DOCSLIB.ORG

The Operator's Story Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Operator's Story Appendix Railway and Transport Strategy Centre The Operator’s Story Appendix: London’s Story © World Bank / Imperial College London Property of the World Bank and the RTSC at Imperial College London Community of Metros CoMET The Operator’s Story: Notes from London Case Study Interviews February 2017 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a permanent record for the researchers of what was said by people interviewed for ‘The Operator’s Story’ in London. These notes are based upon 14 meetings between 6th-9th October 2015, plus one further meeting in January 2016. This document will ultimately form an appendix to the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’ piece Although the findings have been arranged and structured by Imperial College London, they remain a collation of thoughts and statements from interviewees, and continue to be the opinions of those interviewed, rather than of Imperial College London. Prefacing the notes is a summary of Imperial College’s key findings based on comments made, which will be drawn out further in the final report for ‘The Operator’s Story’. Method This content is a collation in note form of views expressed in the interviews that were conducted for this study. Comments are not attributed to specific individuals, as agreed with the interviewees and TfL. However, in some cases it is noted that a comment was made by an individual external not employed by TfL (‘external commentator’), where it is appropriate to draw a distinction between views expressed by TfL themselves and those expressed about their organisation. List of interviewees Internal TfL views: Mike Binnington, Senior Principal, Commercial Finance Michèle Dix, Head of Crossrail 2, former head of Planning and Strategy Jonathan Fox, Director of London Rail Theo Haughton, Head of Strategy & Business Planning LUL & TfL Rail Andy Jinks, Head of Asset Strategy & Investment Dave O’Brien, Head of Risk Management, Rail & Underground Howard Smith, Operations Director of Crossrail, former Chief Operating Officer, London Rail Shashi Verma, Head of Customer Experience Julian Ware, Senior Principal, Commercial Finance David Waboso, Capital Programme Director External commentators: David Bayliss, former LU Director of Planning Stephen Glaister, TfL board member David Leam, Infrastructure Expert at London First Tony Ridley, former Managing Director of LU and subsequently the Hong Kong MTR Robin Steel, former LU Head of Asset Management Tony Travers, Professor of Government at London School of Economics Mike Woods, Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group (IIPAG) The Operator’s Story: London Case Study 1 General Summary of London Underground GENERAL SUMMARY This case study illustrates the following international lessons: . Parallel evolution of local government, national government interaction with local issues, and the technical shape of a complex metro system. The transition of an Operator and a metro system from lagging performance (1980s) to a world leader (present) all within the context of public ownership, periods of economic prosperity and crisis, politics of a democracy, and the constraints that come with it. Unintended outcomes of PPP initiatives. This includes both positive and negative outcomes from contracts themselves as well as the events that followed those outcomes. London’s urban rail PPP experiences are very much linked to the current shape and performance of public institutions. The evolution of asset management both as a technical discipline and Relevance to as a strategic tool for business planning and risk management. London Underground’s current asset management system was originally international developed to support the Tubelines and Metronet PPP endeavors. It has learning about subsequently become a critical business tool for LUs investment. Metro Operators . The role of an Operator with respect to political actors and informing their decision making process. A transition towards viewing and assessing urban railway projects as strategic urban competitiveness initiatives rather than just railways projects. This has been particularly important to the business case that underpins the Crossrail I and II projects. Lessons learned about managing large capital programs, both positive and negative. In particular, London has experienced several “stops and starts” in developing its metro system and also experienced periods of volatile funding. The impact of supra-national legislation (i.e. European Union) on the governance environment for metro operations. Most notably, these impacts relate to regulatory mechanisms that apply to the London Underground. First line opened in 1863 (Metropolitan Railway - Paddington to Farringdon with six intermediate stations) . Initial lines developed and operated under private companies and public authorities and were subsequently agglomerated in 1933 . System development resumed in 1968 with the opening of the Victoria Line across central London Background and . Jubilee line opened in 1979 and its extension was subsequently history completed in 1999. The extension is particularly noteworthy because of the large cost and schedule overruns that it entailed. This experience demonstrated a need to improve the effectiveness of London Underground’s major project management functions. At present, TfL is developing the Crossrail project which will add a further 118km of high capacity rail line across central London, although only the tunnels are new infrastructure. A north east-south west Crossrail II line has also been proposed. The Operator’s Story: London Case Study 2 London’s initial urban rail systems developed and operated 1863- independently under a myriad of different owners including private 1933 developers and local authorities. Different developer / operators of urban rail lines nationalised into the London Passenger Transport Board. The LPTB was accountable directly to the Minister for Transport and was given broad geographical 1933 authority as well as authority over multiple transport modes (including roads) under the London Passenger Transport Act 1933. Much of the underground’s branding dates from this period. “London Blitz” during WWII with aerial bombardment from the Luftwaffe. 1940- Tube stations serve as night-time bomb shelters and more than 1 million 1941 London homes are destroyed. London Transport Executive formed under the same parent 1948 organization of British Railways and tasked with implementing post-war repairs / improvements to the underground system. London Transport Board formed again reporting to the Minister for 1963 Transport directly without association to British Railways. 1968- London Underground introduces the first line in the world using 1969 Automatic Train Operation technology on the Victoria Line. London Transport Executive formed under the Greater London Council. This placed the Tube under a local authority rather than national government but resulted in funding shortfalls and under investment. Key dates and Disputes over fares compounded funding shortfalls. London’s zonal why they matter fare system dates from this period. 1970 During the late 1970s and early 1980s London experienced a general decline. The population of London actually shrank following the second world war. By 1988 London’s population was 22% smaller than it was in 1939.1 Increase in violence between the United Kingdom and groups including the Irish Republican Army and Provisional Irish Republican Army. 1970s London endured several attacks during this period, some in and around Underground stations, which were directly linked to this conflict. A Northern City Line underground train arriving at Moorgate station fails to stop and crashes into a tunnel wall killing 43 people and injuring 74. 1975 This led to the adoption of “Moorgate Protection” which served as an automatic train protection feature aimed at preventing similar incidents. Recession and riots affect London. In particular, the Brixton Riots 1981 evidence class divides and discontent in London’s urban areas. The “Fares Fair” policy comes into effect in London after advocating for lower public transport fares by the left-leaning Labour administration of the Greater London Council. The initial policy proposed during the Greater London Council election in 1979 was that fares would be 1981 subsidised on all bus, Underground and rail services in London through increasing local government rates. The policy was retracted in 1982 following a legal challenge. Average fares rose consistently in real terms for many years thereafter. The Operator’s Story: London Case Study 3 Transport Act 1980 deregulates bus services through the United 1984 Kingdom (but not London, where private sector contracts were let). London Regional Transport reporting to the Secretary of State for Transport. This act also established the London Regional Passengers' 1984 Committee (LRPC) with a mandate to field, investigate, research, and report on transport issues affecting Londoners. London Underground established under London Regional Transport to manage the underground network. Nine other line business lines 1985 established by 1988 to manage other aspects of London’s transport network. Kings Cross Fire - 31 people killed and a further 100 injured from a fire Nove at King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. This incident highlights historic mber, under funding as a primary cause of the tube’s poor condition and the 1987 pressing need to address a backlog of critical maintenance across the underground. London Underground Customer Charter launched
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of the East London Line
    HISTORY OF THE EAST LONDON LINE – FROM BRUNEL’S THAMES TUNNEL TO THE LONDON OVERGROUND by Oliver Green A report of the LURS meeting at All Souls Club House on 11 October 2011 Oliver worked at the London Transport Museum for many years and was one of the team who set up the Covent Garden museum in 1980. He left in 1989 to continue his museum career in Colchester, Poole and Buckinghamshire before returning to LTM in 2001 to work on its recent major refurbishment and redisplay in the role of Head Curator. He retired from this post in 2009 but has been granted an honorary Research Fellowship and continues to assist the museum in various projects. He is currently working with LTM colleagues on a new history of the Underground which will be published by Penguin in October 2012 as part of LU’s 150th anniversary celebrations for the opening of the Met [Bishops Road to Farringdon Street 10 January 1863.] The early 1800s saw various schemes to tunnel under the River Thames, including one begun in 1807 by Richard Trevithick which was abandoned two years later when the workings were flooded. This was started at Rotherhithe, close to the site later chosen by Marc Isambard Brunel for his Thames Tunnel. In 1818, inspired by the boring technique of shipworms he had studied while working at Chatham Dockyard, Brunel patented a revolutionary method of digging through soft ground using a rectangular shield. His giant iron shield was divided into 12 independently moveable protective frames, each large enough for a miner to work in.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Report 03/2014 February 2014 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Penetration and obstruction of a tunnel between Old Street and Essex Road stations, London 8 March 2013 Contents Summary 5 Introduction 6 Preface 6 Key definitions 6 The incident 7 Summary of the incident 7 Context 7 Events preceding the incident 9 Events following the incident 11 Consequences of the incident 11 The investigation 12 Sources of evidence 12 Key facts and analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation Into Reliability of the Jubilee Line
    Investigation into Reliability: London Underground Jubilee Line An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science By Jack Arnis Agolli Marianna Bailey Errando Berwin Jayapurna Yiannis Kaparos Date: 26 April 2017 Report Submitted to: Malcolm Dobell CPC Project Services Professors Rosenstock and Hall-Phillips Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects. Abstract Metro systems are often faced with reliability issues; specifically pertaining to safety, accessibility, train punctuality, and stopping accuracy. The project goal was to assess the reliability of the London Underground’s Jubilee Line and the systems implemented during the Jubilee Line extension. The team achieved this by interviewing train drivers and Transport for London employees, surveying passengers, validating the stopping accuracy of the trains, measuring dwell times, observing accessibility and passenger behavior on platforms with Platform Edge Doors, and overall train performance patterns. ii Acknowledgements We would currently like to thank everyone who helped us complete this project. Specifically we would like to thank our sponsor Malcolm Dobell for his encouragement, expert advice, and enthusiasm throughout the course of the project. We would also like to thank our contacts at CPC Project Services, Gareth Davies and Mehmet Narin, for their constant support, advice, and resources provided during the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--History History 2016 Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945 Danielle K. Dodson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.339 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Dodson, Danielle K., "Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945" (2016). Theses and Dissertations--History. 40. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/history_etds/40 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--History by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Operations and Maintanence Syetems for Metro Railways
    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS AND MAINTANENCE SYETEMS FOR METRO RAILWAYS NOVEMBER 2013 Sub-Committee on Operation & Maintenance Practices Ministry of Urban Development Final Report PREFACE 1) In view of the rapid urbanization and growing economy, the country has been moving on the path of accelerated development of urban transport solutions in cities. The cities of Kolkata, Delhi and Bangalore have setup Metro Rail System and are operating them successfully. Similarly the cities of Mumbai, Hyderabad and Chennai are constructing Metro Rail system. Smaller cities like Jaipur, Kochi and Gurgaon too are constructing Metro Rail system. With the new policy of Central Government to empower cities and towns with more than two million population With Metro Rail System, more cities and towns are going to plan and construct the same. It is expected that by the end of the Twelfth Five Year Plan, India will have more than 400 Km of operational metro rail network (up from present 223 Km Approximate). The National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (NMCC) has been set up by the Government of India to provide a continuing forum for policy dialogue to energise and sustain the growth of manufacturing industries in India. A meeting was organized by NMCC on May 03, 2012 and one of the agenda items in that meeting was “Promotion of Manufacturing for Metro Rail System in India as well as formation of Standards for the same”. In view of the NMCC meeting and heavy investments planned in Metro Rail Systems, Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) has taken the initiative of forming a Committee for “Standardization and Indigenization of Metro Rail Systems” in May 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Informing You Every Stop of the Way
    London Buses iBus Informing you every stop of the way MAYOR OF LONDON Transport for London London Buses London Buses informing you every stop of the way The most important priority for London Buses is to provide the best possible bus service for its 6.3 million daily bus passengers. By introducing a £117m state-of-the-art Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology system and comprehensive telecommunications across London, millions of bus passengers are soon to benefit from a more reliable, consistent bus service and will have access to real time passenger information (RTPI) at bus stops, on board buses and from SMS text messaging. With an 8000-strong and increasing bus fleet, Try the new bus travelling London Buses’ existing radio communications experience systems can no longer cope. iBus - one of the largest projects of its kind in the world - will Imagine having real time bus service revolutionise how services are delivered and information at your fingertips. A typical monitored. bus journey could be like this: A wealth of journey time data will be available You receive an up to the minute SMS text to analyse and improve on, and three of the message on your mobile as you walk out of same number buses arriving at once at a bus your house. As you arrive at the bus stop you stop will be a thing of the past, as every bus can confirm on the Countdown display that will be tracked and monitored ensuring an your bus will arrive in an accurately predicted efficient service on all routes.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime on Public Transport March 2016
    Police and Crime Committee Crime on public transport March 2016 ©Greater London Authority March 2016 Police and Crime Committee Members Joanne McCartney (Chair) Labour Jenny Jones (Deputy Chair) Green Caroline Pidgeon MBE (Deputy Chair) Liberal Democrat Tony Arbour Conservative Jennette Arnold OBE Labour Kemi Badenoch Conservative Andrew Dismore Labour Len Duvall Labour Roger Evans Conservative Role of the Police and Crime Committee The Police and Crime Committee examines the work of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and reviews the Police and Crime Plan for London. The Committee can also investigate anything that it considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in Greater London and make recommendations for improvements. Contact Janette Roker, Scrutiny Manager Email: [email protected] Contact: 020 7983 6562 For media enquiries: Mary Dolan, External Relations Email: [email protected] Contact: 020 7983 4603 2 Contents Chair’s foreword ................................................................................................. 4 Executive summary ............................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 8 2. Types of crime committed on public transport .......................................... 9 3. Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour on public transport ................. 13 4. Policing the 24 hour city ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transport with So Many Ways to Get to and Around London, Doing Business Here Has Never Been Easier
    Transport With so many ways to get to and around London, doing business here has never been easier First Capital Connect runs up to four trains an hour to Blackfriars/London Bridge. Fares from £8.90 single; journey time 35 mins. firstcapitalconnect.co.uk To London by coach There is an hourly coach service to Victoria Coach Station run by National Express Airport. Fares from £7.30 single; journey time 1 hour 20 mins. nationalexpress.com London Heathrow Airport T: +44 (0)844 335 1801 baa.com To London by Tube The Piccadilly line connects all five terminals with central London. Fares from £4 single (from £2.20 with an Oyster card); journey time about an hour. tfl.gov.uk/tube To London by rail The Heathrow Express runs four non- Greater London & airport locations stop trains an hour to and from London Paddington station. Fares from £16.50 single; journey time 15-20 mins. Transport for London (TfL) Travelcards are not valid This section details the various types Getting here on this service. of transport available in London, providing heathrowexpress.com information on how to get to the city On arrival from the airports, and how to get around Heathrow Connect runs between once in town. There are also listings for London City Airport Heathrow and Paddington via five stations transport companies, whether travelling T: +44 (0)20 7646 0088 in west London. Fares from £7.40 single. by road, rail, river, or even by bike or on londoncityairport.com Trains run every 30 mins; journey time foot. See the Transport & Sightseeing around 25 mins.
    [Show full text]
  • Revue Française De Civilisation Britannique, XV-4 | 2010 All ‘Kens’ to All Men
    Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique French Journal of British Studies XV-4 | 2010 Présentations, re-présentations, représentations All ‘Kens’ to all Men. Ken the Chameleon: reinvention and representation, from the GLC to the GLA À chacun son « Ken ». Ken le caméléon: réinvention et représentation, du Greater London Council à la Greater London Authority Timothy Whitton Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/6151 ISSN: 2429-4373 Publisher CRECIB - Centre de recherche et d'études en civilisation britannique Printed version Date of publication: 1 June 2010 ISSN: 0248-9015 Electronic reference Timothy Whitton, “All ‘Kens’ to all Men. Ken the Chameleon: reinvention and representation, from the GLC to the GLA”, Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique [Online], XV-4 | 2010, Online since 01 June 2010, connection on 07 January 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/6151 This text was automatically generated on 7 January 2021. Revue française de civilisation britannique est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International. All ‘Kens’ to all Men. Ken the Chameleon: reinvention and representation, fro... 1 All ‘Kens’ to all Men. Ken the Chameleon: reinvention and representation, from the GLC to the GLA À chacun son « Ken ». Ken le caméléon: réinvention et représentation, du Greater London Council à la Greater London Authority Timothy Whitton 1 Ken Livingstone’s last two official biographies speak volumes about the sort of politician he comes across as being. John Carvel’s title1 is slightly ambiguous and can be interpreted in a variety of ways: Turn Again Livingstone suggests that the one time leader of the Greater London Council (GLC) and twice elected mayor of London shows great skill in steering himself out of any tight corners he gets trapped in.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in London Had Always Been More Overtly Partisan Than in Other Parts of the Country but Now Things Became Much Worse
    Part 2 The evolution of London Local Government For more than two centuries the practicalities of making effective governance arrangements for London have challenged Government and Parliament because of both the scale of the metropolis and the distinctive character, history and interests of the communities that make up the capital city. From its origins in the middle ages, the City of London enjoyed effective local government arrangements based on the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London and the famous livery companies and guilds of London’s merchants. The essential problem was that these capable governance arrangements were limited to the boundaries of the City of London – the historic square mile. Outside the City, local government was based on the Justices of the Peace and local vestries, analogous to parish or church boundaries. While some of these vestries in what had become central London carried out extensive local authority functions, the framework was not capable of governing a large city facing huge transport, housing and social challenges. The City accounted for less than a sixth of the total population of London in 1801 and less than a twentieth in 1851. The Corporation of London was adamant that it neither wanted to widen its boundaries to include the growing communities created by London’s expansion nor allow itself to be subsumed into a London-wide local authority created by an Act of Parliament. This, in many respects, is the heart of London’s governance challenge. The metropolis is too big to be managed by one authority, and local communities are adamant that they want their own local government arrangements for their part of London.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Accessible Overground Stations Grouped by Overground Line
    List of Accessible Overground Stations Grouped by Overground Line Legend: Page | 1 = Step-free access street to platform = Step-free access street to train This information was correct at time of publication. Please check Transport for London for further information regarding station access. This list was compiled by Benjamin Holt, Transport for All 29/05/2019. Canada Water Step-free access street to train East London line Haggerston Step-free access street to platform Dalston Hoxton Step-free access street to platform Junction - New New Cross Step-free access street to platform Cross Canada Water Step-free access street to platform Clapham High Street Step-free access street to platform Denmark Hill Step-free access street to platform Haggerston Step-free access street to platform Hoxton Step-free access street to platform Peckham Rye Step-free access street to platform Queens Road Peckham Step-free access street to platform East London line Rotherhithe Step-free access street to platform Shadwell Step-free access street to platform Dalston Canada Water Step-free access street to train Junction - Canonbury Step-free access street to train Clapham Crystal Palace Step-free access street to platform Junction Dalston Junction Step-free access street to train Forest Hill Step-free access street to platform Haggerston Step-free access street to train Highbury & Islington Step-free access street to platform Honor Oak Park Step-free access street to platform Hoxton Step-free access street to train New Cross Gate Step-free access street to platform
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of
    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
    [Show full text]