Behind the Headlines: Report enters murky waters

Policy Exchange drew on the expertise of figures such as former Minister for Transport Steve Norris, Transport for London transport adviser Kulveer Ranger, former London Docklands Development Corporation director of transport Cynthia Grant and Telegraph London editor Andrew Gilligan to compile the report in the second half of last year.

It suggests putting river services under full control of Transport for London, who would then invest up to £30million on upgrading and extending piers for an accessible, integrated river network.

Where are we now? Commuter services on the river Thames currently begin and end with the Thames Clippers service, which carries about 7,500 passengers daily. The Clippers were integrated into the Oyster system in November, but travelcard holders still need to pay a small fare to use the river.

What's the plan? Policy Exchange's big idea is to put Transport for London in charge of the river, selecting an operator for a given route via tenders in a similar fashion to bus services. The report's introduction claims "river transport suffers from a lack of leadership, confused administrative arrangements and, critically, indifference from institutions which could make a difference".

Report editor Robert McIlveen said its suggestion would encourage TfL to take more of an interest in the river. He said: "It's a bit of a hassle for them at the moment. Politically, I think this move would unlock a lot of activity."

At the moment, Thames Clippers is a private service run by O2-operators AEG, and subsidised by TfL to the tune of around £370,000 per year. In the proposed system, the winner of TfL's tender would be likely to be the sole recipient of subsidy, which would seem to rule out private competition.

Dr McIlveen said: "We're not expecting to have two companies operating the same route."

How would this help? Firstly, Dr McIlveen said it would integrate the river services fully into the transport network. While Dr McIlveen believes that it would be "ideal" if the river was brought into line price-wise, he said it could be costed as a premium service. Policy Exchange estimates the operating cost for a river service at £8.40 per boat kilometre, as opposed to £35 for the tube and £2.50 for the bus.

He said: "It would depend on how much TfL are willing to spend on it."

Policy Exchange hopes that TfL's extra interest in the service will also encourage it to spend between £15million and £30million upgrading piers. It would then bring river funding in line with bus and DLR subsidies by plunging in £4million per annum until the service grows to its predicted maximum, and £3million per annum for the next 17 years.

Dr McIlveen said: "We're deliberately presenting a conservative case.

"Anything suggesting a subsidy of about £10million or something isn't going to be feasible, especially not in this climate."

The report also recommends that TfL manages all central London piers, and makes every attempt to buy them if it can.

Chapter author Andrew Gilligan said: "While it will probably not be able to buy all of the key piers currently in private hands, such as Canary Wharf, agreement with those owners who will not sell should be reached to manage schedules and access to the piers."

Dr McIlveen believes that boat operators should purchase the boats, while private developers should fund piers outside of Central London through Section 106 planning contributions.

A Transport for London spokesman said Policy Exchange's findings "support much of the work the Mayor and TfL are already delivering through the River Concordat Group to promote the river as an alternative transport option, including improved signage and allowing Oyster Pay-as-you-Go on Thames Clipper services, which was introduced in November 2009".

However, he added that "some of the recommendations in the Policy Exchange report would require substantial funding. Given the current constraints to the TfL budget it would be difficult to deliver all their recommendations in full".

What could the future hold? Policy Exchange believes that a target of 12million river journeys a year is a possibility by 2026, compared to 3.1million in 2009. To achieve this, it envisages "ten-minute services departing well-managed and organised piers, stretching from Putney in the West to Erith in the East via Central London and Canary Wharf".

Cynthia Grant suggests TfL takes "a proactive lead" in planning routes, and selects operators to run them on 15-year contracts with break clauses every five years.

Ms Grant points out that "conservative estimates" of population growth on the Isle of Dogs are 37 per cent by 2016 and 76 per cent by 2026, and projects in the east include Wood Wharf, Convoy's Wharf, Lea Peninsula, Silvertown Quays and the expansion of Greenwich Peninsula.

She suggests a second Canary Wharf pier at Wood Wharf and one at Greenwich Peninsula West, as well as temporary Olympic piers at Minoco for Excel, Trinity Buoy Wharf and a Reuters pier between the two.

An anti-clockwise Central London loop including stops at Westminster, London Bridge and Blackfriars could operate at a five-minute frequency by 2015, while by 2020 new piers could be in place at Somerset House, South Bank and Battersea Power Station.

Policy Exchange concludes that "a more strategic approach" is applied to ensure infrastructure is in place when a route is planned. Signage and accessibility are also major concerns, which again leads back to the question of funding.

The report states that "the river currently receives significantly less subsidy than other modes of transport in London. TfL should be prepared to use small levels of subsidy to drive better use of the river".

What about frequency? Andrew Gilligan pointed out that delays and poor frequency "stifle" the current service. A river trip to London Bridge from Canary Wharf takes 10 minutes compared to eight on the tube, but trains leave every three minutes at peak time compared to 10 on the river. That jumps to 20 minutes at midday and 30 in the evening.

Thames Clippers MD Sean Collins echoes the point. He said: "We already see Thames Clippers as more of a suburban waterborne bus service with a greater capacity per journey.

"One of the improvements we would love to see, and feel Londoners would benefit from, is a greater frequency and a possible extension to the route.

"The viability of this is dependent on subsidy and planning support from the riparian Boroughs so of course we welcome the Mayor's comments and active support."

Mr Gilligan also believes better management of the river is key. He said: "The speed limit should be constantly reviewed and any other options for managing safety should be prioritised. Air traffic control-style traffic management and sensitive scheduling would reduce congestion at key times, enabling the speed limit to be flexible."

He specifically points out 12-knot restrictions to accommodate Piper's Wharf boatyard near Greenwich Pier and a houseboat community at Wapping.

However, Port of London Authority chief harbour master David Snelson responded by pointing out these restrictions limit collisions with boats and bridges.

He said: "We don't impose speed limits because we feel like it - we do it only where we have to in order to maintain safety. It's precisely the same logic as making cars go slowly past schools - or any other safety related speed limit."

The PLA also raised an eyebrow at Steve Norris' suggestion that its environmental responsibilities go to the Environment Agency or National Rivers Authority, not least because the latter was shut down in 1996.

A spokesman said: "It's important to have a good debate about the river. But bits of the report don't seem to have been thought through."

How have other river providers reacted? The PLA was keen to point out that commuter services are just one type of boat on the river. Tourist boats also use the Thames, as do private crafts and even freight. The latter has been highlighted by bodies such as the London Assembly as the preferred eco-friendly method of transporting building waste from projects such as Crossrail.

Dr McIlveen said it was a "balancing act" to cater for the demands of passenger and freight on the river, but he suggested in the report that tourist boats and leisure activities are "excluded from the river for the morning peak" to diminish safety concerns, with "a similar approach" to be taken in the evening. While he added that "care must be taken that an expanded transport service does not crowd out tourist operators", a PLA spokesman described the suggestion as "robbing Peter to pay Paul", and City Cruises managing director Rita Beckwith said she was "saddened" by the report's stance.

City Cruises operates between seven and nine boats a day depending on the season, with a capacity of around 500 each.

She said: "It isn't really a study about the river Thames. It's a study about getting more money for a commuter service.

"It almost seems like they want to relegate us to a few piers on the side, and that they think of us as a nuisance. I don't think that portrays a true picture. At the moment, the competing services work together extremely well.

"My view is that different types of river services should live together. To suggest that a subsidised service should operate alongside services with no subsidy at all sounds like unfair competition.

"Either we believe that it should remain as the diverse industry that it is now, or we believe we should all just pack up and go home. I sit on six working groups working towards solving a lot of the problems mentioned in this report, such as better signage for piers.

"I can't imagine TfL ever wanting this to happen. We've come a long way compared to 1992, when no one had a license longer than six months and there was no investment because no one could borrow money.

"It's not about making the Thames into a ten-lane highway. It's about creating a place where people can go to enjoy themselves as well."

The full report is available at policyexchange.org.uk