A poor relative: against Crossrail 2

1. BAIL OUT TfL, BAIL ON CROSSRAIL

Sadiq Khan can count himself lucky for the latest bailout package TfL has received from the Department for Transport. Not because it is particularly large or unprecedented, because it isn’t, but because it was a particularly hard-fought battle. Despite being prepared to offer an immediate bailout to train operating companies, the government was not prepared to issue an additional bailout to TfL unless they agreed to substantial changes. These included scrapping the Zip and Freedom passes (forcing under-18s and over-60s to pay for travel regardless of circumstance) and the extension of the Congestion Charge (which I’ve already explained would be a poor policy decision).

The demands posed by the DfT are exceptional themselves given the amount that TfL makes back from subsidy; compared to other transport networks, under normal circumstances, the London Underground makes back 1.2x its costs in revenue. That's incredible compared to the New York subway, which barely recoups 30% of its costs. It is bus travel where TfL recoups less of its costs, and these services too will have suffered under COVID-19. Regardless, TfL was able to further press the government on its demands and narrow them down to something approaching reasonable.

In return for a six month settlement of £1.8 billion, TfL must be on a trajectory to “financial sustainability” in 2023. The specific conditions laid out were as follows:

• Commit to £413m cumulative efficiency savings by end FY20/21 
• Deliver £160m of savings to plug the gap between the £1.8 billion provided and the est. £2 billion shortfall in budget
• Bring an “orderly end” to consultancy work for Crossrail 2 (with safeguarding for land use in place to pick the project up again as necessary)
• Work with the government to review the introduction of driverless trains
• Set aside £75m for the provision of “healthy streets” and active travel 
• Tightening the LEZ criteria and extending the ULEZ to the North and South Circular roads 
• Increase fares by RPI+1% in January 2021 
• Maintain the current temporary changes to service costs – the increase to the congestion charge from £11.50 to £15 and the changes to concessionary rates for over 60s at peak times.

Crossrail 2 staff are currently being redeployed across Transport for London; any consultants employed up to now will be moved across to more “business-critical projects”, according to a TfL spokesperson. The very claim that Crossrail 2 is not “business-critical” is its own indictment of why the project may be pushed out. It appears increasingly likely that Crossrail will be on the backbench for some time, against the threat of austere futures and a focus on “levelling up” the lands outside London. This article aims to explain why it is not in the government’s best interests to pursue Crossrail 2 in the here and now.

2. NOT ALL CROSSRAILS…

The aim of Crossrail 2 – above all else – is to enhance railway capacity in London and the South East such that supply can match demand, both in terms of rail travel and in terms of resulting housing development. Building a new railway link from north to south has the potential to create travel demand from areas not currently considered easily commutable from central London, enabling development both along the route and beyond it. It also incorporates a central tunnel section that will ease overcrowding in Zone 1, sustaining the existing commuter base. It sounds awfully alike Crossrail 1 in this regard – running under central London in cardinal directions, and aiding commutes from less connected areas. Crossrail 1 is encouraging “metroisation” of services out to Essex and Berkshire – making services faster and more frequent (“turn up and go”, as opposed to timetabled) with priority to reach a London terminus. Crossrail 2 could do the same in Broxbourne and Teddington, encourage more medium-distance commuters to live in these areas that do not currently have a fast service into central London. Particularly in those parts of Surrey, the stopping services are incontiguous, circuitous and above all slow. This metroisation of services would also aid in the Mayor’s tacit strategy to bring suburban rail under the public umbrella – and set a precedent for doing more of it. But “do more x because x is good in principle” is not necessarily a sufficient argument – so this article will look at the development benefits of Crossrail 2 in detail.

First on the chopping block, the tooth-and-claw question of cost versus benefit. It has been floated that the combination of projects due to be completed as part of the Northern Hub program (the rail component of the “Northern Powerhouse” strategy) has a benefit-cost ratio of 4 to 1, that is, it is likely to generate £4 of “benefit” for every £1 spent. The way that these benefits are calculated is a subject of dispute in transport circles, but regardless, this 4:1 ratio is more than double that of HS2 (currently standing at 1.2:1) and Crossrail 1 (roughly 2:1 at last measuring). It is extremely unlikely that Crossrail 2 will have a substantially different CBR (cost benefit ratio) than Crossrail 1, given the similarities of the projects in terms of aims and scope. If anything, Crossrail 2 is likely to accrue fewer benefits. Firstly, Crossrail 2 does not link up with a major airport according to current plans. One of the key benefits of Crossrail 1 is its ability to offer a contiguous metro service through to Heathrow Airport. Crossrail 2 does not offer similar airport connectivity at either end, beyond changing at Euston St. Pancras. If airport connectivity is considered a sound metric for cost/benefit analysis, Crossrail 2 is therefore less attractive.

More substantially, the suburbs served by Crossrail 2 do not have the same potential for economic development as those in Crossrail 1. Crossrail 1 was touted as providing growth and opportunities in East London – one of the most economically deprived parts of the capital. Whether this obtains is yet to be seen, but the running of Elizabeth Line services thus far is already helping to drive investment and development in areas such as Ilford and Acton. Crossrail 2 will terminate in New Southgate, Broxbourne, and several stations out in Surrey. While the New Southgate spur could prove beneficial (particularly if it runs through the Wood Green intensification area), scope for property development here is meagre, as there is little development land available (brownfield sites in Wood Green are already being developed en masse). The scope for development in the Lea Valley, from Enfield Lock to Broxbourne, might at first sight seem extensive. There is a large quantity of green belt land that could, pending approval, be released for selective development. However, the lack of potential here can be proved with a short historical detour.

3. LEA VALLEY CONTOURS

As early as 1300, the Lea Valley was a prominent agricultural centre owing to good soil quality and close access to fresh water. This horticultural trend continued as technologies developed, shifting to respond to consumer trends and intensified farming methods. By the 1930s there were more than 1300 acres of greenhouses up the Lea Valley, labelled as “nurseries” on maps, producing all kinds of goods for market. As international trade in goods grew more commonplace in the postwar period, tomatoes and aubergines grown in greenhouses in Hertfordshire faced higher costs than those flown in from further afield. The industry collapsed and was cut down to less than a tenth of what it was a century ago – literally decimated. So there was good cause to build on this derelict land, and provide affordable housing for the postwar baby boom. This area, broadly covering the gap between the Great Cambridge Road and West London line, saw substantial expansion of existing villages that already had good railway links. When Crossrail 2 is built, Michelle Wix, project head, has noted that one of the key opportunities will be further development along this railway line. It remains to be seen whether this will simply establish a contiguous strip of development along the railway (very Metroland!) or seep into the Lea Valley Regional Park, which contains 8 sites of Special Scientific Interest, and 4 wetlands that are considered “internationally important”. This means that development in the Valley can go one of two ways:

• Development takes the form of infilling and densification, which could take place anywhere and will only be incrementally increased by an improved railway connection. This does not seem worthwhile.
• Development is more substantial, on both sides of the West London Line. This could encounter roadblocks owing to environmental impacts. If this is the scenario Crossrail 2 is expecting, it will be more difficult to garner private finance from construction companies. There is therefore a risk that this scenario is just as incremental as the above in terms of economic benefits.

On balance, then, it doesn’t seem that development within the Lea Valley will carry the same potential as developments in Ilford or Acton. Regardless, questions will need to be asked around the environmental sustainability of any substantial property developments resulting from Crossrail 2. 

4. WOKING-TOWN MAN

That just leaves development in Surrey. Building new houses in Surrey is like trying to build an igloo in hell; the heat is just too much. Swaddled in green belt and anti-Greater London identities, planning for development here would be even more difficult than in Berkshire with Crossrail 1. That is not necessarily an indictment of Crossrail 2; perhaps planning reform could challenge these conceptions. What I would countenance, however, is that the drawbacks of commuting in from Shepperton and Teddington (a confusing, circuitous service) could be resolved in part through a more straightforward, unified service provision – such as the PPP modelled on the Overground.

The most obvious benefit of offering a Crossrail service instead of an Overground-style metroisation would be the link-up with National Rail services. The issue is that these stations in Surrey offer no such thing. For comparison: Crossrail 1 will terminate at Heathrow (the second busiest airport in the world), Reading (the largest town in England and on the Great Western), Shenfield (providing links to a poorly provisioned East Anglia) and Abbey Wood (similar, for Kent). Crossrail 2 has Shepperton (no onward links), Chessington South (no onward links, but a World of Adventures at least) and Teddington (part of a circular that returns London-bound). Surbiton by exception has through trains to the South West, but compared to Crossrail 1 that seems hardly enough justification. It could be argued that the link-up is across the entire line – but the other terminus is Broxbourne, which continues less than 10 miles to Hertford East and terminates with no link to the Hertford Loop / ECML. 

5. TOWING THE (CHELNEY) LINE

The benefits of developing areas along Crossrail 2’s route and its link-up with areas further afield have been covered up to now, which only leaves the benefit accrued by the mostly costly element, the central section from Chelsea to Hackney. This was once planned to be an Underground line in its own right – the Chelney line – but it was deprioritised in favour of the Victoria Line and the Jubilee Line extension back in the 70s. The Chelney Line was reformed as Crossrail 2 in 2007 once Crossrail 1 had entered project planning – itself almost 20 years later than planned. All this to say that Crossrail 2’s suburban elements have been haphazard from the beginning; originally barely breaching inner London (Leyton – Wimbledon), then running with the Central Line to Epping, later moving across to West Anglia and also pushing out into Surrey proper. This regional option was chosen above provision of a barebones Tube route from Seven Sisters to Wimbledon, in spite of the fact that the original impetus of the Chelney Line had always been reducing stress on the Underground. Perhaps Andrew Adonis and Michelle Dix alike prioritised on the basis that a regional route would prove more sustainable in the long run?

It certainly isn’t necessarily equitable – in fact, by extending services, it continues a trend of improvements of travel capacity in London and South East relative to the rest of the country. While the benefits in central London are to reduce overcrowding, the benefits beyond Chelsea and Hackney are aiming to capture new growth and development. Why should London and the South East be privileged in that regard? In relative terms, the spaces for new growth development are varied and wide, particularly outside Crossrail 2’s home counties. What else could be going on – and how much benefit could it accrue?

6. OTHER (ELECTRIC) AVENUES

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham was quoted in 2017 as saying that commuters in the north would be “furious” that Crossrail 2 had been given the green light, following substantial cutbacks on electrification of routes in the north of England. The most recent Transport Secretary at the DfT, Grant Shapps, has overturned the trend set by his predecessor, Chris Grayling, in this regard. He has committed to spending £600m on work to electrify the TransPennine line between Selby and Hull.

The first Conservative majority government announced a pausing of electrification schemes in 2015, but U-turned on the policy once Chris Grayling was out of post. The schemes taken off pause matched the recommendations made by Andrew Adonis when he was Transport Secretary. The most pressing electrification still pending was on the Great Western Mainline – the only “trunk route” in the South without electrical current. This was completed through to Cardiff in 2020 though some work remains on spurs and the remaining section through to Swansea.

The benefits of electrification – across the UK as well as in the North specifically – are relatively straightforward. Trains with electric engines are more easily fitted with regenerative braking technologies, which save energy. Trains running electric engines are also faster in average – in no small part because they tend to be more modern. Most of all, electrified routes are environmentally friendly, not just because they’re more efficient but because they avoid the particulates pollution of diesel engines. An increasingly renewable National Grid in the UK means that electrified services are a crucial part of Network Rail’s decarbonisation plan.

The current government’s positive policy on electrification has, to my surprise, overturned a 20 year trend of stop-and-stall. Adonis was too late to the party – he was making recommendations in the final years of Labour government, during which electrification had fallen away in favour of stopgap diesel services. The opportunity presented by this change in attitudes is sizeable country-wide, but employing it in the North gives a chance to unify services, delegate further responsibilities to both metro areas and unitary/metro authorities, and create new networks. As noted, the Northern Hub plans already benefit from a provisional 4:1 benefit-cost ratio. Imagine what a more ambitious scheme could offer, both in terms of business agglomeration benefits on both sides of the Pennines and in terms of development. Moreover, the individual elements that make up the Northern Hub are far less complex – no one has to tunnel under the Curzon Soho – meaning the risks of cost spirals and delays so abhorred by the public with respect to HS2 and Crossrail are unlikely to recur beyond the Watford Gap. With Crossrail 2 on the back burner, the DfT can bring new projects to the fore, prioritise relative development outside London and the South East, and start a new ignition for the next economic recovery.