Here's how TfL could transform South London's railway network

"One day, son, all this will be orange." Image: TfL.

Last week, the Centre for London published a report calling on Transport for London (TfL) to take over South London rail services.

The vision the think tank outlined in the “Tuning South London Orange” report would mean replicating the successful transformation of fragmented, underutilised and disconnected urban rail infrastructure into the popular London Overground orbital. This would mean better public transport for South London; that in turn would unlock the capital’s housing development and growth potential.

The London Overground brand was born in 2007, when TfL took on responsibility for the orbital North London and Gospel Oak to Barking lines, and the suburban radial route from Euston to Watford Junction. The network expanded when the revamped East London Line was reopened in 2011, and again when the orbital completed in 2012.


Other routes, in the north east of the capital, have been added since. All these routes are now shown in orange on London’s rail maps.

Last week’s report argues that adopting the same model could improve services and increase capacity in South London. London Overground’s orbital demonstrated how rail investment encourages greater densification, as the better transport connectivity makes locations more attract to live in. So, better rail services could also enable more housing along South London’s rail corridors and focused around stations.

With large population and employment growth is forecast for London, policies to address the pressing issue are particularly timely. The Centre for London estimates upgrading the South London rail network to “orange” standards could add 16,000 new homes to this area – an increase of almost 79 per cent.

Counting the cost

There were several keys to the success of the new London Overground: new connectivity, more frequent services, greater awareness of the network and links between previously poorly connected location. The key changes that were undertaken for the “original” London Overground orbital were:

  • Increasing service frequency to at least 4 trains an hour;
  • Integrating the new network into the existing public transport network with integrated ticketing, interchanges and maps;
  • Running new “metro”-style trains;
  • Investing in the fully staffed station.

London Overground transformed connectivity along its route. Passenger numbers on these services have quadrupled since TfL started managing the service in 2007 – testament to the transformative nature of these improvements. In the first four years alone, ridership rose 80 per cent. Importantly, passengers have consistently rated London Overground amongst the highest in the country for customer satisfaction.

The developing London Overground network (click to expand). Image: Centre for London/TfL.

The report’s authors envisage these same “orange” standards being applied to the entire South London rail network. But the proposed changes would require substantial investment in the South London network to replicate the London Overground’s success.

The costs bringing “turn up & go” services (that is, those which run at least four trains per hour) is estimated to be somewhere between the £6.5bn cost of the Thameslink programme and the £14.8bn of building Crossrail. This project is also likely to take 20-25 years, and the costs would be spread across the time period.

This would make Turning South London Orange the fourth largest rail project ever undertaken in the capital after Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and High Speed 2. By comparison, it cost TfL approximately £1.5bn to upgrade the “original” London Overground to “orange” standards.


A question of frequency

South London’s suburban railway network largely dates back to the Victorian era. For it to perform like the London Overground will require considerable investment – to upgrade signalling, amend track geometry so more trains can run (for example, replacing flat junctions with flyovers), introduce metro-style trains and improve the stations.

These network wide upgrades are necessary to deliver a service a higher frequency service, including a minimum peak frequency of six trains per hour. They should also help reduce “dwell time” – the time trains spend at the stations – which the report describes as a “critical limit” on high frequency networks.

One key to creating a more frequent service will be to rationalise service patterns for South London. At present, many stations in the area have two or more sets of (low frequency) services, serving multiple terminal stations. The Centre for London report suggests funnelling all services on particular branches to either Victoria or London Bridge – but not both – to create service frequency of 14 to 18 suburban trains per hour on the inner parts of the line.

Institutional barriers

So even if TfL were to take over the south London rail franchises, there would be a lot of work needed to deliver the vision of turning south London orange.

For one thing, the national government’s Department for Transport must devolve power to specify, let and manage the network to the capital’s transport authority. This will allow TfL to specify “orange standards”: frequency, station staffing and trains.

A reform in governance of this kind was necessary for the creation of the current London Overground network. The transfer of responsibility will allow TfL to directly invest in the network, through station and track upgrades.


One potential challenge to the shift of power to Transport for London is that a number of stations on the routes earmarked in the report for “orange” standards are not within the Greater London Authority’s boundary, and therefore not under the mayor’s or Transport for London’s jurisdiction. Neighbouring county councils have blocked such reforms in the past.]

However, Kent and Surrey councils have both signalled support for the proposal – on the condition that services to their constituencies will not be negatively affected by management changes. Watch this space.

Nicole Badstuber is PhD Researcher and Research Assistant in Transport Policy and Governance at University College London at UCL.

You can follow us on Facebook, if you like.

 
 
 
 

Seven climate change myths put about by big oil companies

Oil is good for you! Image: Getty.

Since the start of this year, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its $1-$2bn green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.

But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice.

Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100 per cent environmentally sustainable is an illusion.

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry

According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.

Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3 per cent of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1 per cent in 2015, 0.1 per cent in 2014, and so on.


Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option

One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop

Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.

As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.

Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making

Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.

Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change

If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted.

Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.

The ConversationFossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.