Politics at the heart of TfL’s suburban services takeover
CHRISTIAN WOLMAR examines the news that Transport for London is to take on responsibility for more rail services within the greater London area
IF this column had developed a motto during its 21 years of existence, it would be something like “politics prevails” (perhaps one of my more learned readers could provide the Latin).
That is the only explanation for the announcement, rather out of the blue, that Transport for London is being granted a large land grab by taking over control of London’s suburban services.
This was universally welcomed. Transport for London has long pushed for the right to expand its London Overground operation, and last year was given West Anglia services to Enfield Town, Cheshunt and Chingford.
But as recently as 2013 London Mayor Boris Johnson was rebuffed in his attempt to take various Kent services. Local MPs and councillors opposed the move, arguing, as Dover and Deal MP Charlie Elphicke said at the time: “This power grab by the Mayor would have meant higher prices and worse services for people in Kent.” Elphicke was playing on fears that suburban and short regional services would have taken priority over services used by his constituents.
Now, however, in a complete about-face, following negotiations between Transport for London and the Department for Transport, TfL is to “become responsible for services mostly or wholly within the GLA [Greater London Authority] area”.
This will involve taking over services from the franchises currently operated by South West Trains, Southern and Southeastern, and has been broadly welcomed by all sides. Indeed, TfL has been pushing for an expansion of its control over London rail services almost since its inception.
The creation of London Overground out of a disparate set of mostly poor services was one of former mayor Ken Livingstone’s most important achievements. It resulted in not only a massive improvement in services, but also in the revival of whole swathes of east and southeast London. If ever politicians need convincing of the importance of transport to economic regeneration, London Overground is the classic case history.
The tremendous success of the orange roundel (the logo for London Overground) is one of the reasons for the announcement - it has become synonymous with good service, new trains, high frequency and staffed stations.
But here’s the rub. While everyone has welcomed the announcement, some reporters rather swallowed the PR guff wholesale, without examining the detail. The Evening Standard, for example, said that “all suburban services in the capital will be rebranded as London Overground”, which is not necessarily the case, since no details have been given.
Moreover, given the lack of precise information, there is no guarantee that the high standards of the existing Overground service -
most crucially the staffing during all operating hours - will be introduced for all the newly branded services.
The commitments in the joint statement from TfL and the DfT were not at all clear. Some services would be upgraded to 15 minutes per hour, and there is plenty about improving passenger “outcomes” (whatever they are) and possibly building new rail lines. However, there was no information on the exact nature of those improvements.
In any case, the announcement merely spoke of a consultation, with the implication that no firm decision had been made. Without going into extremely complex negotiations, the only realistic time to take over services is at the end of a franchise term or at a break point, and this means 2017 at the earliest with some not going over until 2021 or even possibly later.
There are also political obstacles still to overcome. Some politicians and commuters in the Home Counties feel there is a democratic deficit being created, and are concerned that the all-powerful TfL will tailor services to the needs of Londoners to the detriment of those coming from further away.
Frankly, I think this is a red herring. TfL has no reason to do this, since its job is to ensure that there is transport for everyone who wants to get to work in London. And I suspect that ministers and the regulator would get involved if there were a hint of discrimination against people not living in the capital. Nevertheless, it was precisely these concerns that stymied the transfer of Kent services three years ago.
The interesting question is: what has changed since that failure? And the answer is simple… politics. Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate for London mayor, has so far found that his good looks have not been enough to convince voters that he is the right man for the job. And while his Labour rival Sadiq Khan has not exactly lit up London with his own efforts, he is ten points ahead in the polls.
This is therefore intended to be a New Year’s gift to Goldsmith from Boris Johnson and Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin. Goldsmith can claim credit that this is the fruit of having a Conservative government working with a Conservative mayor, and that electing Khan would damage this relationship.
But if the Tories are to win the mayoralty, it is the outer London voters (who are most dissatisfied with rail services) who have to be won over. This announcement, then, is a nakedly political one. However, I doubt if it will really change the way many people vote - and it could well rebound on the
“Some politicians and commuters in the Home Counties feel there is a democratic deficit being created, and are concerned that the all-powerful TfL will tailor services to the needs of Londoners to the detriment of those coming from further away.”
Conservatives, as they find that they have to hand over a large swathe of extra services to a Labour mayor.
There are other ironic aspects to these changes. In a way, this represents a renationalisation of services since TfL is owned by local government, although London Overground will likely contract out the operations to a private company (as happens with its existing services). Even more ironically, the statement represents a recognition of deep underlying dissatisfaction with the franchising process, particularly with suburban services in London.
Don’t get me wrong - this is generally good news for London and for the railway. It will undoubtedly mean an improvement in service for many Londoners, and gives TfL the chance to think more strategically about the rail network in London.
However, as with all devolution of services, there needs to be financial support to underpin any improvement in services. It was noticeable that when interviewed, Johnson refused to say that TfL would need more money when it takes over these services, although there is no doubt about the fact that it will.
The big question is that if Sadiq Khan wins the election, will the Conservative government make it harder for him to access those funds than if Goldsmith were to win? As I mentioned at the beginning… “politics prevails”.