Afternoon:
14°c
Through the heart of London, free of all the normal hold-ups, runs a six-lane highway, used to a mere fraction of its potential. In a report launched tomorrow, the think-tank Policy Exchange will show how the Thames could transform our travelling lives.
In under three years, and for an initial outlay of just £30 million, we can create a new, waterborne Tube line, with a frequent service of high-speed boats at 20 piers from Putney to Woolwich. That is about a quarter of the time, and less than a hundredth of the money, that a similar project would need on land.
Yet this would be no ordinary service. It would never be stopped by traffic or points failures. It would bring new links to places badly served by the transport system, and much-needed relief to the whole network. It would seize imaginations and raise spirits. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners would be liberated from their subterranean holes, travelling instead with the wind in their hair and the matchless spectacle of the world's greatest city before their eyes.
The idea of using the river to transport passengers is, of course, one of London's oldest chestnuts. Over the last century, it has been tried many times, always sinking with all hands. But now it is different.
Thanks to massive new riverside housing, office and entertainment developments — Docklands, Canary Wharf and the O2 — there are already the passengers to support a frequent commercial service along the eastern section of the river. With virtually no public subsidy, it has already become the fastest-growing form of transport in London.
You only have to try it once to know why. In the morning rush hour, the traffic in Greenwich inches round the one-way system. The trains are slow and crowded. On the river, charging upstream at 30 knots (35mph), we are the fastest thing in a five-mile radius.
On the open rear deck of the Cyclone Clipper, two newcomers to the service are grinning to themselves at the sudden surge of speed, and the glorious, if rapidly receding, views of the Royal Naval College. Inside, the more seasoned passengers have settled down with their laptops. There is a small buffet, and on the way home you can even get a massage.
Yet the riverbus remains under-used, something of a secret. It does not appear on the Tube map. The piers are hard to find; interchange is hopeless. At Waterloo station, there are 43 signs to the Underground and buses — but only one, at a far end of the terminal, to the nearby pier. Arriving by train at London Bridge, it is quicker to reach the pier than the Tube platforms, if only you know how. But the pier is hidden behind a private development, which refuses to acknowledge its existence.
All too often, when you finally find your way, the confusion only gets worse. At Greenwich, the would-be river passenger is confronted by no fewer than four separate ticket offices.
That symbolises the riverbus's greatest single problem: its near-total isolation from the branding and integrated ticketing that covers all other public transport. Oyster pay-as-you-go is now accepted, but Travelcards are not, and higher fares are charged.
That is easily, and surprisingly cheaply, changed. The revenue subsidy needed to bring the commuter boats into the normal Travelcard system, Policy Exchange calculates, would be in the low millions a year. And it turns out, too, that most of the other practical arguments against using the river are wrong or exaggerated. The few genuine practical problems that there are turn out to be minor and easily fixed.
Ludicrous speed limits, imposed to protect new houseboat developments, slow boats to a crawl for parts of their journey. The houseboats hold about 50 people; the riverbus already carries 50,000 a week. No one would be allowed to park a caravan on the hard shoulder of the M25. It is time to restore the river to what it always was: a highway, not a place of residence.
Some central London piers are too short, adding minutes to the journey time while the Clippers wait for space to tie up. Those piers could be lengthened in months, at a cost of £10 million.
The true problems are political. There is an almost total lack of co-ordination and leadership on the river, and the only bodies in a position to provide it — Transport for London and the Port of London Authority — seem, for reasons of their own, not to be interested.
In a briefing last year, TfL hugely exaggerated the river service's journey times. In fact, even with the present handicaps, some river journeys are already quicker than on land — and many others are comparable. TfL claims there are no successful services along rivers (as opposed to across them) anywhere in the world. Tell that to Brisbane, Hamburg, Bangkok and a dozen other cities.
TfL's principal argument for doing nothing, however, is that the river can provide no more new transport capacity than “a busy bus route”. In fact, the initial proposal in the Policy Exchange report delivers a capacity of 450,000 passengers a week, or 23 million a year, far more than any bus service. If further pier improvements are made, actual usage could approach 35 million trips a year, not far short of the Hammersmith and City line.
Even the initial proposed service provides significantly more transport than many far costlier projects. The DLR extension to Woolwich, for instance, has generated five million extra journeys a year — at a cost of £180 million. Quite rightly, no one questioned this spending on the grounds that it would deliver only the same capacity as a bus route.
Luckily, the political backing the riverbus needs may be falling into place. Among the speakers at tomorrow's event is the Mayor, Boris Johnson. Boris has sometimes been accused of lacking a big idea, an equivalent of Ken Livingstone's congestion charge — something people can point to and say: “He did that.” I think a new TfL riverbus could be it.
Andrew Gilligan is the London editor of Telegraph Media Group. The Policy Exchange report, At a Rate of Knots, is published tomorrow at www.policyexchange.org.uk.
Reader views (21)
I think this is a good idea.
The reason many people don't currently use the Thames for travel is mainly because the pathways along the Thames river in zone 1 aren't very accessible (particularly on the Northbank between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge). They are not pedestrian friendly, often bendy, uneven, narrow and lack open spaces. In some parts of the Thames in zone 1 there is no walkway - the path just runs to an abrupt end! (ie Watermans Walk & Pauls Walk) where you are forced to divert your walk about 500 metres up Upper Thames Street which is hundreds of metres away from the river.
In these places a new pier/or pathway could easily be put in place to run parallel to the river which pedestrians could be directed onto rather than the unnecessary divertions that are currently in place.
Therefore if they undertake this project they firstly should widen the pathways on the Northbank to ensure there is minimum pathway width of 3 metres along the whole stretch of water in central london.
This would provide a grand new linear pedestrian, car free walkway that boats could easily park along side.
As well as being good for pedestrians this path could include one of the only totally segregated Cycle lanes in central London, new trees, outdoor cafes.
This new attractive public space would encourage more people to use the Thames and use boat services in the City of London.
- Stephen, london
Mr Gilligan on reading your article I was surprised to find you did`nt work for clippers advertising department.It seem,s to me you might have travelled on the clippers once or twice.I have worked on the river Thames now for 40 years and I have never seen so much erosion in the riverbank as in the last few years,if you care to talk to anyone who works around the isle of dogs/mast house terrace you would see all the erosion of the riverbank and the lack of mud that used to cover it.Most of this caused by the scouring effect of their wash.You should get permission from the boat owners who moor their boats along the southbank at coin street to see the effect of the surge when a clipper goes by. Also can you also find out the amount of diesel these eco-friendly clippers actually use,compared to a conventional vessel traveling to and from greenwich.A very poorly researched article only seen through clippers eyes.
- Ian Davis, Lee London
This is exactly what the worlds greatest city needs. Especially as in the East at least there are now so many attactions and residents by the side of the river.
T
- Tim, London
Ask any cabby what's the fastest way across London and you'll hear "East or West, Embankment's best", despite the stretch from Parliament Square to Savoy being a coach park...
I think this is a fantastic opportunity to turn Battersea Power Station into a major river hub, with a mix of shops/ hotels/ galleries/ science park, but fed and feeding a spur on the train line into Victoria, and a major coach park. Greenwich/Canary Wharf would serve the East, and another at Chelsea Reach/Fulham.
- Charlie R, Greenwich
I am a great fan of river transportation. Not because I am a sailor or houseboat enthusiast, but because this city was built around one and most of us go months without seeing it. And then we complain about the traffic and public transport -- that all avoids the river.
Just because we haven't done this successfully here in London doesn't mean it can't be done. Experience elsewhere suggests it definitely can.
I've been trying to convince taxi drivers for 10 years that we can put a motorway under the banks of the Thames... like they have done in Paris. Imagine Hammersmith to Westminster in 10 minutes?!
But I will easily settle for a better boat service.
'Change' is not bad. Sometimes it's even good.
(Oh, and not everything has to be about personalities and politics.)
- David Ferrabee, London, UK
"Ludicrous speed limits"! The clippers already abuse the speed limits and send passenger boats flying! Passenger boats have been running on the Thames for hundreds of years and are under threat by the NEW clipper service. Not only do they cause condierable damage to the other vessels on the river - they are endangering other boat operators businesses. This article is written from only one perspective - that of the Clippers - what about the rest of us?
- L Macleod, London
"Ludicrous speed limits" maybe were imposed for reasons other than Houseboats Andrew?.... SAFETY in the upper reaches and also for preservation of wild life, flood banks etc. Thames Clippers cause complete chaos on the River and burn ridiculous amounts of fuel each week. Thames Clipper should be outed and Boris's "big idea" should have been Hovercraft! Hovercraft create a fraction of the wash created by a Clipper which is safer and will not harm flood banks they can also travel faster.
- Name Not Known, london
Sorry mate but London hasn't been "the world's greatest city" for a long time now, a bit like Great Britain isn't great any more...
- Andi-M, London
when writing an article you should really get your facts right, thames clipper run a poor commuter service they cant keep to there time schedual because they are always in the way of each other on piers as there so late. The boats are not designed for the river thames and cause more damage to every one else trying to live and work on the river ,they are dangerous boats and should have never been aloud to opperate. if you was writing this article in the summer it would be a different story as customers of thames clippers were waiting for two hours or more to board the boats.
- Paul, london
The hold ups are quite often a case of waiting for another Clipper to get out the way, because all vessels now have their own berthing areas on the piers.
The journey time from Royal Arsenal to Embankment/Charing Cross is 56 minutes by Clipper. Thats not quick and should not attempt to be made in a quicker time due to the safety reasons mentioned in the previous comment.
There are only Three ticket boxes at Greenwich, one is an office for a small passenger boat company. And these are temporary while the promenade at the top of Greenwich pier is renovated.
Tfl are not interested in coordination. Thats why they have provided electronic real time infomation on its piers for the Clipper service.
The port of London authority are the there to police the safe navigation of the Thames and enforce the byelaws which the passengers vessels abide by, except the Clippers.
If Mr Gilligan would like to become more knowledgeable of the Thames and the boats on it, I would advise using a company that employ's their Captains after a 5-7 year apprenticeship served to the company of waterman and lighterman, rather than one that employs their Captains after a 6 month training period through the MCA, a government body which buckled to the EU a while back and jepordised safety on the Thames.
- Mr L Sullivan, London
Being someone who has worked on the river for 14 years, I'd like to point out that Mr Gilligan's article is very poorly researched.
The so called "ludicrous speed limits" are not soley in place for houseboats. All vessels navigating the Thames are required to run at speeds which do not create excessive wash/swell/wake which could cause damage or endanger other river users. The Thames Clipper vessels are the amongst the worst for causing excessive wash due to the high speeds they run at. Excessive wash is a danger to Rowers/Scullers in the Greenwich/Blackwall area; to other passenger vessels which are boarding whilst alongside a pier. Ropes can be parted and boats are drawn off the pier and then slammed back into the pier. This could cause serious injury to crew/passengers and also damage to the pier and boat.
The Thames Clipper service has recieved more subsidies than any other passenger company on the thames. The majority of passenger boat companies on the river are relatively small family run outfits who recieve not one penny from the government/tfl/sponsers. These people were providing a good service long before any riverbus.
Some piers in London are to small for the Clipper service because they built their boats outside the guidelines of 33-35 meters, which were in place before their largest vessel commenced service. London river services has bent over backwards to create a berthing system which allows the Clippers straight onto the pier.
I can continue
- Mr L Sullivan, London
So the River is Gilligan’s latest pet campaign is it? Well I cannot see it happening in the present financial climate. After all we have just had a huge increase in fares on public transport just to pay for Boris’s other election promises, which Gilligan so strongly supported.
I will never forgive Andrew Gilligan for using the Evening Standard to campaign so vigorously and successfully in to get Boris Johnson elected in the first place… on the pretext of getting rid on the Bendy Busses and the Western Extension to the Congestion Charge, which was never going to be for the benefit of all Londoners. I wonder if Gilligan is now regretting his campaign. There was nothing wrong with the Bendy Buses except that a few people ’didn’t like them’ oh deary me! and it is now costing we, the London Council Tax payers, millions to fulfil Boris’s election pledges.
On ya bike Gilligan……….. Oh I forgot…. Don’t you travel everywhere by bike anyway? Except when you try to take it on Virgin Rail…..oh I forgot, Virgin Rail is another one of your pet hates.
- David, London
A rather sloppy article. For example Gilligan compares passengers carried on the DLR extension with total potential capacity of the Clipper services. One hopes the full report will be more rigorous! It is surprising to read an article by a Telegraph editor extolling the virtues of subsidy (which always goes up) and ignoring totally the thriving profitable users of the river.
- Robert H, London UK
Living as i do on the banks of the river at Deptford, where since 1513 ships were built in the Royal Naval Yard, walking to the river-bus, frequently travelling happily into work, i cannot see any argument against river transport holding water. Watertaxis and ferries had existed for centuries, and the re-appearance is good sense.
In fact, here in Deptford the PLA have publicly supported a locally born initiative to site a liner terminal at Deptford and the idea of riverbuses having maintenance and repair facilities has wide support here. Bring on the river-buses, Boris! Deptford would certainly welcome being back on the map. 1513-2013?
- William Richards, deptford
As a resident of Canary Wharf who has to make the daily commute to Hammersmith, I would *love* to make use of the Clipper service and take the tube from Embankment to continue my journey (the connection from Embankment pier to Embankment tube station is far quicker than the one I currently have to make betwixt Jubilee and District lines at Westminster station). The only thing that stops me doing so is the expense: at £5 for a return trip on the boat, and then an additional £2 each way to use the connecting tube, it doesn't give value for money.
Incorporate the ferries into the TfL network properly, make interchange from pier to station part of a single journey and I would switch in a flash!
- Colin, London
No problems with points and traffic... but what about the impending freezing weather that could see us skating up the Thames to work?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one
Gilligan says they dont take travelcards well last time I used them they gave a discount to travelcard holders, whether this still applies I dont know.
As for Gilligan liking transport that wastes money on a need for more staff well thats just up his street with his passion for a bus that needs 2 people to operate although with the introduction of Oyster the 2nd person would have a boring job which would lead to staff leaving then staff shortages then bus cuts through lack of staff. Wait a minute thats what happened when travelcards etc were first introduced!
The problems with peirs is becuase London used its river for goods transport and this lead to the river being cut off by riverside developments and instead of being knocked down these buildings became trendy apartments the river remains cut off in many places.
As for Gillgan thinking this is a reliable form of transport he must of forgotten what Fog is something given BOJOs love of cars London is likely to see even more of!!
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
Sorry, but Andrew Gilligan has absolutley no credibility left after the Bendybus/Routemaster disaster (incidentally, where are the new Routemasters...?). As ever, this article is superficial, simplistic and takes no account of reality. Gilligan as a transport advisor - I strongly suspect Boris rues the day he sided with him for the Mayoral election as he will forever be associated with him.
- Ian Bartlett, Chesham, UK
About time, especially considering how many people work in Canary Wharf and how bad the transport links there are, surely a decent service from Canary Wharf to Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Embankment and Waterloo could take thousands of people off the tube?
- Phil, London
Again, like most of Gilligan's pet projects, the maths doesn't add up.
a) I took a Thames Clipper last year, and it was nice, spacious, fast and extremely expensive. This is doubtless down to the large crewing requirement, which is innate to carrying a couple of hundred people around a river for safety reasons. I shouldn't need to remind Londoners why this is, but considering that crewing is the biggest single cost of running transport systems, this isn't a great start.
b) The current boat system, despite extra publicity, the O2, the Jubilee Line/DLR closures etc. carries an entirely trivial number of people in the city-wide context. Why it should be lavished with attention despite the expense and small area of the capital it's any use for entirely escapes me, particularly when that's the area of the city that's had the lions' share of investment.
c) Any widespread, frequent use of boats is therefore going to result in them being underfilled at some times of the day, as buses and tubes are, in order to have the capacity there when you need it. This sinks the idea, as if you're going to trade capacity against subsidy, you have to concentrate on the means that give you the most bang for the buck, which is buses and electric metros.
I don't get Policy Exchange. Andrew wrote (badly) for them kicking off the whole Routemaster thing, and that's ended badly, they're a nasty political clique who keep feeding Boris bad ideas and they have links to extremely nasty neocons
- Tom, London, UK
What a fantastic well written and researched article, Boris would do himself no harm than appointing Mr Gilligan as one of his transport advisors.
Instead of opening their minds to such projects we have the unedifying sight of Nu-Labour London Assembly members trying to protest on Victoria Station because Boris has put the fares up, where were these people when Ken was doing the same,
It would seem that the masters of TFL are more interested in political point scoring than dealing with the real issues.
- Steve M, London
