand over the role to Tim Parker this September, but has concluded that his personal involvement is crucial to being an effective Mayor, and to ensure appropriate democratic accountability to the people of London.

Mr Parker will remain on the board and advise the Mayor on the reform and improvement of London transport.

The Mayor said: “Transport for London is responsible for a huge range of transport policies that impinge directly on the lives of Londoners and I was delighted when Tim Parker agreed to take charge of the Board on my behalf. Over the last few weeks, however, it has become increasingly apparent to both of us that the nature of the decisions that need to be take are highly political and there is no substitute for me, as the directly elected Mayor, being in charge. There are limits, therefore, to what can be delegated.”

Tim Parker said: “I look forward to advising Boris on an ongoing basis on transport. I have concluded, however, that it would not be appropriate for an unelected official to chair a body which is responsible for most of the money and a large part of the brief of an elected Mayor. I also agree with the Mayor that my position as adviser does not justify my full time and exclusive commitment to the Greater London Authority, or the title of First Deputy Mayor. We have therefore decided to adjust the management structure and abolish that position.”

The Mayor emphasised: “London has not lost the services of Tim Parker. He has completed the first stages of the GLA’s restructuring and we will continue to benefit from his advice. I’m also personally gratefully to him for his continuing support and friendship.”

ENDS

At this stage, it’s not clear what has driven this move. Mr Parker’s involvement in the administration was announced with great guns, and the curtailing of his role puts Boris firmly in the driving seat of the Administration.

City Hall sources tell me that Sir Simon Milton is to take up much of Mr Parker’s work on GLA restructuring - a report on which is due this month.

Having parted ways with Nic Boles and James McGrath - and now limiting the powers of Tim Parker - it is up to Boris and his Policy Exchange team to lead the policy drive and restructuring of London Government.

Certainly, with Boris permanently sitting atop TfL and the MPA, he is taking a far more active role in governing than was envisaged by many.

UPDATE: Iain Dale offers his views here.

Transport Manifesto | Conclusion

Published by Simon on August 15, 2008 in LondonSays. 5 Comments

This is the final article in a seven part series examining the future of transport in London, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked,

—-

The Mayor has his hands full. In delivering projects as diverse as the Olympics, CrossRail, East London Line extensions, Tube upgrades and a major bike rental scheme for London, discipline is needed to ensure that all are completed on time and on budget. This is not an easy task. In the case of many of these schemes, the chances of overruns are high and sometimes out of the Mayor’s hands.

However, despite the number of significant capital schemes currently in delivery, there is no room for complacency when looking at London’s transport future.

London continues to grow at a substantial pace. The Mayor’s own figures estimate the city to grow by 700,000 people by 2016 - the year before CrossRail comes on stream. Already the transport network creaks in places, and the predicted influx of new residents will have to be well managed as to not bring the situation to crisis.

Significant headway can be made on the existing network through upgrade work and the tying together of different services. In managing the transition from car to bike and bus travel, the Mayor’s office is already concentrating on the strain that such shifts would put on the network as it stands. Such efforts are admirable.

However, the extra capacity granted by CrossRail, Tube upgrades, Javelin and new East London Line services will not last forever. CrossRail - mooted by Brunel in the 1840’s - will have taken almost 150 years from first utterance to finished product. The modern incarnation of the project will have taken 43 years to get running by the time the first passengers board.

The Mayor and Government need to look seriously at the long term development of London, and to start planning for it now. Such planning means the following:

working with Business to change the culture of ‘presenteeism’ and to allow employees to work from home
engaging developers to include genuine live/work opportunities in the new communities which they build
tying together the strands of TfL’s network to ensure that all pull in the same direction to reduce congestion
looking at relatively low-cost, local, projects which will have a considerable effect on local transport trends
considering what follows CrossRail. Looking at large-scale projects which not only transport people across London, but the centre too
making the case for a new airport for London, connected with high-speed rail links to the sister airports, central London, and other major cities.

These are not small challenges, but in aiming for a efficient 21st century solution to the transport problems faced by London, they should be met.

It is only through the able management of the existing network combined with the introduction of new transport mediums - better suited for a city which aims to be low-carbon - that the increasing strain placed upon London can be managed.

Such lofty plans require funding, and this is why it is essential that the Mayor proves capability in holding the budgets and timelines of the major capital projects which he currently guides under control. Excellent, mutually understood relationships with Business and Government are necessary to get the best deal for London, and the best deal for those who work and employ here.

2012 brings the Olympics, 2017 Crossrail. What follows that should already be the subject of fervoured discussion at City Hall. If it isn’t, then that discussion must start, now.

—

The articles comprising the Transport Manifesto will be edited and collected as a booklet, available for download from both LondonSays and LondonUnlocked by the end of August.

Many thanks for taking the time to read these pieces. Normal service will resume on Monday 18th.

Transport Manifesto | London’s Airports

Published by Simon on August 13, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

This is the sixth in a series of articles which will run throughout August, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked, examining the future of transport in London.

—-

“London’s airports are a mess.” That statement is not just our judgement, but also that of Steve Ridgeway, Chief Executive of Virgin Atlantic and Easyjet Chief Executive, Andy Harrison.

That the sentiment comes from operators at both ends of the price/service spectrum is telling. The basis of their argument is that the stranglehold which BAA has over London’s airports, is unfair and stifles competition. There is unprecedented unity on the subject, with BA, Virgin, Easyjet, BMI and RyanAir having spoken out in similar terms on the subject.

The Competition Commission has stated in its enquiry into BAA that it considers neither airlines nor passengers to be served by the fact that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead (regarded as London’s three main airports) are under its control. The enquiry is ongoing, though certainly it would appear that some form of break-up is in the offing with Gatwick being the most-likely sacrificial lamb.

Having one company in such a position of power is bad for business, bad for Government and bad for the travellers who have no choice but to use those airports. As has been widely reported, BAA’s stranglehold has led many to believe that it is handled with kid gloves by both Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.

The solution to these challenges would seem to lay in the breaking of BAA’s stranglehold - certainly doing so would provide a much-needed fillip to the industry. Only by introducing true competition in London’s airport market will we really know where extra capacity lies, and where expansion is needed. Basing plans for a third runway at Heathrow on a skewed model is nonsensical.

Returning to the initial quote, the reasons behind London’s burgeoning airport problem are clear to see.

BAA’s last annual review states that 67.3m passengers passed through Heathrow in 2006/7. That number will only grow with the roll-out of a full Terminal 5 service. Experts have long argued that Heathrow is sited in the wrong location, a hangover from the days of the airport being a military strip, causing infrastructure installation and growth problems. Combined with the fixed low landing charges (forcing BAA to rely on retail trade and thus compromising space and extra security channels) this creates a perfect storm for London’s main airport.

Therefore, there are two areas which should be considered a priority when considering the future of London’s airports - transport to the terminal buildings themselves, and managing capacity once there.

As we have argued, until there is true competition between London’s airports we cannot know what capacity is inherent in the current infrastructure. The Government’s first move should be to approve the results of the Competition Commission’s enquiry and open up the airport market.

Secondly, London’s airports should be able to raise their landing charges, reducing reliance on retail trade and thereby improving the speed and experience of security checks.

Moving people to airports provides a significant logistical challenge. The Heathrow and Gatwick Express trains are to be applauded for their regular and reliable services. However, until the Government can offer more to incentivise journeys via public transport a significant number of people will continue to travel to airports by car.

Brian Paddick, Lib Dem candidate for Mayor, announced a policy of using Farringdon station as an air-terminal, allowing early check-in of bags before travel. Coupled with the re-introduction of such a service at Paddington, a significant shift towards the usage of public transport could be achievable. As has been shown in Hong Kong, the early check-in service offers a strong incentive for travellers.

Policies need to be geared towards ‘full service’ strategies - rewarding those using public transport with the option of checking in early, giving them more time to get to the airport, and reducing the constraints inherent in the travelling process.

Government must look seriously at the introduction of high-speed rail links between and from London airports. With the potential break-up of a BAA monopoly such schemes may be intuitive and championed by both airlines and airport operators. However, serious thought should begin now on their viability and cost.

There has been much discussion of introducing high-speed rail links direct from London airports to the rest of the country. Such schemes would be worthwhile not only for their value as part of a modern rail network, but also in meeting carbon targets in the coming years.

So, LondonUnlocked and LondonSays take the position that the Competition Commission’s report into London’s Airports should be upheld and airports deregulated. After a period of settling, city rail and check-in links should be reinstated, and high speed rail run to our busiest airports.

Finally however, there is another option, and one worthy of serious consideration: Heathrow-on-Sea.

The Thames Estuary offers a fresh start for London’s airports. A true 21st century airport, complete with high-speed rail links to the capital and beyond is within grasp and favoured by the current Mayor.

Given its location, aircraft could operate 24 hours a day, and transport infrastructure be built to link to the nearest communities, all out of the reach of flight-paths. Given that the building of a third runway at Heathrow will cost £13bn, the £7.6 - £13.9b cost of a custom built airport makes it an appealing prospect.

Before any decision is made, the Competition Commission’s ruling should be respected and the market be allowed to settle organically afterwards. However, with a positive Mayor in place and the myriad of opportunities offered by such a fresh start on the table, this may be the ideal opportunity for such a project to go forward.

Paris, New York and Hong Kong have all moved their major airports without significant hiccups, delivering better alternatives for business and consumers alike. The Mayor, and Government, should look to their examples and aim to improve on the experience which is air travel in today’s London.

—

Friday 15th marks our seventh and final article in the Transport Manifesto, concluding the series.

Check back here on Friday to see our transport recommendations and a plan of action for the Mayor.

Transport Manifesto | New Transport

Published by Simon on August 11, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

This is the fifth in a series of articles which will run throughout August, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked, examining the future of transport in London.

—-

There are no shortage of large-scale projects on London’s horizon. Certainly with CrossRail and the Olympics to be delivered, and a major upgrade to the Tube network to be carried out, the Mayor finds his hands full and budget stretched.

Each of these projects have competing demands and run the risk of large budgetary overruns. Good management and excellent relations with the Government are required in order to ensure that the fixed deadline of the Olympics does not mean cutting into the budget from other major projects. It will be a difficult tightrope for the Mayor to walk, especially given that many of the factors which may lead to increased costs are entirely out of his hands.

However, the Mayor must look beyond these currently agreed projects in order to balance the needs of Londoners in the future. This article will examine some of the projects which would both fit London well and deliver considerable benefits.

London’s waterways: The Mayor was elected on a promise to increase river transport and has since spoken enthusiastically about the project. There is real opportunity for an increase in both the number and frequency of services operating on the river. Bringing the entire scheme under the auspices of the Oyster network would drive people to use the service who are currently put off by the high prices charged by ferry operating companies.

Away from the river, there are significant opportunities to be found in London’s canal network. British Waterways are concerned about their long term ability to manage the cost of the canal infrastructure. An agreement brokered between Government, the Mayor and British Waterways could see a sharing of responsibility between passenger operating companies and those using the service to deliver freight (a service which would also help to reduce road congestion).
21st Century Routemaster: Perhaps the Mayor’s most eye-catching campaign pledge, the “21st Century Routemaster” could actually solve many of the problems inherent on London’s congested streets. Replacing bendy-buses with smaller footprint and higher yield buses such as Routemasters will immediately have an effect on congestion.

In addition, the re-introduction of Routemasters could actually save TfL’s budget considerable costs over time. As LondonUnlocked has covered in earlier articles, the Routemaster, with attendant Conductor would see a significant cut of the estimated £50m ’stolen’ each year by those dodging fares on buses. Over a number of years, TfL would make large savings due to the design and running of such a bus.
Thames Cycle Bridge: As covered by LondonUnlocked in earlier articles, the proposed thames cycle bridge will connect the Rotherhithe peninsular with the Isle of Dogs. Estimated to cost £65m to build, this project would be a much-needed element of the regeneration of Southwark, granting essential health, environmental, and economic benefits to the area.

TfL rightly points out that a £65m investment is too large for them alone, but with Canary Wharf being a principal benefactor, and given the Olympic tie-in, sponsorship and funding should not be difficult to find. Relatively small projects such as this one can make all the difference in transport terms to local communities.
A Big Picture Project: Lord Rogers has proposed eight cable car schemes in the East of London, ferrying passengers over the river and to hubs such as Canary Wharf. Whilst not going into details with this project, which would be a bold re-imagining of London’s transport network, it is important that such schemes are not pushed under the carpet. Delivering such projects, no matter how small, is essential to challenging the established norms.
Simply put, there is little extra capacity to be had on the Tube. Beyond adding another carriage or improving the signalling again, there will be little benefit for an ever-growing population. Projects such as this offer alternatives. Small pilot schemes, delivered on budget and on time prove that they are workable solutions to an ever-evolving problem.

These four projects offer pointers to genuine transport alternatives which would have profound effects on their local communities and to London as a whole. Each have their benefits and their flaws, but each also offer a viable alternative to the established wisdom.
London needs to keep moving. Transport hubs, whilst important, are irrelevant if the traffic reaching them has ground to a halt. Careful planning and surgically chosen schemes such as the above could make all the difference.

—

On Wednesday 13th, our sixth article will examine London’s airports. The final article of the series will follow on Friday 15th, two days after that.

Check back here on Wednesday to see the next step in the Transport Manifesto.

Transport Manifesto | Decongesting London

Published by Simon on August 8, 2008 in LondonSays. 2 Comments

This is the third in a series of articles which will run throughout August, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked, examining the future of transport in London.

—-

De-congesting London is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, the lowering or better management of traffic density encourages safe and reliable transport. Secondly, less congestion means lower carbon emissions, the benefits of which feed both the environment and the economic strength of the city.

The Climate Trust, based in Portland Oregon, have argued for a sensible and joined-up policy of above-ground transport which would meet these aims. Mayor Johnson’s direction of travel seems very similar to their plans. The Trust argues the following:

This project helps reduce emissions from vehicles by reducing the amount of time cars spend idling at and accelerating from traffic lights. Improved traffic flow and reduced fuel waste from stop-and-go driving will lead to less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

The Mayor has already taken several promising steps in this direction. Since election, Mr Johnson has re-phased traffic lights in order to cut idling and the carbon intensive practice of accelerating and breaking towards traffic lights, taken steps towards making biking safer, encouraged cycling, and also aims to cut the congestion caused by single-decker buses by reintroducing higher capacity ones.

The implementation of these policies should cumulatively reduce congestion and help to shift commuters onto other forms of transport. However, proper planning is required in order to ensure that the shift does not itself bring congestion. In Beijing, unmanaged bike use has led to congestion and dangerous streets. Closer to home, Oxford Streets struggles under the congestion caused by the sheer number of buses using the thoroughfare.

Projects such as the “bicycle superhighway” scheme offer a genuine opportunity to revolutionise bicycling in London. Offering true links between the suburbs and centre, the development of a true network for cycling in London is a hugely important one. However, as Brian Paddick, former Lib Dem candidate for Mayor stated, the route chosen should not simply be a “path of least resistance“. Such a move would be counter-productive. The Mayor should use his new planning powers to ensure that the best route is chosen for London, not just the simplest.

The economic benefits of lowering congestion are considerable. Ken Livingstone signed London up to an ambitious programme of carbon reduction at the C40 Climate Leadership Group. To not meet those targets has an economic cost, and so the importance of switching to low and carbon neutral transport in London is imperative, especially at a time of economic downturn.

New transport also has a significant role to play in de-congestion. This is a topic which will be covered later in this series, though it is worth mentioning that for people to make the shift from private transport there has to be capacity and reliability inherent in the public transport system. Investment in the transport infrastructure is key to convincing people that there is a viable alternative.

As we suggested in our “Urban Planning” section, the definition of local communities, new developments and live/work arrangements in the future will hold substantial sway over the demands placed on the transport network.

All is connected when trying to change the public’s behaviour with regards to transport, and therefore it is heartening that the Mayor appears to be employing a broad policy of de-congestion, as detailed earlier in this article. However, in order to effect the kind of change which is needed, much more needs to be done.

—

On Monday 11th, our fifth article will examine the new transport methods for London and the opportunities which they offer for commuters, residents and tourists alike. The next article will follow on Wednesday 13th, two days after that.

Check back here on Monday to see the next step in the Transport Manifesto.

Transport Manifesto | The Olympic Legacy

Published by Simon on August 6, 2008 in LondonSays. 1 Comment

This is the third in a series of articles which will run throughout August, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked, examining the future of transport in London.

—-

The 2012 games present the Mayor with an immovable deadline. Four years and two days from the date of this article the Olympic park, stadiums, and transport infrastructure which support the London games will have been finished, tested, and will likely already be occupied by practising athletes, visitors and the media. If they are not, something will have gone badly wrong.

Boris Johnson will have faced re-election by the time the Olympics come around. Whilst Ken Livingstone will be remembered for encouraging the Government to back the bid, Mr Johnson will be held responsible, rightly or wrongly, for delivering the vast majority of the project.

The Mayor has been dialling down the rhetoric over the potential benefits of the Games in recent months, speaking in realistic terms of what can be delivered for the community in which the Olympic Village is to be based.

What is less clear, is what can be recouped form the Games in terms of a transport legacy.

The London 2012 Transport Plan details the proposals which the ODA regards as both necessary and achievable. Whilst considerable attention was given to the car-free element of the Games, other elements of the scheme are far more radical. From the BBC:

Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell said 80% of visitors would arrive by train. Many will use the 140mph Javelin train which will whisk spectators from central London in just seven minutes. A further 15% would use park-and-ride sites and 5% walk or cycle.

The Javelin train, which is at the centre of the Transport Plan, will go into passenger service in 2009 and will take passengers to the Olympic site in Stratford. It will also take just 10 minutes to travel from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link station at Ebbsfleet in north Kent to Stratford.

The Javelin train, whilst not ground-breaking technology, would seem - along with the East London Line refit - to be the enduring transport legacy of the Games. John Armitt, Chair of the ODA and former Chief Executive of Network Rail, understands well the importance of rail to the Games, especially given the lack of nearby parking on offer. As high capacity projects go, the 85% target for non-car travel is impressive and a benchmark for future schemes.

In addition, it is not unimportant to the future of capital projects that the Mayor and Government are shown the demonstrable benefits of a high-speed train system in action. Indeed, if successful it is hard to imagine the media not singing the Javelin’s praises.

It is important to remember, however, that the Javelin train will have been 5+ years in the planning and building stages, with an immovable deadline spurring construction on. Nothing else in London’s near future will encourage such an outpouring of funds or effort. In central London it will continue to be simpler for Government to look at the ‘quick’ fixes of adding another carriage or putting on another bus.

Perhaps predictably, given the spectre of Olympic overruns, any dynamic schemes for the Games were ruled out almost immediately. A monorail system, similar to the now-shelved scheme suggested for the Millennium Dome, was considered only to be ruled out. The significance of a new transport project operating in a high capacity environment such as the Olympics would have been monumental, and a real opportunity has been lost in not pursuing this line.

At this stage the most important legacy which the transport projects surrounding 2012 can deliver is one of budgetary accountability. For the schemes to come in on time and budget would allow business and Government to have renewed faith in such investments. Similarly, for the Olympic project to not delay the CrossRail build or other network maintenance is essential.

The Olympics offer an opportunity to prove that investment in transport reaps rewards for residents and business. Perhaps that is the most important legacy of all.

—

On Friday 8th, our fourth article will examine the de-congesting of London and the impact such policies can have. The next article will follow on Monday 11th, three days after that.

Check back here on Friday to see the next step in the Transport Manifesto.

Transport Manifesto | Urban Planning

Published by Simon on August 4, 2008 in LondonSays. 0 Comments

This is the second in a series of articles which will run throughout August, written in collaboration by LondonSays and LondonUnlocked, examining the future of transport in London.

—-

Boris Johnson launched his ‘direction of travel’ for planning early last month, pledging to take advantage of opportunities in the outer boroughs. This is a sensible policy for a number of reasons, not least in lessening the strain on the already-stretched inner-London transport network.

Key to Mr Johnson’s plans for these developments is the following pledge (emphasis mine):

All Londoners should have the homes, opportunities and services they need… London’s distinctive character and its diverse neighbourhoods and unique heritage must be cherished and protected.

Providing intelligent transport hubs for any new developments in the outer boroughs is essential to sustaining viable, low-carbon communities. All too often, transport does not join up. At High Barnet station, for example, bus links are difficult to reach, and some distance away. ‘Soft’ planning measures - the tying of bus services to trains or ferries is simple to enact and comes with significant benefits.

It is not uncommon in outer London for commuters to drive to their local train station - a distance of a mile or less. The first mile of any journey by car is both the most polluting, and damaging to vehicle’s engine. Simply providing buses which are accessible, time-tabled to meet incoming rail services, and have capacity, would reduce such journeys. Perhaps this would be a good testing ground for the inner-city inappropriate bendy-buses?

Such integrated strategies work in both existing developments, and for those still in the planning stages.

The Mayor and Government need to ensure the continued delivery of existing transport infrastructure, and for longer-term capital projects which plan for the city’s growth. During an economic downturn the appetite for such large-scale capital projects diminishes, but a range of new-thinking on the subject shows that for new developments, significant new transport links above and beyond the norm are not necessarily required.

Hank Dittmar, Chief Executive of the Prince of Wales’ Foundation for Architecture and Urbanism, has written about the possibilities of designing new developments and towns in his book Transport and Neighbourhoods. From The Guardian’s review of Mr Dittmar’s proposals:

The imaginary set-up envisages businesses offering employment packages for home-based work; and neighbourhood cafes and bookshops being converted to office space.

None of these ideas are pie-in-the-sky but rather a simple re-aligning of the traditional work/home relationship. His thinking tallies with Christian Wolmar’s own writing on the topic for LondonSays’ Alternative Manifesto:

Another way of reducing demand at peak times is to create a climate among employers that moves away from the ‘presenteeism’ which pervades so many office environments. It is amazing that so far there has been so little impact of the internet revolution in terms of transport demand. People simply turn up at work from 9 to 5 (more often 6 or 7 these days) in the way they always have done without realising that much of what they do could not be undertaken at home using broadband.

That the Mayor and Government need to continue to think ahead, preparing for population growth and shifts, there is no doubt. These cash-intensive schemes should be matched - even outweighed - by ’soft’ measures such as those listed above.
Businesses should be offered incentives to allow their employees to work from home, generating benefits for themselves and for London in reducing the pressure on the transport network. Just as biking and walking is now not just seen as an alternative to Mayor’s transport plan but a vital strand of it, live/work neighbourhoods and working from home should be part of the regular lexicon of London developments.

—

On Wednesday 6th, our third article will examine the Olympic legacy and what it should deliver for London transport. The next article will follow two days after that.