The Mayor and TfL Board have today confirmed the appointment of Mike Brown as Transport Commissioner.
Brown has held the post in a temporary capacity since Sir Peter Hendy’s resignation in July. Before this, he served as Managing Director of London Underground and Rail, a post he took up in 2010 following a period in charge of Heathrow Airport.
In terms of career path, Brown falls broadly within the technocrat category that TfL have strongly favoured in leadership positions in recent years. Whilst (at least to our knowledge) he is unlikely to be found lurking behind the wheel of a bus in the style of Leon Daniels or his predecessor, Brown can boast a considerable depth of knowledge of the inner workings of London Underground.
For his current stretch at TfL is, in fact, his second. Brown first joined London Underground in 1989 as manager of Neasden depot and worked his way up the chain until he was appointed Chief Operating Officer of London Underground in 2003 – a post he held until 2008.
Both that departure, and his subsequent return, weren’t entirely unexpected. As an organisation TfL possesses a penchant for senior officers who spend at least some time out of their immediate transportational comfort zone, as the presence of a small cadre of once-and-future TfL senior staffers in various global transport bodies from Toronto to Melbourne demonstrates. Taken cumulatively though, Brown can boast over twenty years of experience at London Underground.
That experience will likely prove vital in the coming years. As Sir Peter himself commented in our recent interview with Network Rail’s now-Chairman, the Commissioner role is one that practically demands a thorough knowledge of the network and the city it serves:
I don’t completely reject the notion that you can move between different activities as a manager. But this is a very complex city and a very complex place. And without an understanding of the geography and how the systems work I think you are a bit sunk, actually.
It should also act as a counter to fears that the current Mayor might make a more politically focused appointment – something that many felt would be unfair due to the proximity of a mayoral election which Johnson himself won’t be contesting. It would be exceedingly hard to cast Brown in this light. The new Transport Commissioner is very much a TfL “company man” (so to speak) but one who readers with longer memories, or who have witnessed his performances in front of various committees, will know has no qualms about speaking his mind. Indeed during the days of the Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) Brown’s introductions to his board paper submissions were often a particular highlight – his criticisms in them of both Metronet and Tube Lines were often brutal, but never less than honest.
Indeed it is likely no coincidence that it is the former head of London Underground that, of the internal candidates, has emerged successful. Whilst issues of devolution and budgets will come to dominate the mid-to-long-term political and operational transport discussion in London, it is the Underground that is likely to dominate in the short term. The Sub-surface signal contract, the New Tube for London programme, ticket hall and staffing changes and – of course – the Night Tube are all things that carry a risk of both failure and embarrassment should things go badly. Having a Commissioner intimately aware of what has happened so far, as well as the pitfalls to come, may well prove a major positive over the next twelve months at least.
In this regard, it would be no surprise to see another Brown – Nick – shortly confirmed as the permanent occupant of Mike Brown’s previous role (MD of London Underground and Rail). London Underground’s Chief Operating Officer has held the post on an interim basis since Mike Brown advanced to the temporary top job. Relatively new to TfL (although not to the industry), Nick Brown’s rise has been swift, but again his knowledge of the current state of the Underground, as well as his already-established working relationship with the new Transport Commissioner, will likely work in his favour.
Given that TfL’s Chief Press Officer is Mr Matthew Brown, we look forward – with a certain amount of pythonesque pleasure – to the possibility of a future email from Mr Brown confirming that Mr Brown has confirmed Mr Brown.
In the meantime, however, we offer our congratulations to the most senior of Browns on the occasion of his appointment to the post of Transport Commissioner.
And when Mr Brown criticises Private Public Partnerships he is really criticising the architect of those – another Mr Brown (but a non-railway one).
Alternatively if you were a new Mayor who wanted to “shake TfL up” then having someone associated with the past may be a positive handicap. Further if you don’t believe in rewarding failure or you completely disagree with the staffing changes then someone closely associated with the SSR signalling debacle and new operating practices may be your last choice.
For their own reasons a number of Assembly Members from different parties wanted the Mayor NOT to make an appointment now but to wait and allow the new Mayor to make their own mind up. I always found Mike Brown to be a thoroughly decent person to work for / with and it would be a shame for him personally, and likely for TfL more generally, if we end up with the “axe” falling on him come May 2016 and a new Mayor in place. The only candidate under whom Mike would be safe (IMO) is probably Zac Goldsmith who seems like “Boris lite” and is unlikely to do anything revolutionary at all. I also suspect Boris would have a “word in his shell like” to persuade him of Mike’s merits. I suspect Mr Khan or (heaven help us) Mr Greenhalgh would be “new broom” merchants with the latter not wanting any “in house” people in control. He’d want an axe man brought in to take away vast swathes of cost (and activity) from TfL. He certainly doesn’t wish to take Boris’s advice on anything to do with TfL given several of his public statements in recent months. Fun times ahead – provided you don’t work for TfL!
There are fewer Browns than there used to be, now that David and Peter have left Surface Transport.
@PoP a neat continuation of the Brown theme, but strictly, criticising a scheme does not necessarily imply criticism of any particular individual, and while Gordon Brown was heavily involved in the PPP fandoodle, he was not the only one.
Chris H,
And that Ian Brown is no longer on the board of Crossrail.
Setting aside the issue of Mike Brown’s surname, I can’t help wondering about his spell at Heathrow. I’m sure the general idea of people moving in and out of TfL at senior level is beneficial, but a period of about 2 years seems a bit brief from the point of view of “outside experience gathering”. But then I suppose he could be a quick learner.
@ Malcolm – Mike Brown decided of his volition to leave LU and go to HAL. I believe this was not long after the Spanish took over Heathrow. It was only the unexpected departure of Tim O’Toole as LU MD that triggered Mike’s return. IIRC HAL said they knew as soon as that happened that Mike would probably leave and return to LU – the chance of the top job was irresistible for him. I am sure his time at HAL did him no harm in terms of his career but it wasn’t some sort of organised “career break” from TfL. Having worked under a number of LU MDs I still say Mr O’Toole was by far the best – a real “class act”.
Hmm, I don’t know why sub-surface signalling went wrong, and Mr Browns role. But promoting the head man under which such a calamity occurred always has negative organisational consequences: there will be a quite a few people less worried about getting their job right while thinking if he can get away with the so will I.
With Mick, Mike, and Matt I take it that the future of the Bakerloo extension is assured :-p
@WalthamstowWriter
I think it would be very imprudent for any future mayor to replace a TfL appointee, for a number of reasons:
-the mayor and TfL need a strong working relationship – playing politics will seriously undermine that
-Brown is not associated with the Boris era, and would not need to be a Boris ‘policy’ to be revoked
-Remember the controversy when Ian Blair ‘stepped down’ as Met commissioner after losing the confidence of Boris Johnson a few months after the 2008 election?
-Sadiq Khan doesn’t seem to be prioritising transport, neither has he made any policy announcements that would revoke Boris’s transport commitments, therefore Brown wouldn’t be tarnished goods in his eyes
Nice article. Has Mr. Brown commented on any prospective tube extensions?
Mike Brown was not associated with the cancellation of the original SSR signalling contract. I would argue that the mistake was placing the second contract with Bombardier – and, as far as I recall, – he was still at HAL when this happened. Cancelling the Bombardier contract was, in the circumstances, the right thing to do.
Interesting to see there are no “brown girls in the ring”[1] at the head of TfL in either the feminist or BME sense. Just saying.
[1] 1978 Bony M reference…
@Briantist I’m not seeing what that has to do with anything. Do you think TfL should be appointing tokens?
@IAmHedgehog:
Briantist was following the “Brown” theme; the tastefulness of his remark could be questioned, but underneath it lies what may be a serious point of concern. It could be that there is plenty of diversity at the top of TfL, but it is always worth checking.
Ensuring such diversity at the top of any organisation is important, and the issue is not about appointing “token women” or “token anything elses”. It is about minimising any barriers to entry from underrepresented sections of the community.
As I said, TfL is, one would hope, already doing this.
I read briantist’s comment and allowed it.
I have worked on the basis that no comment can be more tasteless than John Bull’s headline. Witty but a bit tasteless (sounds like “Send in the …).
@PoP:
“I have worked on the basis that no comment can be more tasteless than John Bull’s headline.”
A bold challenge online!
I’m not going to descend into name the non-white non-male members at the top of the organisation, but it’s certainly not exclusively white men at the top. TfL is pretty good at encouraging diversity internally.
As Malcolm says, remove the barriers and encourage people to apply and the cream will rise. Like with most organisations it’s going to take time for the workforce at all levels to become representative of the city – if you want diverse directors you need a diverse range of senior managers etc etc. Ultimately you can trace diversity down to the subjects people are studying at university too.
But I did think the article title a little brave!
@ Londoner – clearly TfL / LU are not exclusively controlled by white males but it has taken the transport industry a very long time to actively encourage a better mix of people at all levels. I think TfL has pushed harder in recent years and Crossrail has had a very strong emphasis on building skills and talent that should help the “mix” in future years. One thing where I would quibble ever so slightly is your “cream rises to the top” point. That’s true in the case of exceptional and ambitious people. However IME there have only been pockets of proper management development in TfL / LU. The LU ops side have been extremely good at spotting and pushing / helping their managers develop. Some people have done astoundingly well once given the right help and some have gone to far flung bits of the world and others have moved into other directorates. Other parts of the organisation have been less good at such development and you had to be exceptionally “pushy” to clamber your way up – especially at the more senior levels. I suspect the same applies in many organisations but I can’t comment for them. Hopefully TfL are now working far more consistently in terms of management development practices so as to secure the future of the organisation’s skills and talent.
I would like to see Mr Brown overhaul the fare system and bring back zone by zone ticketing. The cost of a one day travelcard is eye-watering and especially galling if you are only travelling across a relatively few zones.
@LadyBracknell You seem to be describing Oyster PAYG?
Walthamstow Writer:
I can see the point you are making about diversity, but TfL has done more than most. You may have seen TfL promoting 100 years of women in transport this year, and at the Everywoman Women In Transport Awards earlier this year, TfL was the only organisation with more than one shortlisted person. Including the overall winner of their special award, there were five.
When I worked on recruitment in my field, I was always disappointed by the high proportion of white, male applicants, but that reflected the high proportion of white male graduates in the discipline concerned.
Am I the only woman who finds things like “100 years of women in transport” terribly patronising? I wouldn’t want to work for a company that treated me like a novelty. Or a token.
@ Lady Bracknell – fares are set by the Mayor. Clearly advice comes from TfL on the “shape” of the package given whatever imperatives are set by the Mayor (responding to public or Assembly pressure). We know there will be some change on fares matters from 2016 once the new Mayor is elected.
I suspect we will get a fairly bland Jan 2016 Fares Revision with a RPI increase plus some bells and whistles about Oyster being extended to Gatwick, Epsom, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford North and Hertford East. I think that’s all being “saved up” for Auntie Claire and Uncle Patrick to wax lyrical about at the Conservative Party Conference. We’re nearly at Fares Revision announcement time so I’d better get my annual article ready. 🙂
The only way you might get what you wish for is for there to be a very concerted campaign to influence the Mayoral candidates. Unfortunately several of them have “hobby horses” which are to do with cutting fares which is superficially attractive but won’t work in the context of the Chancellor being a right old “so and so” on revenue grant – he apparently doesn’t *believe* in such things. That shows the depth of his understanding of big City transport but there you go. Obviously TfL have their own “views” about where they want to go strategically but we don’t know all the ramifications of that strategy but as I said the other day I am now pretty much persuaded that one of those aspects is the removal of the Travelcard product as it’s too “generous” and inflexible from TfL’s viewpoint. They can play far more games with time bands, charging regimes, caps etc by effectively forcing everyone on to Contactless or Oyster (Mark 2). Quite where the TOCs and DfT are on this I don’t know because ITSO is not really terrible flexible at all. The only counterbalance to all this is pinning down a future Mayor to very firm commitments about the structure of fares products. It’ll be interesting to see if any of them are minded to make such commitments or have even perceived the possible risks (to them electorally or to TfL in terms of funding) from either doing so or not doing so. It’s not an easy area but an attempt to kill Travelcard could become very nasty very quickly.
@ 100 and Thirty – yes I know TfL have been active in recent years but that is only after quite a long time when not much happened. There is a far greater emphasis these days on spotting “talent” and trying to foster it and develop it at whatever level of experience. I understand why TfL have pushed their profile with various industry type events and unfortunately that sort of thing remains necessary. I’m perhaps not best qualified to comment being white and male but I struggle ever so slightly with “Women in Industry” type events. I’d much prefer a “We’re all damn good in Industry” type event that just ignored gender, disability etc (in the sense it should be irrelevant) and rewarded excellent people doing good things for the right reasons. It’s what you do and how you do it not what “sticky label” someone has stuck on you that’s important. When I managed a team, and I never thought I was much good at it, I tried to treat people equally and fairly as best as I could. It’s only when I was leaving that I got some nice feedback that I had actually got a fair bit of the old “people management” stuff right and that people valued how I’d treated them. C’est la vie!
@IAmHedgehog – In response to your question “Am I the only woman who finds things like “100 years of women in transport” terribly patronising?”, I recommend that you read the book “Railway Women – Exploitation, Betrayal and Triumph in the Workplace” by Helena Wojtczak, who was brought up in my part of South London. It comprises nearly 400 pages that may well answer your question.
Suitable music track
( Judy Collins )
@Greg I have it playing right now.
@Graham Thank you, I will look up the book.
IAmHedgehog,
There is also a fair amount to read on her website (her company is Hastings Press) e.g. here. A consideration as the book (even secondhand) is quite expensive.
I make no comment about whether things like “100 years of Women in Transport” is patronising or not, but the fact is women, like many groups are under-represented in Transport. As a digression, a doctor who works in the training process for doctors told me a few years ago that >50% of medical students are women, but the amount of time they spend in the profession after graduating was less than 10 years. We discussed why, and having children was a significant factor.
Walthamstow Writer. I have complete empathy with your final sentiment about managing people. Much the same came back to me when I retired and I had been managing people – directly or indirectly for over 30 years.
@Anonymous: 26 September 2015 at 17:32. I am not describing Oyster. Time was, and it doesn’t seem that along ago, when you could buy ‘zone extension fares’. For most of my adult life I lived in zone 2 and it was possible to top of a 1/2 zone travelcard for each zone that you travelled beyond. I really can’t see the purpose of the current one day travelcard given that it costs a whopping £12 plus, although it does allow you to use the entire transport network – trains/tube/buses/trams – within the designated zones.
I never really had a proper grasp of Oyster as until I stopped working, I used a weekly zone 1/2 travelcard. However, I now use contactless and travel mostly by bus, although it can be incredibly slow.
I really can’t see any new mayor of London making a drastic overhaul of the fare structure unless he has Corbynite tendancies. The mayor is still a politician and we all know that the bottom line is business and revenue.
@Lady Bracknell
“it was possible to top of a 1/2 zone travelcard for each zone that you travelled beyond”
It still is
I really can’t see the purpose of the current one day travelcard given that it costs a whopping £12 plus”
What if you are doing more than £12 worth of travel (3 tube fares)
“although it does allow you to use the entire transport network – trains/tube/buses/trams – within the designated zones”
Isn’t that the purpose?
@LadyBracknell.
What you describe is the ‘modern’ equivalent of an oystercard loaded up with a weekly zone 1/2 travelcard, plus some ‘top-up’ cash also loaded on the oyster for ‘out of zone’ trips.
Personally, I buy a weekly zone 2/3 travelcard, and add an extra £10 pay-as-you-go every couple of weeks for extra trips into zone 1.
The system you describe still works, it’s just all reasonably automatic now – just touch in and out, and the system (usually) works out which portion of your journey is covered by your travelcard, and which is the top-up.
@ Timbeau – there has been a huge volume of complaint about the rationalisation of the One Day Travelcard product. The scale of increase at the last revision was pretty much unprecedented and in my view unjustified. I know all the ins and outs of the “part time worker” claptrap and merged daily caps etc. TfL have recently slapped themselves on the back saying it’s all working wonderfully but what has happened is a huge slump in the sales of the OCTC product. From TfL’s and TOCs’ view that probably is a success. I don’t view “upsetting” (the mild version of what I wanted to say) a decent proportion of travellers as a sensible policy objective. Families, young people, self employed people have all complained about the massive impact of those price increases and all it’s done is stop people from travelling and resulted in less business activity as discretionary travel is now too expensive and stops people enjoying a meal out or a trip to a tourist attraction etc. TfL is in the business of *supporting* London’s economy, well that’s their own mantra when they want cash for investment, but coming up with fares options like this for the Mayor to then sign off helps no one really. It’s also affected people beyond the zonal area who’ve seen their “day out to London” costs rise massively too.
If we have now decided that all fares have to be set to make a profit for the providers then why not just let rip and shove them all up massively and be done with it? That would at least be honest rather the “crocodile tears” palaver we get from the politicians about “bearing down on fares” which means 30+% fare increases. I’d hate to see them bear *up* on fares!
To clarify how it works – if you touch in within the validity of the a pre-loaded Z12 Travelcard, and touch out in Z3, outwith that validity, it will charge you a Zone 3 PAYG fare. (If you hadn’t touched in, it would charge you an Oystermax unresolved journey)*
Conversely, if you touch in in Zone 3, it will set up a PAYG journey and, when you touch out within your Travelcard Zones it will resolve it as a Zone 3 fare, rather than a Z123 fare.
Even more clever, if you have a Travelcard that does not cover Zone 1, and make a cross-London journey both starting and finishing within your validity (i.e outside Zone 1) but for which the standard fare assumes you cross Z1, it will charge you the Zone 1 fare unless you use the pink validators to prove you orbited.
* Some of the TOCs initially insisted on people getting a free (but difficult to obtain) Oyster Extension Permit before doing this. This was, apparently, because so many of their stations are not gated, or indeed are outside Oyster altogether, and they couldn’t bear the thought of someone travelling beyond their validity without already having a ticket. (If you have touched in on PAYG you do have a valid ticket, because it deducts the maximum fare). Common sense has now prevailed, and Oyster Travelcard Holders, who as season ticket holders have already paid money to the TOC and should be considered loyal customers rather than attempted fraudsters, at least until proved otherwise, are trusted just a little bit more than they used to be.
To play devil’s advocate here, should discretionary travel not be discouraged during peak times? Given the passenger density on peak time trains (even those not passing through zone 1), I’d favour any attempt to push discretionary travellers into the middle of the day.
@ Timbeau
Even more clever, if you have a Travelcard that does not cover Zone 1, and make a cross-London journey both starting and finishing within your validity (i.e outside Zone 1) but for which the standard fare assumes you cross Z1, it will charge you the Zone 1 fare unless you use the pink validators to prove you orbited.
Generally that is correct but there are some interesting pricing exceptions which presume a non Zone 1 route as the default fare (no pink touches needed) and it is actually possible to go via Zone 1 on the tube changing lines within paid areas and still not be charged via Zone 1. And no, I’m not going to list them.
Walthamstow Writer,
the One Day Travelcard product. The scale of increase at the last revision was pretty much unprecedented
Actually, technically, the cost of the One Day Travelcard product that survived the fares revison went substantially down in price. What you are really complaining about is the withdrawal of the off-peak travelcard.
@ PoP – sorry but you’re wrong. The off peak one day Travelcard hasn’t been withdrawn at all. The range was ridiculously rationalised which de facto means a massive price increase if you want that product and live in Zones 1-4. There remains a price differential between peak and off peak on some One Day Travelcard products.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tube-dlr-lo-adult-fares.pdf
If you compare ODTC prices with Oyster / Contactless Daily Caps I refuse to believe that there is a justification for a near 50% premium for Zones 1 and 2 travellers who wish to have a piece of printed encoded paper rather than a Smartcard. That’s lunacy when there has been no great push on TfL’s part to get rid of the ODTC until this last fares revision. There has always been far more sales of the *off peak* product than the *peak* product and it is those people who have complained in large numbers and justifiably so IMO.
Walthamstow Writer,
Well the off-peak travelcard has effectively between withdrawn for zones 1-4 as it is shown as the same price as an all day one on the link you provided. I must admit I was convinced it was zones 1-6.
I wasn’t arguing about whether or not it was the right thing to do to have a fares hike. I can see that the issue is not one-sided and there is an arguable case for it but I can also see your point of view.
WW refers to a premium “for … travellers who wish to have a piece of printed encoded paper rather than a Smartcard”.
Perhaps important to mention that some people might be doing “really weird” things like staying on platforms taking pictures, going out and back without leaving the train or taking illogical routes. The Smartcard is not (I think) Smart enough to avoid charging these people all sorts of penalties because it can’t properly resolve where they been. The printed ticket serves such people (some of whom may be members of our community) well.
The fare structure is certainly labyrinthine and it’s so easy to fall foul of the rules. I travel mostly by bus these days, although I have recently discovered that it’s cheaper to do an off-peak train journey from my home station in zone 3 into zone 1 than it is to make two bus journeys.
@Malcolm
“Perhaps important to mention that some people might be doing “really weird” things like staying on platforms taking pictures, going out and back without leaving the train or taking illogical routes. The Smartcard is not (I think) Smart enough to avoid charging these people all sorts of penalties because it can’t properly resolve where they been. ”
Sometimes it works the other way though. I recently travelled from Moorgate- Finsbury Park – Tottenham Hale, and back via Stratford to St Pauls, to track bash the Lea Bridge line, which I had not done before. To my surprise Oyster charged me a Zone 1 single fare, although I had touched out at Tottenham Hale LU and back in at Tottenham Hale NR, which are definitely not in Zone 1. Presumably it treated TH as an OSI!
@ Malcolm – the complaints I have seen about the ODTC price are from people who prefer a simple, easy to use product that gives them flexibility. I’d be astonished if any of them were foaming at the mouth trainspotters. A decent proportion of families will not have Oyster cards for everyone nor bank cards. They may well be in the outer suburbs where Oyster retailing is sparse but there is a railway station. Remember that the TOCs typically do NOT retail Oyster Cards as a product except in a few notable locations and even that number has dwindled rather than expanded. Being able to use a ticket machine to add value is no good if you haven’t got a card. I may understand Oyster inside out and upside down and know the fares but I’m in no way representative of the mass of travellers. A further subset of those complaining are railcard holders or people travelling in on main line from beyond the Zones. Oyster offers very little for those people in any sort of easily accessible way. Has anyone seen an advert from TfL that tells people what a roving member of staff can do at a passenger machine rather than at the invisible ticket office? If you don’t tell people they won’t know and all people now find is an inaccessible technology and no one to help them. There is a lot of room for a lot of improvement but I hold out no hope for such in the short term.
…congratulations to the most (or more?) senior of Browns… are there others?? 🙂
I don’t suppose you could find some relevant examples? Recent board papers are hard enough to come by, let alone ones from ten years ago.
I did try and hunt some out, actually but couldn’t find any of the classics.
I remember one which all but described Metronet of being a bunch of gangsters, for example.
@ Swirlythingy – all the TfL Board papers back to Ken Livingstone’s time are all available on the TfL website. They’re about the only bit of TfL electronic history that stretches back that far on that website (as opposed to archive snapshots done by others).
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/board-papers/board-papers-past-years
There certainly isn’t an equivalent Press Release archive although there should be. It goes back to 2004 only and there are myriad broken links. A real shame if you ever wanted to research what happened, when and what public claims were made.
Being a very sad person I have delved back as far as 2000 to look at old Board papers. It’s quite telling to see the differences in approach and transparency that have happened over the years. The pace of change on fares and concessions in the early years of Ken Livingstone’s first term is quite startling. Every few months there was a Mayoral Direction changing discounts, ticket validities and fares (for things like Night Buses).
And … ( looking forward to next year’s mayoral election ) from public pronouncements made so far, it seems that Labour’s candidate is not really interested in transport & as for the Tories, it’s anyone’s guess ….
IIRC the Lem-o-Crats candidate IS interested in transport, but (IMHO) she is very unlikely to be elected …..
[General moderator’s advice on this area: tread carefully. This comment is OK, but would everyone please ensure that any remarks about mayoral candidates are fact-based, transport-related, and not too offensive. Malcolm]
Given that its probable that the Tories will retain the London mayoralty, I think it likely that the new mayor, presumably Goldsmith, will want his own man as Commissioner. In which case, Mr Brown’s tenure would be short.
I recall that BoJo attempted to appoint one of his political pals when first elected as mayor. Bloke called Parker who has a distinguished business career albeit one where possibly too many forms P45 were dispensed. Given that TfL is totally biddable by the mayor, I’d think it likely that the new mayor, presumably Goldsmith will want his own man in position and thus is likely to (re)appoint Parker or somebody of similar ilk.
I see no reason why there should be a change. Peter Hendy was appointed by Ken Livingston, but retained by Boris Johnson because he got honest impartial (except for the interests of London) advice. Boris could have dismissed him and installed whoever he wanted as he did with the Police.
I see the Commissioner’s role as a-political, like a Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service. It’s the TfL Board that might be political with the Mayor as chair. Crucially the Commissioner isn’t a member of the TfL Board.
Mike Brown should be seen as a-political too. He has served organisations of both the main political colours. He was LU’s honest broker with TfL/Ken when Labour Ken was at loggerheads with the then Labour government over the PPP whilst LU still reported to the government, and he was appointed by Conservative Boris. His open candour is, as far as I’m aware, appreciated and respected by the GLA Transport committee members of all colours.
Personally, I believe that whoever is elected, they would be stupid to remove a transport professional who has got though an international selection process intended to show the successful candidate as being competent to run a huge organisation.
London needs (transport) professionals, and not political hacks.
@ 100 and thirty – re your final sentence. Try telling that to the politicians who want to fiddle about with stuff and be the “new broom”. I’d love to know why Tim Parker opted to resign before he’d taken up the post. I’m sure that the press coverage at the time really doesn’t reflect what went on but then the early days of the Johnson administration were marked with turbulence and chaos as he’d never run anything before.
@ Alexjames – I actually suspect that Goldsmith is least likely to boot Mr Brown out the door. I can see Mr Khan wanting his own person and ditto for Mssrs Greenhalgh or Boff if, by some miracle, they were to win the Conservative nomination. The latter two will want an unfettered axeman to come in and strip TfL bare in order to bolster their claims of “reduced fares” or “efficiency”. Mr Brown’s standing with the Transport Committee is of little relevance given a great many Assembly members are standing down in May 2016 and many Committees will lose members of long standing and experience. Val Shawcross is going as are Darren Johnson and Richard Tracey (all members of the Transport Commitee over several years) and a lot of knowledge and relationships with key industry people will go with them. Many other people are leaving including several Tory members plus Jenny Jones for the Greens. Whatever anyone thinks of their politics and views there’s no doubt that a lot of experience and a willingness to challenge the Mayor (even from his own side) will go.
I think it will take many months for things to stabilise with whoever is Mayor and with whatever structure the Assembly has. A lot of people have a lot of learning to do.
That’s enough about which candidates may or may not replace Mike Brown if elected. It is probably common ground that any of them could do so if they chose, and probably most (if not all) commenters here feel that to do so would be a mistake.
Unless there is a public statement from a candidate on this matter (most unlikely), there seems little point in speculating further on it.
@Greg Tingey – I did actually go to a Conservative mayoral hustings event a couple of weeks ago as it was being held close to where I live. I should stress that I am resolutely not party political.
Given that Zac Goldsmith has now been announced as Conservative candidate, the points he mentioned regarding transport were:
– Heathrow: his opposition to a third runway is well known, but unlike the other candidates he was questioning the importance of a hub airport given he said there was a trend towards direct flights rather than hubbing
– Black cabs vs. Uber: he definitely seemed to be in the black cab camp rather than the laissez-faire views of the others
– Cycling: mentioned the importance of redesigning junctions and safer lorries but did not mention his views on Boris’s initiatives
– Pollution: he believed technology in the form of cleaner vehicles would be the answer
For all the candidates, housing was the number one issue and bus, rail and tube transport was not mentioned at all.
WW…..As far as I know Tim Parker was never in the frame for Commissioner. He was appointed to be Deputy Mayor and Chair of TfL, not Commissioner. This link illustrates the point:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2583966/Boris-Johnsons-deputy-mayor-Tim-Parker-resigns.html
@ 100 and thirty – well if Mr P had survived in those roles he would have been able to exert a great deal of influence and direction over the Board and Commissioner. I suspect that trouble would have brewed up fairly quickly. IIRC there was a great deal of apprehension within TfL about his appointment and what it could mean for employment levels.
” a trend towards direct flights rather than hubbing”
Speiled by Boeing, not by Airbus. Thing is every airport has a limit on how many flights can depart each day and it is a physical impossibility therefore to fly direct to every destination. Being at the edge of Europe* Heathrow will continue to be a transatlantic hub for many years to come.
* geographically, anyway.
WW I believe part of the issue is that someone pointed out to the Mayor that chairing TfL was something he should do personally.
Also, whilst Tim Parker’s replacement appeared to be, shall we generous and say, “mostly harmless”, the current incumbent wields considerable influence.
However, what Mr P might have actually done (compared with what he might have said he was going to do) takes us into speculation. I prefer the account in the article on Sir Peter Hendy’s time at TfL
@Reynolds 953: in view of the Volkswagen diesel vehicles emission ‘cheat’, Zac Goldsmith’s faith in technology is misplaced.
@Lady Bracknell – it’s not the technology that’s wrong, it’s its supervision and regulation.
@ Graham H I wonder whether TfL Roads (or whoever is the responsible body) checks that the emissions by TfL Buses are within tolerances. ISTR that bus diesel emissions are a particularly (no pun intended) noxious problem in Putney High St and I daresay elsewhere.
Rules work best when inspected and enforced, in this and other areas.
Diesel buses are still the only practical road motive power systems (with the appropriate use of energy recuperation as applied to the latest buses). Notwithstanding the VW issue, diesel engines have been getting better, and the various regulations have driven this improvement. However, the real world emissions are worse than those achieved in the tests (at least they are for cars….all cars and VW cars are, in all likelihood, no worse than any others). This is simply because the test is artificial and doesn’t represent real road conditions – eg traffic light drag, going up hill, sudden “flooring” of throttle pedals etc.
Energy storage systems – eg batteries – are not yet up to the rigours of operating a bus service all day, every day and tend to use quire rare and expensive materials. Perhaps one day they will be up to the job. Hydrogen power does seem to have lots of potential, but doesn’t seem to have moved forward in London since being introduced on the RV1 route.
Buses do have the equivalent of the MOT test every year. Clearly this will include pollution/emissions. I found this link, but don’t know if it’s mandatory for London buses
https://www.gov.uk/specialist-tests-for-coaches-and-buses/reduced-pollution-certificate-rpc-and-low-emissions-certificate-lec-tests
Anyone commenting on 100andthirty’s comment above should please try to avoid duplicating what Pedantic wrote in Asphalt and Battery: The future of the London Bus (part 2) (which has of course also provoked much comment).
@LadyBracknell – my scepticism about Zac Goldsmith’s faith in technology comes from the sheer number of diesel vehicles and the time before a significant proportion of them may be replaced by electric alternatives.
If measures like diesel bans prove necessary to address pollution in the short term, then I can see people thinking, actually, the place is quite nice without all these vehicles around.
Perhaps there may be reluctance to re-admit electric cars just because they shift the pollution to somewhere else given they don’t take up any less space on the road and don’t harm any less when they collide with people.
@130
“However, the real world emissions are worse than those achieved in the tests. This is simply because the test is artificial and doesn’t represent real road conditions – eg traffic light drag, going up hill, sudden “flooring” of throttle pedals etc.”
I’m surprised that anyone is surprised by this. The figures are not intended as a promise, but to allow one car to be compared with another, for this the tests have to be reproducible, which means factors not under the tester’s control (weather, traffic conditions) have to be left out of the experiment. The Guardian ran an article recently comparing the official government figures for nine cars with supposedly “real world” figures determined by one of the car magazines. What was striking to me, but not mentioned in the article, was the consistency of the official figures – not only were all seven diesel cars between 60 and 70% of the official CO2 figures, but they were in almost exactly the same order (4th and 5th swapped places). The two petrol cars were both about 75% of the official figures.
So the government figures are a perfectly sound basis for comparing one car with another, and for taxing according to environmental concerns – which is what they are for. To object that you can’t get the same figures in real life is to miss the point. Unless you do all your driving in the fens, on a calm day, with the outside temperate just right, and with no passengers or luggage, you aren’t going to.
My car has a claimed top speed of 116mph. Should I complain because, even on an autobahn, I’ve never managed to top 100?
The Council Tax band valuations are way out of date – but it doesn’t matter provided that house prices of all houses in the borough have all increased by about the same amount. (And the fact they’ve increased in other boroughs at different rates doesn’t matter either – it just affects the multiplier each borough applies)
Hydrogen buses
I think the problem, as with battery buses, is still range. I’ve found an article suggesting that, at the time of writing (2012), the RV1 fleet had covered 100,000 miles and had 1,000 refills, suggesting a range of about 100 miles. Even in London traffic, that’s not enough to get through an eight hour shift, let alone an 18-hour traffic day.
Hydrogen has a calorific value (per unit weight) about three times that of diesel, but even compressed to 400 atmospheres, its density is only 1/40 that of diesel oil, so you need a huge tank to store the same amount of energy. The tanks are huge compared with diesel tanks, covering the whole roof – the extra height making the technology unsuitable for double-deckers.
The electric buses on the 507 are rarely seen outside the peaks – indeed the very peaky demand for that route makes it the obvious choice for running them, as they can be recharged between the peaks.
I don’t think anyone has yet pointed out that the Trolleybus is a possible solution where emissions are concerned. Many cities around the world use them successfully. I will not go into the pros and cons here as I am sure many commentators will wish to have a go. I can say that I have spent quite a lot of time getting preserved trolleys to work and they are great fun.
Trolleybuses!!! I saw them in Lyon recently. The last one I followed was belching out loads of diesel fumes as it went back to depot with what appeared to be lowered and deranged collector poles. Trolleybuses do indeed offer a solution, but you have to be very confident of a stable road network and not diversions for roadworks. I dread to think of what might have happened to the buses if Kingsway had been a major trolleybus route (recalling the explosion/fire earlier this year!).
Fully support Timbeau, although having followed some of the motoring columns there are a lot of people who believe (or say they do) that the official tests are representative of the emissions they are delivering with their cars!
I think this is now way off topic – sorry
Trolleybuses have been mentioned quite a bit; many commenters favour them, though difficulties have also been discussed quite extensively. The most recent two articles where trolleys arise quite a bit in the commentary are: The Need for Flexibility and the Dangers of Demand: The Future of London’s Buses (Part 2) and Tramalot: Enhancing Croydon’s Tramlink.
Malcolm
Also (for completists) this thread:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/asphalt-battery-future-london-bus-part-2/
Reynolds 953
Careful!
You are in danger of falling into the exact same heffalump-trap that the LBWF “min-holland” err,, “persons” have.
Access by & with powered vehicles are 100% necessary IF you are going to comply with the Disabled Access regulations.
There are quite a few people who NEED “taxis” (note the quote) to get to places, because they can’t walk (or not very far) & can’t cycle.
As you might imagine, that debate has also generated more heat than light.
@greg
“There are quite a few people who NEED “taxis” (note the quote) to get to places, because they can’t walk (or not very far) & can’t cycle.”
I have two blue badge holders in my family. Neither of them use taxis much – one can drive, the other is very reliant on family members for more than just transport. It is blue badge holders who need access, regardless of who is driving.
A taxi conveying a blue badge holder, or travelling to or from such a job, should be permitted access on the same terms as any other vehicle conveying a blue badge holder.
I also don’t get the argument that taxis should be allowed in bus lanes at all times because they need to be able to get to the kerb to pick up a fare. By all means give them an exemption when they are doing so, but the rest of the time they should be treated as what they are – a chauffeur-driven limousine.
A taxi is already subject to different rules depending on whether its flag* is up or down – for example they are not allowed to ply for hire in the Royal Parks, but can enter when on hire. It should therefore be quite easy to legislate that a taxi when not plying for hire is subject to the same rules of the road as any other car.
* The actual “flag” was replaced by a light many decades ago, but the name has stuck. It has been suggested that the light is powered by a candle, which is why they always go out when it’s raining!
@Greg Tingey – I suspect that taxi drivers would be fully supportive of diesel bans, or higher charges for emission zones provided, of course, that they got an exemption.
I was assuming that there would be exemptions for any type of ban but my point was if London implements some type of ban, people may actually quite like streets with fewer vehicles, therefore may not welcome streets full of non-polluting, but equally congesting, vehicles.
A traffic ban in London! It will never happen as the ‘powers that be’ know that most of us are wedded to our cars to a greater or lesser extent. I mostly use public transport, but I am also a driver.
timbeau & others
Noted & agreed – remember I put quotes around the word ( “taxi” ),indicating that some form of motorised & not necessarily combustion-powered, either, access is necessary for many disabled people.
On today’s Sunday Politics London there is a lengthy interview with Mike Brown about the prospects for the future, funding, Crossrail 2 and also the sub surface resignalling debacle.
@WW – Did you notice in the introductory film clip the map and talk-over about the “Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham”, as opposed to anywhere further on?
For others in the UK, the programme is available for 29 days from now and the transport element “TfL on Track?” starts at 36 mins. in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06fpcpd
@ Graham F – I heard the phrase but didn’t place any significance on the Lewisham element. That may be because I wasn’t devoting 100% attention or that I don’t believe the Bakerloo will get much beyond Lewisham anyway. 😉
I thought Mike Brown did OK although he was a bit evasive on some issues and if Mr Efford’s (MP for Eltham) attitude was anything to go by then a Labour Mayor in City Hall post May 2016 may prove problematic for Mr Brown. I simply don’t believe the point being made that Mr Khan has found “savings” in TfL’s budgets that would fund a fares cut – the financial impact ripples through year after year so it’s not a one off thing to fund.
I was also astounded that Mike Brown said the Silvertown Tunnel would allow *35* cross river bus services to run through it. TfL’s own consultation document only provides for about 5 or 6 new or extended routes and they’re all indicative in scope and things could be vastly different (in terms of funding for new bus services) by the time a tunnel is built. Mr Efford also didn’t want a road tunnel – he wanted more rail tunnels including (oh no, here we go again) DLR to Eltham.
WW: I suspect MB meant 35 buses an hour. 35 routes at any reasonable frequency is an awful lot of buses!
@ 100 and thirty – I know what he probably *meant* to say but that’s not what he said!! 35bph isn’t very much if that’s the combined two way flow through the tunnel but that wasn’t stated either. 35bph in one direction may seem a lot but it’s only 6 routes running at approximately 10 minute intervals. Some of the indicative routes don’t actually run very far once across the river. The other nightmare in all of this is the North Greenwich peninsula. In the peaks its public transport is overloaded in the peak direction. Quite what happens if you add the thousands of new dwellings and other development I dread to think. The area is either going to have a very high pedestrian flow rate to the tube station or it’ll be a massive traffic jam. I certainly can’t see how there won’t be a logjam on the Jubilee Line even with 36tph. I’m also not aware of any TfL planned interventions, other than the road tunnel, that will do anything to raise transport capacity on the peninsula.
WW. Agree with everything you said. I merely commented on the thought of 35 routes at, say 10 minute intervals in each direction!
@Walthamstow Writer:
The current trend for new-build housing is to deliberately design it to favour public transport, cycling, and walking over car use. Many new developments offer very limited parking, if any.
Sorting out the Blackwall tunnels must be a high priority by now given their age and limitations. [Speculative musings snipped. Malcolm. ]
@Graham F
anyone else notice the train running backwards in that report? (40m13)
…..and the Freudian slip by the presenter at 44:47?
@timbeau 8/10
The main air quality pollutant at local level consists of NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and not CO2. Is this is what you meant when discussing the emissions tests?
@WW
But MB specifically said “The Blackwall Tunnel ……has one bus route going through it. With Silvertown you get 35 bus routes through it”. It is clearly a comparison between one and 35. That is more than twice as many routes as Waterloo Bridge (sixteen) and nearly three times as many as Oxford Street.
Clearly a slip of the tongue, but one which he should have been picked up on and allowed to correct.
This article suggest two new and four extended routes, total 37 bph through the tunnel, a significant improvement in the existing 5-6 bph but not the 35-fold increase Mr Brown clearly promised.
http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Consultation-launched-on-Silvertown-Tunnel/12165
@ Answer = 42
The article I cited was about CO2 tests, although it is NOx tests which have been more in the news recently. But both have the same problems of reproducibility v real-world situations, and it should come as no surprise that engines are designed to have optimum performance under the prescribed test conditions for each test. The same would be true for other figures as well – are the claimed maximum speeds or accelerations actually achievable in real-world conditions, even where they would be legal?
In just the same way, an athlete would ensure he was at peak fitness in time for the Olympics, and schools hot-house their pupils in the run-up to SATS. VW went over that line by, so it would seem, doing the equivalent of competing in the Tour de France on a motorcycle, or deliberately keeping the dunces out of school on SATS day.
It does seem odd, by the way, that there seem to be separate government tests for CO2 emissions and mpg – the two are of course directly related as what come in must come out (barring any incomplete combustion resulting in soot or carbon monoxide, neither of which should occur with “lean burn” engines. Indeed, as I understand it, the reason for greater NOx emissons is that, if all the fuel is burnt (i.e all the fuel is converted to CO2 and none to soot or monoxide), in the conditions inside a high-compression engine any remaining oxygen left over will start reacting with the nitrogen in the air (the two gases are of course both sucked in to the engine from the air). Since it is impossible to design a engine that, in all circumstances, sucks in exactly enough oxygen to burn the fuel – no more and no less, there will always be either incomplete combustion or excess oxygen. The designers will, of course, optimise the design to the conditions found in he standardised tests. If you change the test, they will change the design to meet the new test.
The classic example of this is the RAC horsepower rating, used until the 1940s to tax motor vehicles. the formula was based only on the bore diameter of the cylinders, assuming, as was normal practice at the time, a fairly standard proportion between the two values. This assumption of course ceased to be valid as soon as there was money to be made by designing engines that didn’t meet that assumption, and thus British cars for many years had very long-stroke cylinders, and also stuck to side-valves for longer as overhead valves required a wider cylnder bore.
This of course gave British-manufactured cars built to meet the tax rules an advantage over foreign cars whose engines were built to different, less tax-advantageous, proportions. (or, usually, proportions that gamed their own home-market horsepower rules such as the French “cheval-vapeur” (CV) system, or the German system, (which did use both bore and stroke but simply multiplied them instead of, as would be more logical, multiplying bthe bore by the square of the stroke). Protectionism, of course, but each manufacturer had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in is own country home market.
This disparity between tax horsepower and actual power was no secret: on the contrary many manufacturers made the tax-efficiency part of the marketing as, for example, in model names like the Wolseley 14/60
@Anomnibus: This is probably why the Lewisham stations are hedged about by monsterous high density flats. Just as well considering the current entropy caused by the on Gateway ‘improvements’.
This article in the Grauniad is of interest.
I do note ( And so should all of you, perhaps ) …
1: The skating-over / prettyfying of certain delicate subjects, such as Boris-bus reliability or union negotiations.
[Snip. PoP]
And now someone NOT named Brown
Mark Wild from Melbourne.
Trams, anyone?
A good man. Used to be with Invensys (nee Westinghouse Signals) and worked on the Victoria Line Upgrade and later with Thales on the J/N upgrades