THE PRIORITY PARADOX

It goes like this:

The Piccadilly Line was overcrowded. The Victoria Line was built to relieve it.
The Central Line and Paddington are overcrowded. Crossrail 1 will be built to relieve them.
Victoria and Kings Cross are overcrowded. Crossrail 2 will be built to relieve them.

In areas that have no lines or stations there are no overcrowded lines or stations. Therefore we do not need to build new lines to relieve the overcrowding there...

The result of this logic is "concentration":- of resources, investment and opportunities and, naturally, further overcrowding! Central London stations become more overcrowded, overconnected, overblown, as more lines join them up.

Reaching underserved neighbourhoods first has the more pleasing effect of "distribution".

LESSONS FROM MADRID METRO

In the past decade Madrid has astonished the world with its explosion of Metro construction. It has amazed not only for the scale of its ambitions, but with timeframes and budgets that would make other cities blush. With two major project phases (1999-2003, 2003-2007) Madrid Metro has cast itself as one of the world's most extensive systems.

Phase One included the new Line 12, or "Metrosur" which runs in a loop around some of Madrid's southern suburbs, and a Line 10 extension to reach it from the city. The Second Phase was even more ambitious, including 10 Metro extensions and three new light rail/tram lines (see map below).

Scale map of the Madrid Metro network. Thicker lines denote new construction 2003-2007 (47.4 km of metro lines with 42 new stations plus 28 km of light rail lines with 39 new stations). Metrosur is the green loop line at bottom left.

This was achieved under the guidance of Metro President Manuel Melis, quoted from this article.

Talking of the Metrosur project Mr Manuel Melis said construction had gone according to plan, though he admitted that the timescale could have been even shorter. He said: "We completed everything on time and within budget In fact, we could have finished six months earlier because we were too conservative in our planning. Tunnel construction went faster than we expected."

The entire cost of the 1999-2003 metro development programme amounted to [euro]3.16 billion. These projects, incorporating Metrosur and the Line 10 extension, included planning, civil works, electrical and mechanical installations, interchanges, maintenance facilities, and rolling stock at an average cost of [euro]42 million/km. Previous projects have been undertaken successfully on the same basis, as Melis explained. He said on that occasion: "I believe that rail transport projects are simple engineering projects, easy to design and build, and, with the appropriate staff and management techniques, they can easily be completed on time and within budget. I refer particularly to those Madrid Metro projects where completion dates have not only been met, but have been beaten by several years in comparison with similar projects elsewhere."

"Civil works amounted to about 70% of the total cost of our programmes. The most important part of this cost is the tunnel part. Transport infrastructure projects can be divided easily into manageable parts. Each section of the project can be designed simultaneously and all contracts can be awarded simultaneously, so that any manageable contract worth up to [euro]150 million, for example, can be completed within three years. Even enormous tunnelling projects such as the Channel Tunnel have been excavated in this timescale. Therefore, provided that funds are available, any lineal project such as a metro can be designed and built in 40 to 45 months, as we have demonstrated.

"Station architecture is an important factor, too. It should never be handed over to world-renowned architects. A transport project is a serious engineering work that should not be confused with a museum or an emblematic building for a city. Several million passengers/day may move through metro stations, so their design must take into account this fact by giving easy access from the street to the trains, via wide escalators and corridors and shallow station platforms.

A typical new Metro - Metro Ligero (light rail) interchange in Madrid's northern suburbs. Madrid punches above its weight with down to earth "does what it says on the tin" architecture. (c) Luke Peters 2006

Metrosur (Line 12) is 41 km long and has 28 stations. It took four years to complete from authorisation to completion at a cost of 42m Euro/km, and is almost entirely underground. Compare this to the Jubilee Line Extension, the last London Underground Project of any note:

16km long with 11 stations, about 80% underground and 20% overground on existing rights of way; took 9 years to build from authorisation to completion at a whoppingly over-budget £3.5bn, or £218m/km.

I'll repeat that because it's an important figure and won't even bother converting it to Euros. Jubilee Line Extension: £218m per kilometre. Metrosur: 42m Euros per kilometre. That's roughly 6 times the price/km. i.e. if the JLE were being built in Spain they could have built 6 of them for the same money!

Canary Wharf station on the Jubilee Line. Designed by world-renowned architect Sir Norman Foster, the station has been likened to a cathedral. It's an impressive achievement, but for the same money five or six simpler stations could have been built.

Furthermore, construction of the Victoria Line took 10 years. The Chelsea-Hackney Line was thought up in 1901 (!) and has still not come to fruition (although it arguably shouldn't, in its current form). The East London Line Extension was put forward in the 1980s and phase one completion is due in 2010. Relatively simple extensions to the Bakerloo, Victoria and Northern Lines are operating on a, shall we say, "open" timescale.

Could it be London has a project management problem, rooted in a flawed philosophy? After all, why should projects take so long and go so much over-budget when cities like Madrid demonstrate time and again that with the right approach, large infrastructure can be built far more easily and cheaply than we in London perceive?

Consider these two contrasting philosphies for a moment:

Philosophy A:

1. Metro Lines are expensive, difficult projects of questionable benefit, that take a long time to design and construct (high investment, low return). Therefore:

2. Metro Lines are rare. Therefore:

3. We must spend a lot of money and time ensuring we do not waste this rare opportunity, or we will not undertake it. Therefore:

4. Metro Lines are expensive, difficult projects of questionable benefit, that take a long time to design and construct (high investment, low return).

Philosophy B:

1. Metro Lines are affordable, straightforward and worthwhile projects that take a short time to design and construct (low investment, high return). Therefore:

2. Metro Lines are common. Therefore:

3. We will not waste time and money worrying about this common opportunity. Let's get to it. Therefore:

4. Metro Lines are affordable, straightforward and worthwhile projects that take a short time to design and construct (low investment, high return).

We invented the underground railway but somewhere along the line we fell from the faith. Somehow it belongs to an age of Edwardian pioneers and top hats. Aside from prepubescent networks in Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle, the rest of the UK never bothered with the idea at all. It was always far too much trouble. And yet Sr. Melis and his colleagues in Madrid have no psychological obstacles to Metro construction at all. They just get on and perform, what could seem in some circles, miracles:

"This latest project demonstrates again the importance of our philosophy. Many cities around the world desperately need new metro lines, but they cannot afford to build them at an estimated [euro]150 million to [euro]200 million/km, nor be forced to wait a dozen years for the lines to become reality. These estimates of costs and time are simply wrong. In Madrid, with all humbleness, we have now proved it on more than one occasion.

And it does take on something of a religious aspect when you consider that Seville, Barcelona, Bilbao, Valencia, and Malaga are all doing the same, within an economy far weaker than the UK's.

London has one or two lines in the distant pipeline, the £16bn Crossrail  line and the aforementioned Chelsea-Hackney Line. Relatively simple extensions to the Bakerloo and Victoria Lines are indefinitely mothballed. Outside London there are no new metro lines planned at all. Even very large cities such as Manchester and Birmingham have opted for surface light rail schemes, though the potential for full metro exists.

Clearly one of the mistakes made on the Jubilee Line Extension was to employ just those "world-renowned architects" Sr. Melis said we should avoid. Over-ambitious, monumental stations overran the budget for no gain to the passenger other than a brief "wow" on first visiting the station, followed by another "wow" upon seeing the ticket price. Britain has probably learned its lesson on this front, but is still waiting for its own evangelical Sr Melis to spread the gospel. Until then, all its pagan superstitions about Underground construction are likely to be self-fulfilling.

By the way an average journey in Madrid costs around 70 euro cents (about 50p). Sobering...

PICCADILLY LINE EXTENSION FROM HOLBORN TO PECKHAM

View Larger Map

The Aldwych spur from Holborn was originally conceived to be extended south of the river. As with so many schemes it never came to fruition and the service to Aldwych operated as a single track shuttle until closure in the 1990s (despite having twin tunnels). Some modification of Holborn would be necessary and this could be run as a spur of the Piccadilly line with trains direct from Cockfosters or be a self-contained line terminating at Holborn.

Aside from connecting Peckham to the network this would usefully serve the major development area around Elephant & Castle, serving not just Elephant & Castle but also Walworth Road, some way north of the proposed Thameslink station. A new station on the South Bank opens up access to major leisure facilities there.

Estimated cost to Madrid Metro specs 273m Euros; to JLE specs £1.4bn

NETWORK NETWORKS NETWORKED

In the beginning there was the Railway network. Then someone dug a tunnel and created the Underground network (though a lot of it runs overground). Then, somewhere between the two a light rail network was conceived for the Docklands. Not long after a Tramlink network for Croydon, and an Overground network, which was pinched off the Railway network and the Underground network (and some of it runs underground). Soon to be added is a Crossrail network, which is a bit like a Thameslink network, only it isn't, and maybe a cross-river transit or two, which is sort of a tram.

Isn't it all getting a teensy bit over-complicated?

Some off-the-cuff suggestions:

Couldn't DLR and London Overground be integrated? Train profile and power supply differences notwithstanding, they kind of do the same thing.

Couldn't Thameslink be integrated into the new Crossrail scheme. Again, it's kind of the same concept.

Couldn't London Overground absorb some more of the inner south London rail network to start providing a more rational "metro" service.

Three networks is about all I can get my head around...

LONDON OVERGROUND BRANDING

Now, I have a problem with any "Metro" system that names its lines "East London Railway" or "West London Line" etc. Why? To me it conjures up fat controllers and steam engines, complicated timetables and no Sunday service.

Now, that's fine for a system with no pretensions beyond being a suburban rail service. But TFL clearly do have big ambitions for the Underground's little sister. It's on the Tube map, its being extended, its being homogenised, it's getting new trains and an orange roundel of its own. It almost looks like an S-Bahn.

Except for one thing. The East London Railway doesn't sound like it's going to get me anywhere fast. Looking on the map, all the lines are a similar double-stripe orange, and it's not clear where services are running from and to.

What would convince me? Well, a branding and diagrammatic scheme in line with London Underground. Now, I don't much care if it's a double line to distinguish it from Underground lines. That's fine. Or if they use pastel colours or dashed lines. Don't care at all. What is important is that the colour should be distinct and that the lines should be distinctly numbered.

I'm far more inclined to hop on Overground Line 3 Westbound, than attempt to make the o8.53 stopping service to Gospel Oak on the "Gospel Oak to Barking traction Railway (steam trains to all parts of the metropolis)", especially if it had a neat light blue, or lilac colour. Then I could swiftly change onto Line 1 Eastbound (the green one), and continue my journey to Highbury & Islington confidently knowing I won't be waiting more than 8 minutes on the platform. I need something to sweep away the images of rattling points and clouds of steam.

My general rule of thumb; how easily could you explain it to a foreigner? Make any sense to anyone?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH CROSSRAIL 1?

Now, the Crossrail concept is discussed here. Unlike Crossrail 2 however, this one looks like it might get built. On balance this would be a good thing, but for the ever-pervasive problem of value for money. Crossrail 1 is going to be immensely expensive (current estimate £16bn), and yet, as with Crossrail 2, what it brings to the table in terms of new services is not what it ought to be.

Unlike Crossrail 2, this project does plug into a major commuter route out to Maidenhead (which could conceivably be extended to Reading, (high-speed train competition notwithstanding), but in the east falls short at Shenfield. (Why isn't it reaching Southend?).

The London Transport Users Committee had this to say on the matter:

LTUC note that the draft train service specification for west of Paddington has few of the features of a metro service and some stations (e.g. Hanwell) with only 2 tph would have a service that is completely inadequate. Burnham – current off-peak journey times to and from Paddington are 25 and 29 minutes respectively. Crossrail will increase the journey time to 38 minutes. Taplow – improved service off peak from one train per hour to two per hour. Current off peak journey time to and from Paddington between 29 and 35 minutes. Crossrail will increase the journey time to 43 minutes.

Crossrails south-eastern branch would offer extra capacity for growth of rail traffic in Kent, but does little to improve rail facilities in Thurrock or South Essex, in that there would be no station east of Custom House and that the regenerated Stratford area would not be directly served. Although some may argue for a service to cover this area, LTUC would not be in support for a third eastern branch of Crossrail. It may be that the existing c2c route via Tilbury to Fenchurch Street can be developed to meet the rail needs of Thames Gateway North, but we are concerned that little work appears to have been done to verify this and that no section of the rail industry seems to be taking full responsibility for this issue. LTUC also believe a station at Silvertown should be built from the outset, instead of passive provision. This would enable a short pedestrian or bus link to London City Airport.

Through central London Crossrail 1 is little more than a big fat Central line, linking the same old stations again, which are likely to collapse soon under their own gargantuan complexity, whilst peripheral neighbourhoods languish. Overall number of new stations for London? Technically 2 - Woolwich and Isle of Dogs, but both are a stone's throw from existing stations. We could say that no new neighbourhoods are being served therefore. NONE!

Does this represent value for money? (They say £16bn at the moment but it'll be 6 times what anyone tells you!) Not really, not whilst Chelsea, Battersea, Camberwell, Walworth, Peckham, Hackney etc. etc. don't have a single tube station amongst them. Add to this projected services that are slower and not significantly more frequent than current timetables.

New extensions to the Northern Line, Bakerloo line, and Waterloo and City could be achieved for 1bn Euros (if Madrid Metro were in charge, at 2003 prices and with Spanish base costs). Even if you conservatively multiply that figure by four, to 4bn Euros, it's less than a quarter of Crossrail 1's projected cost. That, including 21 new station sites in south London, as opposed to the TWO that Crossrail 1 offers. You do the math...

WHAT'S WRONG WITH CROSSRAIL 2/CHELNEY?

The Chelesea-Hackney line was conceived decades ago as a way of linking two inner London areas (Chelsea and Hackney) into the tube network. Despite relatively high population densities and their central locations, they had been overlooked ever since the Underground started its life over a century ago.

The safeguarded route (see image) shows the line passing through central London then onto two existing lines - the District Line to Wimbledon and the Central Line to Epping (both on the LU network).

Although initially conceived as a LUL line like any other, the idea was taken over by the same group that conceived Crossrail 1 and the idea took root that this line too should be built to Crossrail standards.

For those unaware, the Crossrail is in concept an express, long-range, heavy metro line that bores through the centre in tunnels and extends far out to suburbs and peripheral towns on the surface. It is closely based on the RER system in Paris. An "underground" line, by contrast, would ordinarily have no interurban pretenses, lighter infrastructure and greater station densities, without express facilities. The Crossrail/RER advantage lies in the relief of congestion it would provide at rail termini, as it distributes commuter traffic closer to their final destination, whereas normally they would be funneled onto and off the underground network at very high density. It also provides the potential for much quicker intra-urban journeys.

The line would serve existing national rail lines in Hackney and add one new underground station in Chelsea, providing benefits to those areas.

Currently it is caught between two concepts and can't decide which one it is. In its current form it has the profile and expense of a heavy Crossrail line and the lower station densities, but the range of an LU line (Epping to Wimbledon). Until extended routes are published onto say, SWT rails, or East Anglia trains out to Chelmsford.

The main flaw in the concept is that it provides a grand total of one new station to London. ONE! One station for Chelsea, which urgently requires two or three. Its central route doubles up capacity between Sloane Square and Victoria (is this really necessary?) and merely joins the dots through central London's same old stations which are set to become major, passenger-unfriendly labyrinths. In this profile the inclusion of both Piccadilly Circus and Tottenham Court Road stations seems ridiculous. The Crossrail stations are enormous, with platforms over 250m long.

The cost of a scheme like this is immense, much more than a normal tube line, since stations have to be much bigger. Don't believe what the experts project. You usually have to multiply this figure by 6! Immense cost, for the luxury of having an alternative route between Wimbledon and Epping, and one new station in Chelsea! Does it make sense?

What's the solution? If this scheme is to work, firstly it has to decide what it wants to be: either a scaled-down light, LU line, between Wimbledon and Epping, but providing sensible new services to London i.e. some route alterations and more stations! ;

or:-

An express heavy rail line linking onto existing surface commuter routes that is going to usefully free up capacity on lines into Liverpool Street and Victoria/Waterloo, perhaps between Guildford (over SWT routes) and Chelmsford, by extending the existing Ongar route. (?)