Why Sadiq And Zac's Transport Policies Are Disappointing

By Christian Wolmar Last edited 26 months ago
Why Sadiq And Zac's Transport Policies Are Disappointing

Journalist, author, transport expert and former London mayoral candidate Christian Wolmar explains what Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith's transport policies are lacking in any real substance.

Are Zac or Sadiq really offering London transport anything interesting or new? Photo by Dan_W8 in the Londonist Flickr pool

If truth be told, the London mayor's job is nearly all about transport. It is the one area where the mayor has direct control over a huge budget, and where policy decisions can make a real and immediate difference to Londoners' lives.

So there has been much anticipation over what ideas the two main mayoral candidates would come up with on transport and whether either would be brave enough to try something totally new.

As if to emphasise the importance of the issue, Labour's Sadiq Khan and the Tories' Zac Goldsmith decided to make it difficult for journalists by announcing their plans simultaneously.

Sadiq reiterated many of his previous ideas, such as his tube fares freeze and the one hour bus hopper ticket, while Zac focussed on the £1.9bn 'black hole' in London’s finances that would be left by a fares freeze.

In truth, there is much in common between their two transport manifestos — much more than either would admit. Both support expanding the network through Crossrail 2, protecting the Freedom Pass (those pensioner votes are all important), supporting cycling, ensuring the introduction of the night tube, reducing the number of strikes on the Underground, improving air quality, and opposing Heathrow expansion.

It does not leave much for major debate.

Zac Goldsmith has voiced his opinion against rickshaws, but is anyone really that bothered? Photo by Paul Steptoe Riley in the Londonist Flickr pool

Zac has picked up on the odd Boris obsessions such as clamping down on cycle rickshaws (does anyone really care that much?) but overall there is little detail. For example, if the implication of his financial policy is that he will increase fares, then by how much?

At his launch, Sadiq did focus on an area that has had insufficient attention; the fact that Transport for London is a 'flabby' organisation paying ridiculously high wages — 450 staff earn more than £100k — with much duplication and which so far has managed to avoid any austerity measures.

This, Sadiq argues, will part pay for the fares freeze. While Zac has argued this will result in the collapse of the investment programme, Sadiq responds that Mike Brown, the transport commissioner, has agreed his plans are deliverable.

It is a shame that the transport debate is focussed on narrow financial issues. The trouble is that both candidates are playing very safe; they're worried about hostages to fortune which in the febrile air of London politics is quite understandable, if disappointing. Neither manifesto highlights what could have been an emblematic policy: the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, something both candidates have said they support.

Nor is there much mention of the congestion zone, the one way that serious money could be raised. And neither seem to be considering a workplace parking levy, a measure that has been successful in raising money to help pay for a tram system in Nottingham. The congestion charge could be increased in price — as belatedly has been supported by Boris — or extended.

What's lacking from the debate is any real attempt to address the long term role of the transport system in London. Photo by Sean Hartwell Photography in the Londonist Flickr pool

While both candidates say warm things about cycling, Zac has actually been critical of pro cycling organisations and is wary of committing himself to parts of the cycle network begun by Boris. That is a mistake. As someone who is highly critical of what Boris has done in London, I can offer nothing but the strongest praise for the new cycle superhighways which are, as someone mentioned to me recently, 'world class' cycling infrastructure and took a lot of courage to push through in the face of opposition from interests as wide ranging as Canary Wharf and taxi drivers.

The superhighways will revolutionise cycling in the capital attracting thousands more onto their bikes and therefore the new mayor must build on what has been started, by turning London into the most cycling-friendly megacity in the world.

What is lacking from this debate is any real attempt to address the long term role of the transport system in London. The congestion charge is a key weapon in this, enabling the mayor to reduce traffic at the same time as raising funds. Overall, unless there is a concerted attempt to cut the number of cars driving in London, there will be gridlock. Any attempt to build their way out of the problem is bound to fail, as has been demonstrated already and yet there is little in either manifesto addressing this.

There is, therefore, little for Londoners to get excited about in these manifestos. The question is, will the winning candidate have a few things up his sleeve which he has been holding back on?

Christian Wolmar was shortlisted for the Labour nomination in the mayoral selection process and is supporting Sadiq for mayor.

Last Updated 03 April 2016

Michal Zadrag

Interesting read, although rather than the opposition to the superhighways 'ranging' from taxi drivers to Canary Wharf, I would say it 'consisted of'.

Paul Corfield

"Playing it safe" is an understatement. There is no "vision" at all from either of the candidates. Labour's position is centred on cost of travel almost to the exclusion of everything else. It is not the early 1980s where we had declining demand and spare capacity. "Fares Fair" was all very well back then but the world has moved on enormously. How on earth there can be no reference to buses (other than fares) I don't know. It's as if the achievements of the Mayoralty from 2000 - 2008 didn't happen. There is no bravery around things like expanding the tube and making a quantum shift in suburban transport.

Mr Goldsmith has no coherence in his plans. There's no view about what would be delivered after 4 years of his Mayoralty nor what he will bequeath any successor. We can't afford to have a 4-5 planning gap as we had with Boris. We then got a mad wholesale dash to "do something" by May 2016 hence the monstrous traffic problems we've had and still have. He does at least mention buses in Outer London but what skills does he possess to review bus routes as he says he will do? Does he even use bus services? Could he list 6 bus routes in his constituency and where they go? I doubt it very much. His obsession with electric cars is also completely ridiculous as any sort of solution for travel in London. More cars is not the answer.

There is no obvious link in anyone's proposals between land use planning, housing plans and transport plans which says to me they have no clues at all about where the extra homes will actually be built and how quickly you need to get transport proposals moving to align with any possible housing completions. It is already perfectly evident that planned developments at Canada Water, Stratford and North Greenwich will almost certainly overload rail and bus services and there's no plan to radically and effectively increase transport capacity quickly. Wittering on about Crossrail 2 being a solution is useless given it won't be ready (assuming the money can be found) for another 16-20 years even with a fair wind behind it. That's 4 Mayoralties hence.

It's incredibly boring and uninspiring if you have any sort of interest in transport matters. The two front runners really have little or no idea.

Mark Severs

I am surprised that this article categorises Zac as "supporting" cycling, where everything he has said about cycling that contains specifics has been severely anti-cycling. When has he declared any single policy that supports cycling?


A brilliant piece Christian.

It is the lack of vision from either candidate that is most worrying.

And this is something that infects all of our political decisions. Not just in London, but nationally too.

We need to get over our obsession with cutting taxes - and start thinking about ways we can use the taxes we actually do raise to IMPROVE the lives of UK citizens. Not just the option that is most cost-friendly.

Vale Joly de Lotbiniere

I know that you don't think that anyone lives in central London, or you think that those that do are stupid; but people do care about annoying rickshaws...


Why not consider Sian then?