Regular readers will know that we’ve long wondered why Boris and Kulveer pretend that the NB4L is around a £3m cost to TfL, when any moderately informed back-of-envelope calculations bring things in a lot higher.  Let’s remind ourselves of Boris’s public statement in response to a 14th October 2009 question from Labour’s Val Shawcross:

The TfL business plan anticipates £1m being spent in 2009-10, £1.1m being spent in 2010-11 and £1.2m in 2011-12 for designing and prototyping the New Bus for London.

Now, a mere 3-and-a-bit months later, costs have been jacked sharply upwards.  Those three-and-a-bit months included the contract award and signing, of course.  Let’s take a look at the numbers [PDF] from the latest of those goldmine Project Monitoring and Approvals document (dated 21/1/2010) kindly brought to my attention by a reader, for which much thanks:

ST-PJ305 – New Bus for London

Approval      An additional £10.876m taking authority to £11.371m was approved to let a contract for the design and development of a new bus for London and delivery of five vehicles into service.

Outputs and Schedule
The scope of the contract covers the following activities:
• The design and development phase
• The delivery of a two-stage mock up
• The manufacture and delivery of an engineering test vehicle
• The delivery of an engineering test vehicle
• The delivery of a prototype vehicle
• The delivery of the first five production vehicles
The first five vehicles are to be delivered into service by 1 February 2012.

Last time we looked (24/11/2009) the drawdown was £0.495m out of an expected cumulative authority of £3.3m, so this is quite a jump – over £8m (£0.495m is the difference between the additional money and the total authority provided).  Is Boris’s most famous vanity project becoming a bit of a money pit, one wonders?  That’s £2.27m per bus, against a cost for an already developed hybrid of the same capacity at around £350k.  Wrightbus must be laughing all the way to the bank.

For completeness, Boris is spending our money in these other areas this month:

• £5.6m more on the Urban Traffic Control centre and associated kit (total now: £25.69m)
• £0.41m more on the Olympic Route Network (total now: £10.51m)
• £10.876m more on the New Bus for London (total now: £11.371m)
• £3.1m on Electric Vehicles (total now: £3.1m out of £20m) – notably this is just the costs of the bureaucracy, tendering and marketing!

Other matters of interest – two new items without budget appear in the project lists now – Croxley Rail Link (rerouting the Metropolitan Line into Watford Junction) and Northern Line Extension (presumably the Nine Elms/Battersea line Boris is trying to fund privately).  Finally the Cycle Superhighways are now a £145m project, up from £140.450m in July 2009.

Last night, City Hall saw a reception for the British Society of Magazine Editors, hosted by the Mayor (curiously promoted to the rank of Major, for the occasion).

An attendee tweeted the following:

BSME event at City Hall last night still makes me laugh. Boris on why London is better than NYC: it doesn’t need a fruit as a brand. Genius.

LOL BORIS LEGERND!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111

New York, you see, has long been known as The Big Apple. Hang on, though, London’s nickname is The Big Smoke, and with the highest levels of Nitrogen Dioxide pollutants in Europe it doesn’t look as though London will be discarding that “brand” any time soon.

MP for Eltham, Clive Efford, has tabled an EDM concerning police numbers in London:

That this House recalls that the Mayor of London promised prior to his election that `it is important for the Mayor to take a public lead, so I will chair the Metropolitan Police Authority’; further recalls that he promised in his manifesto that `I will take personal responsibility,’ and that `no offence will be too trivial to demand my attention’ and that he claimed that `no challenge will be so big that I shrug my shoulders and pass the buck’; notes that on 27 January 2010 the Mayor broke all of these pledges to Londoners by resigning as the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority; further notes with concern that the Mayor’s draft budget contains a proposal to cut the number of police in the capital by 455 officers; further notes that the net effect of his four budgets will be that the Conservative Mayor will preside over a reduction in police numbers in the capital; is reminded that police numbers in the capital fell under the last Conservative Government; contrasts this policy with Labour’s record in London; believes that the Conservative Mayor’s election rhetoric on crime is not matched by adequate investment in the police service; further believes there are now serious questions over what the Mayor is delivering for the capital; and urges the Mayor to reverse his policy of squeezing the fight against crime at the expense of Londoners.
UPDATE: This afternoon’s debate in Parliament.

Watching the webcast of the TfL Board meeting.  We have a definite timetable for the New Bus project:

• 13/1/2010 – contract signed with Wrightbus
• 4/2010 – mockup (Boris is confused by this concept, but it’s presumably to test equipment placement in 3D)
• 12/2010 – engineering prototype (presumably moving?)
• 5/2011 – testing
• 12/2011 – delivery of first proper bus
• Spring 2012 – in service on ‘central routes’, apparently.

All very good, except that a sparrow reminds me of the Informed Sources Laws, in particular:

Third Law: ‘Always mistrust schedules based on the seasons’

I’d expect that one to slip, therefore.  Boris expressed surprise at the Spring 2012 announcement, presumably being well aware that there’s a cut-off point during election campaigns that stops you scheduling PR-friendly deliveries during the campaign.  At present the service entry of the New Bus is not going to be something Boris can shout about, which is clearly a worry for him.

One of the things that’s struck me so far about Oyster on NR is how little people seem to be using it – I’ve not yet seen anyone else touch in at our SWT station and on an early trip I met a couple who’d driven up from M3-land somewhere and parked at our local SWT station to get into town on the train.  They were doing the usual SWT shuffle at the ticket machine and we got chatting.  Turned out they had Oyster cards but weren’t using them because they didn’t realise it had rolled out.  There was a poster up, but rather tucked away and obviously things like fare leaflets wouldn’t be available since there aren’t any yet, although a recent answer to Mike Tuffrey on the question does make one wonder if things are quite joined up enough:

A comprehensive paper fares guide was not introduced this year, following an extensive study of customer usage of previous annual TfL Fares and Ticketing leaflets.  The results found that, in general, customers prefer to ask station staff about fares, alongside other questions about journey planning and so on.  They do not proactively seek the leaflet in the station.  When shown a copy of the leaflet, customers found it too complex for their purpose, which is usually to seek an individual fare or product.

The research showed customers seek simple and tailored information, appropriate to their needs, for example, on concessionary fares.

So people want simple information from a human rather than wads of paper covering complex fare structures.  We’ll remember that when Boris starts cutting station jobs to save a few quid while leaving the complex PAYG structure untouched for fear of a row with the TOCs and DfT.

Anyway, Peter Hendy suggests 0.5m extra journeys per week on PAYG post-NR rollout, which sounds superficially good, but let’s compare that with the stats for the Tube, for a sizing comparison:

• 2006/7 – 19.8m/week, 24.8% PAYG = 4.91m PAYG journeys per week
• 2007/8 – 20.9m/week, 28.7% PAYG = 6.0m PAYG journeys per week
• 2008/9 – 21.0m/week, 34.6% PAYG = 7.25m PAYG journeys per week

So that’s a reasonable start, although considering that’s the best part of half of London’s geographical area rolled out to there’s some way to go – as a rough rule we’d be looking at 3m more PAYG journeys per week before we start calling it a revolution.  After all, LU has 270 stations while the rollout on 2nd January was to around 200.  Again, needs better publicity.

2009’s Snowday was memorable for the abject collapse of the bus network, supposedly surpassing anything seen in the Blitz.  It was also, inveterate borough watchers noted, memorable for such scenes as Tory flagship cost-cutters Hammersmith and Fulham running out of grit first and going to TfL for supplies.  Despite that we had bus cancellations because the road conditions sharply worsened at the border.  Our conclusion at the time was that this proved the need for a pan-London effort without all this ‘working with the boroughs’ crap.  Fortunately in January 2010’s rather longer snowy period this is exactly what happened and it’s nice to give credit – things actually went much better than expected despite considerable pressure on grit supplies.  Boris won’t be hauled before the Commons Transport Committee this time and it’s clear in the Commissioner’s Report who he has to thank for this:

However, due to the severe weather being experienced across the whole of the UK and for a prolonged period, by the beginning of the week commencing 4 January, it was apparent that there was a problem in supplies of salt for gritting. The London Local Authority Coordination Centre (LLACC) was implemented and TfL worked with the LLACC to coordinate grit supplies across London.

A pan TfL Gold coordinating group was set up and, through daily conference calls, assessed impacts and developed plans to maintain the effective functioning of the transport systems.

So they first got their organisation going at the London level, it seems.  Then it snowed some more:

By Wednesday 6 January, the salt supply situation in the UK was such that the national ‘Salt Cell’ was implemented to recommend priorities for salt supply across the UK. In London, ‘mutual aid’ was implemented between the boroughs but despite this, it was increasingly clear that without significant resupply, there was the possibility of salt stocks in London being exhausted. A London wide
Gold group was convened by the Government Office for London on 7 January to ensure strategic coordination for London, particularly in relation to salt supply and use.

The Mayor made the case for London to be represented on the Salt Cell, and it was agreed that David Brown, Managing Director, Surface Transport, would represent London.

Cross-organisational co-operation?  Strategic co-ordination?  Joined up administration?  London represented?  All good stuff.  What was the result?

As a result, the bus network performed well and remained operational at all times during the bad weather.

See?  That wasn’t hard, was it?*  All it takes is the realisation that sometimes Big Government is the answer, not the problem – without a pan-London body we’d have had 31 boroughs arguing with each other about minute quantities of salt rather than one key man with the Mayor’s backing going to national level and making the case.  Good work David Brown, I reckon.

* OK, it probably was, but hard jobs are easy if you get the right people *and the right organisation*.  Been there, done that.

Peter Hendy is often mistaken, usually by the right, for some proto-Communist chum of Ken Livingstone, overpaid bureaucratic fat-cat or whatever fantasy Gilligan has dreamt up that week  – “…the absolutely classic definition of a transport bureaucrat who got lucky”, if memory serves.  However, a new string to his bow has emerged – ‘Person who stands up for London’s transport users when Nero Johnson wants to pretend everything’s all Sir Garnet’.

I refer of course to the Oyster Extension Permit idiocy – the Kafkaesque invention of the Train Operating Companies that requires you to have something you sometimes can’t get before you get on a train with an otherwise valid ticket on pain of possibly being fined, or possibly not.  Hendy’s broadside, in the Board Papers for this month’s meeting, has gone further than anyone from TfL or the Mayor’s Office in spelling out precisely what London’s democratic institutions think of this particular stupidity:

Oyster pay as you go was successfully extended to all National Rail stations in London, as well as on four C2C stations in Essex on 2 January. An additional 0.5 million journeys have been made using Oyster Pay as You Go every week on the National Rail network since 2 January.

TfL is working closely with the TOCs to monitor and resolve station specific issues. I have concerns about the lack of TOC staff knowledge on the Oyster Extension Permit, which is not applicable on the TfL network, and which is not supported by TfL.

Later on he has another crack:

The main policy area of the rollout that still remains an issue is the Oyster Extension Permit, required by the TOCs, and not by TfL. Oyster Extension Permits are required on National Rail services in London, where a customer with a Travelcard plans to travel outside the zones that they have purchased, using Oyster PAYG. I have written to the TOCs and to the Association Operating Companies to ask them to rethink this impediment to travel.

Pretty clear: TfL does not back the OEP (even though most of the places that supply it are TfL-run) and the head man is directly saying that the TOCs (who insisted on OEP as a condition) are not taking it seriously enough to train their staff properly.  This is a pissed off Commissioner, by my reckoning, and it’s noticeable that there’s no mention of any Mayoral pressure being brought (other areas, such as Southeastern, he’s gone as far as to write to Lord Adonis, who must have a substantial file of Boris bleatings by now).  Which brings us to the long-delayed Rail Summit:

A date for the Mayor’s TOC summit has now been agreed.  All London TOCs will be invited to attend the meeting on 12 February. The agenda is currently under discussion with ATOC.

So there’s still no agenda and no confirmed list of invitees.  Chop chop!  It’s only been 18 months!

Update – it appears that Boris didn’t get the memo.  A recent Mayoral Answer states:

Oyster Extension Permits are a requirement of the Train Companies for Oyster travel on their services. They are never needed for TfL travel.

Nonetheless, TfL has arranged for Oyster Extension Permits to be available at all Oyster Ticket Stops, and at all TfL operated rail stations, including the Overground (both from the ticket office and the self-service machines).

Most but not all Train Companies are arranging for Extension Permits to be available from their Ticket Vending Machines. Please see my answer to MQ98 / 2010.

Meanwhile, TfL continues to press the Train Companies to provide a comprehensive Oyster retailing service from their ticket offices, including the sale of cards and Extension Permits.

So TfL are pressing for the TOCs to make OEPs available from ticket offices while TfL is pressing for the TOCs to abolish OEP entirely because it’s an impediment to travel.  Hello?  Anyone in there doing the thinking?

One of the innovations loudly trumpeted by Boris Johnson as increasing accountability at City Hall was the publication of expenses of the Mayor, his senior advisers and deputies on the GLA website. However, this seems to have slipped by the wayside as the Mayor’s expenses have not been updated for a whole five months and those of some of his advisers and deputies have not been updated for six months.

UPDATE 8/2/10: Boris’s expenses have magically been updated!

The other 2010 bendy contract award has been revealed by LOTS (back on 22/1/2010, actually).  The 18 will be going to conventional diesel double deckers from 13/11/2010 with a PVR upgrade from 32 to 48.  Let’s check back to our Bendy Replacement Timetable:

18    23-Aug-2003    23-Aug-2008    23-Aug-2010    32    49    23-Aug-2010

Unlike the 149, therefore, this is coming in bang on the money for our sizing prediction based on the 38.  I’m wondering if the 149 was a typo somewhere, since londonbusroutes suggests the revised PVR is now 35.  Let’s do another table (the 507/521/38 we had no data to predict from, the subsequent ones are based on the capacity figures from the 38 debendification consultation document).

• Route  Original  Prediction  Real
• 507   9   -  15
• 521    19  -  32
• 38     47  -  72
• 149    27  41  35
• 18      32   49  48

So the 149 is definitely seeing a capacity drop compared with the 38 and 18.  I wonder why.

It would be rather easy to recycle the last story for a story about recycling, but Boris has also announced at today’s MQT that he’s stepping aside from the London Waste and Recycling Board chair in favour of young James Cleverly.  To tell the truth I was a bit surprised he took the job in the first place, it’s a difficult role without much opportunity for the usual yammering into cameras Boris loves so much.

In any case, the Board has only actually existed under Boris (since September 2008, in fact), so it’s perfectly proper to look at how best to manage it.  It is slightly strange that the website redirects to London Councils, though – another Borough takeover?  The Board is mostly councillors, including the omnipresent Daniel Moylan, Boris’s thinking-brain-dog at TfL, too.