Morning:
13°c
For the past six months, Ken Livingstone has been trying to convince us that the London Mayoral election is little short of an epochal struggle between good and evil. He was at it again on Tuesday, calling a Boris mayoralty a "disaster" for the fight against climate change, an environmental "throwback to another age".
The truth, of course, is that it would make almost no difference whatever to the planet if London were led by Kenny Livingstone or Kenny Everett. One of the more bizarre aspects of the current contest is quite how few policy differences - indeed quite how few policies - there are in it. The claim that the very future of the Earth hinges on the "issue" of whether or not a few thousand 4x4s can enter the congestion-charge zone seems like another example of how Mr Livingstone is losing his touch.
Yet last week, unnoticed amid the synthetic cries of doom, Planet Ken did mention one thing that could genuinely damage London's public services beyond repair, could genuinely destroy any Mayor in its path, and could genuinely come to deserve that overused word "disaster". Unfortunately, it's an issue of Mr Livingstone's own making.
That issue is Crossrail, the £16 billion, seven-mile central-London rail tunnel linking existing surface lines in "the largest transport project in Europe". Mr Livingstone, as ever, is claiming credit for bringing the parties together to agree the route in "one of the most spectacular negotiations of the Mayoralty".
That might surprise the Government, which actually chose the route, which is paying the largest single grant, £5.1 billion, towards the cost, and which in 2005 described Mr Livingstone's interventions over Crossrail as "not terribly helpful". Ultimately it was Gordon, not Ken, who pressed the start button. Another £2.3 billion will come from the state-owned Network Rail and about £600 million from BAA, Canary Wharf and the City.
But it is true that Ken's body TfL will own the company which builds Crossrail. TfL will also contribute £2.7 billion in grants, £1.1 billion from savings and land sales, secure £300 million in further developer contributions and take out £3.5 billion in loans, with the interest funded by a new supplementary business rate and the principal repaid from fare revenues once the line is open.
That is scary enough for London taxpayers. What if savings, land sales and developer contributions fall short? What if fare revenues cannot repay that monster loan? But the really frightening part is what Ken's "spectacular negotiation" has lumbered us with if the cost goes above £16 billion. Last Thursday, in a speech at Canary Wharf, he said he had agreed a deal in which every penny of any overrun must be paid by Londoners.
In the Mayor's words: "As a highly placed official in the Treasury put it during the negotiations: 'You're taking the risk.' ... If the project goes wrong, then London alone picks up the cost. The national government's contribution-is fixed." An overrun, Ken continued, could " devastate London's finances", imperil "the ability to afford police and other services" and bring "30 per cent increases in fares and doubling of supplementary business rates".
The reason this is a real and terrifying prospect is that few recent British transport projects have come in anywhere near their initial pre-construction budgets. The West Coast Main Line modernisation is costing around £8.6 billion, nearly four times the original estimate. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was budgeted at £3 billion; it came in at £5.2 billion. The Highways Agency's 36 most recent major road improvements cost 40 per cent more than originally estimated. The Jubilee Line extension went £1.4 billion over.
If Crossrail overran by Chunnel Link proportions, that would be £12 billion - four times the cost of the Metropolitan Police. Repaying this sum over 10 years through the council tax could, with interest, put perhaps £500 a year on your bill. The alternative would be savage cuts in services.
So why on earth has Ken called our attention to this truly spectacular failure of negotiation? His argument in his speech was that only he, and definitely not Boris, has the competence to ensure Crossrail does not go over budget. Anyone familiar with Mr Livingstone's and TfL's budgeting will smile wryly at that.
In Ken's first year, 2000-01, the annual subsidy to London's buses (at 2007 prices) was £57 million. It is now £625 million - an elevenfold increase - with fares shooting up well over inflation, too. The buses are certainly better than they were in 2000, but they are not 11 times better. They are certainly carrying more passengers - but about 45 per cent more, not 11 times more. And the suburban railways, which aren't run by Ken and haven't had any increase in subsidy, have seen passenger numbers grow almost as much. Transport usage tracks the economy, not the absurd fortunes squandered by TfL on, for instance, multi-million pound salaries for Bob Kiley to do no work.
That other big project, the Olympics, also shows the Livingstone slippery calculator finger. In 2005, the budget was £2.4 billion. Only two years later, it was £9.3 billion - and will almost certainly go up again in the next four years. Here, there is at least a deal to cap the amount London council-tax payers must bear. With Crossrail, Ken has secured precisely the opposite: unlimited liability. And that, surely, is the real dagger through his claim to competence.
The actual picture may not be quite as bleak as Livingstone says. There is a contingency element in the Crossrail budget, though the amount is secret. Crossrail's cost estimate seems more realistic than that of the Olympics. And the Crossrail "heads of terms" agreement between TfL and Whitehall suggests that overrun risk is, in fact, to some extent shared between them under a complicated (and again undisclosed) formula.
Crossrail is, of course, officially a Good Thing. But the agreement needs renegotiating, and Londoners' liability must be clarified. Until then, if I were Mayor, it would keep me awake at night.
Reader views (8)
Ken = East London regeneration, improved buses, tube and transport, environmental awareness, Olympics.
Boris = Supporting George Bush, more pollution, more congestion.
- Barry Ls, London UK
I think London and its policies have a little more influence on the rest of the world, let alone Britain, Mr Gilligan. As carbon emissions have changed under Mr Livingstone, I'd guess the rest of the world would wish to know why. As the Standard failed to report London winning awards for green policies, you'd be forgiven for believing Mr Gilligan's account.
Everyone knows Ken Livingstone campaigned for years for Crossrail. If his mate Boris is against crossrail, can he tell the electorate, including the business community and commuters alike as they might wish to know before the election.
- Howard Turner, London, GB
man-made climate change is a load of tosh
In the 70's we were told by scientists we were entering another ice-age .. now its global....yawning.
- Rupert, uk london
I notice Sean is convinced that Ken is the way forward for London, unsurprising seeing as he doesn't live in London. As such he doesn't pay Ken's ridiculous charges which increase by about 3 times inflation year on year and receive nothing in return except to be threatened and intimidated by latchkey kids riding free on London buses.
- Ken Yadigit, Watford
Don't underestimate the significance of London's recent advances in the fight against climate change. Like him or loathe him Ken's leadership is influencing policy in cities across the world. e.g. New York is now preparing to copy the congestion charge, London's recently adopted 'London Plan' energy policies - just about the most progressive of any major city - are set to be copied world wide, London is the only large city where bus patronage is going up dramatically. The group of 40 cities that Ken has forged with the Clinton foundation pushes this influence still further. The world's eyes are on London. Which is why we should all cringe at the prospect of a Johnson Mayorality.
- Sean Dodson, Brighton, UK
Ken has been in charge of London and its infrastructure for many years, and still nothing works. He can shout loud and clear, he is with no doubt completely incompetent. A child with basic mathematics knowledge will do a better job.
Meanwhile he still believe he is god saviour, and we continue to fit the bills for his incompetence.
- Lauren, London Uk
Isn't this a typical case of politicians lying about the true cost of a flagship project to enable them to take the credit for it, then years down the line blaming everybody concerned bar themselves when its true cost comes out at billions over budget?
- Figurewizard, Mitcham UK
Andrew,
Glad to see you have picked this issue up.
The Mayor's deal is particularly bad in the context of the £17.8 billion net contribution to the Exchequer made by London (Oxford Economics figures for City of London). In return for sending more than the cost of Crossrail to the rest of the country every year, London gets a 10 year project which is majority funded by London itself and only receives a £5.1 billion government grant with unlimited liability for overruns. Livingstone is a terrible negotiator. He was so keen to add Crossrail to his train set he drove a really bad bargain.
- Phil Taylor, Ealing
