TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Acton1991]

Greater London boundary charge sounds like a great idea a) to raise cash and b) finally look at redrawing the borders that were pretty crap even in the 60s. Ridiculous that rural areas like North Ockendon are considered part of the capital while lots of the built up area inside the M25 isn't.

Tbh, making the border the M25 might be an option, it's a pretty inescapable physical border dividing communities at most points, seems like a better place than arbitrarily choosing streets (Chessington/Kingston borders, for example). Or, make the inner edge of the green belt the border.

I still feel this is a really good option. It will also push many more people onto trains and tube, further increasing their revenue too. It will also reduce congestion from those who do not live in the capital.

 

[stuu]

I had this debate on here a few months ago. To take one example, Sainsbury's head office is in London. So it's expensive headquarters, high paid executives, and entire corporate revenue would appear to be attributed to three floors of an office block and a few hundred staff on Holborn. But of course in reality, the money itself is made elsewhere in all their supermarket branches throughout the UK (and further afield). It seems to me generally unfair that my local area should be deprived of investment in return for London getting more money on the basis that "Londoners pay more tax" when the figure is distorted by issues such as this.

That's because you are mistaken. HMRC attribute corporate tax regionally based on the registered home addresses of the employees. So for the purposes of tax analysis, if 10% of Sainsburys employees live in the North west, 10% of corporation tax is assumed to be generated in the North west

 

[Mojo]

I still feel this is a really good option. It will also push many more people onto trains and tube, further increasing their revenue too. It will also reduce congestion from those who do not live in the capital.

I’m not sure how introducing the boundary charge would incentivise users of LU given how few stations are outside of Greater London, if anything it could have the opposite effect, discouraging people from driving to catch the Underground [although I accept the numbers of people driving from outside London is a tiny proportion of overall LU customer numbers].

 

[Acton1991]

I’m not sure how introducing the boundary charge would incentivise users of LU given how few stations are outside of Greater London, if anything it could have the opposite effect, discouraging people from driving to catch the Underground [although I accept the numbers of people driving from outside London is a tiny proportion of overall LU customer numbers].

Because those who drive into London now from outside of the boundary would move onto the train and tube…

 

[rebmcr]

Because those who drive into London now from outside of the boundary would move onto the train and tube…

I think Mojo's point is that if someone has to drive within the charging zone to reach the nearest TfL station, they will either drive anyway, or take a National Rail service (helping the climate but not TfL's finances).

If such a charging boundary was defined as Greater London, or as the M25, more than half of TfL terminii would cause such a situation.

 

[Egg Centric]

That's because you are mistaken. HMRC attribute corporate tax regionally based on the registered home addresses of the employees. So for the purposes of tax analysis, if 10% of Sainsburys employees live in the North west, 10% of corporation tax is assumed to be generated in the North west

Is that per head or proportionate to e.g. the salary or tax paid of the employee?

 

[stuu]

Is that per head or proportionate to e.g. the salary or tax paid of the employee?

Not sure, its somewhere on the ONS website... Probably doesn't really matter for a company like a supermarket, as the numbers earning big money are tiny in proportion to the workforce as a whole

 

[endicomark69@g]

I had this debate on here a few months ago. To take one example, Sainsbury's head office is in London. So it's expensive headquarters, high paid executives, and entire corporate revenue would appear to be attributed to three floors of an office block and a few hundred staff on Holborn. But of course in reality, the money itself is made elsewhere in all their supermarket branches throughout the UK (and further afield). It seems to me generally unfair that my local area should be deprived of investment in return for London getting more money on the basis that "Londoners pay more tax" when the figure is distorted by issues such as this.

London is indeed the only real global city and for that reason alone does justify having more investment in transport than the rest of the country.

On the other hand, if Londoners are all high earners paying high taxes, then surely there's less need for TfL to be funded to give Londoners the cheapest fares in the country? When people say that, though, even if they don't mean it, it's the hidden undertone I don't like, which comes across like "we're better than you because we earn Loadsamoney so we deserve better things than you peasants who aren't good enough to match our superior income levels".

As for "London... barely gets a look in", I respectfully have to disagree. The entire political system is run in London, by London and mostly for London. The reason why "levelling up" even exists as a newsworthy concept is because it has rarely occurred to the national government in the past that places outside the capital deserve investment (whether Tory or Labour).

Of course someone like Khan would say he doesn't get enough money, although I can 100% guarantee you that if he got the same budget tomorrow as he has today, but Keir Starmer was in charge, it would be miraculously be a fair settlement and we'd hear about how the same money that today is inadequate would be Labour boosting London, etc.

I don't know how many strawmen you can cram into a few paragraphs but apart from being factually wrong on your Sainsbury's example - nationwide company taxed regionally in proportion to its footprint - it's easier to just type "I don't like London much," and settle there.

One thing Starmer (or whoever) is "likely" to get into come some fine day is restoring TfL's funding model to something closer to pre-2016 and recognising that if you are going to have a Capitol, it's best NOT to try running its basic infrastructure on the never-never and hoping total Global disruption events never happen leaving cupboards bare in every sense of the word.

I seem to recall the current Government making its "winning" case to the electorate ever since 2010 that what happened in the wake of the 2007/9 Global Financial Crash proved Labour were unfit to manage a National Economy, perhaps they should be held to precisely the same "standard" when examining precisely why TfL are where they are. And that would include all the anecdotal crap you can fling about "waste." Johnson had TfL in his pocket for 8 years......and here we all are.

 

[Mojo]

Evening Standard reports TfL rejected a deal that would last until June, due to “unacceptable terms,” but doesn’t go into say what those “unacceptable terms” are.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nt-andy-byford-london-sadiq-khan-b981594.html

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Evening Standard reports TfL rejected a deal that would last until June, due to “unacceptable terms,” but doesn’t go into say what those “unacceptable terms” are.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nt-andy-byford-london-sadiq-khan-b981594.html

The article is unable to go into the unacceptable terms as the quote was taken from Andy Byford somewhere around the beginning of today's GLA Transport Committee. The witnesses present (Deputy Mayor for Transport, TfL CFO, TfL Commissioner) say that they would not be willing to go into further details as they, like the DfT, do not want to carry out negotiations in public. According to the meeting, as of today, they are yet to see the new proposal from the DfT regarding funding settlement. TfL's disclosed wish is for Operational Expenditure (OpEx) is provided in assistance to get to the current expectation of financial sustainability with long-term Capital Expenditure (CapEx) to ensure infrastructure is able to progress at a reasonable level.

 

[Dstock7080]

Latest TfL figures show continued growth in ridership following lifting of working from home restrictions

New data shows that Tube ridership has increased by more than 25 per cent since early January, with bus ridership up by nearly 10 per cent
Millions of people are now regularly using public transport again across London, new figures from Transport for London (TfL) have confirmed - highlighting how vital the transport network is to the capital's economic recovery.
New analysis of ridership data by TfL has revealed that, since working from home restrictions were lifted on 19 January 2022, the number of people using the Tube during weekdays has increased by at least 25 per cent. Ridership is now regularly around 60 per cent of pre-pandemic levels during the week - up from around 45 per cent in early January, with stations close to financial institutions such as Canary Wharf, Mansion House and Aldgate seeing ridership numbers between 8 and 9am already well on track to having double seen while working from home restrictions were in place. Ridership on the Waterloo and City line is now just under 50 per cent of pre-pandemic levels during peak hours, following a full weekday service resuming on 31 January.

 

[domcoop7]

I don't know how many strawmen you can cram into a few paragraphs but apart from being factually wrong on your Sainsbury's example - nationwide company taxed regionally in proportion to its footprint - it's easier to just type "I don't like London much," and settle there.

One thing Starmer (or whoever) is "likely" to get into come some fine day is restoring TfL's funding model to something closer to pre-2016 and recognising that if you are going to have a Capitol, it's best NOT to try running its basic infrastructure on the never-never and hoping total Global disruption events never happen leaving cupboards bare in every sense of the word.

I seem to recall the current Government making its "winning" case to the electorate ever since 2010 that what happened in the wake of the 2007/9 Global Financial Crash proved Labour were unfit to manage a National Economy, perhaps they should be held to precisely the same "standard" when examining precisely why TfL are where they are. And that would include all the anecdotal crap you can fling about "waste." Johnson had TfL in his pocket for 8 years......and here we all are.

I have no dislike for London whatsoever, and in my comment was clear that as the capital city, and the UK's (if not Europe's) only global city, London justifies enhanced expenditure on transport.

As for the statistics, you are right to an extent and I hold my hands up! I have been interested in regional disparity for quite some years and I hadn't realised that since 2017 the ONS have been using experimental models to try to allocate tax receipts more fairly between regions. They never used to.

Even on their latest estimated model (it is estimated because HMRC don't actually tax based on where profits / earnings are generated, but based on where the person lives / company is registered), Corporation Tax allocated to London amounts to double the share of London's tax revenue than everywhere else in the country (every other region - including the non-London South East being virtually the same). Yet VAT, which taxes consumption, is much less of London's tax share than elsewhere in the country. To an extent this could be due to Londoners having to spend a larger amount on buying or renting property (VAT free) and less on normal spending, but not enough to justify that disparity. So either London based customers are considerably more profitable for companies as those everywhere else (inlcuding in the affluent Home Counties) and at the same time Londoners spend less money (which seems counterintuitive to me!) or the ONS model (which they themselves call "experimental") is still skewed to the effect of London-based head offices.

Going back to the topic of TfL finances, though, why should the pre-2016 funding model be used? TfL losses, pre-Covid were almost entirely down to the net loss on buses (£722 million in 2019). That's £80 per man, woman and child living in the GLA area. By contrast total expenditure in Greater Manchester on buses (including supported transport and concessionary fares) came to £78.8 million in 2019, amounting to £28 per head of population. Yes spend more, but three times as much?? On an area which on any measure is richer and can afford to pay more? And that's before you factor in post-Covid working from home, too!

 

[43066]

Yes spend more, but three times as much?? On an area which on any measure is richer and can afford to pay more? And that's before you factor in post-Covid working from home, too!

The argument there may well be that, because London is so much more expensive than Manchester, buses are disproportionately used by poorer workers who are also unlikely to be able to work from home. Those in London who could afford to pay more for buses don’t tend to use them.

Also the sheer size of the place, and the enormous cost of housing, means that these people will often have long commutes. The (admittedly generous) subsidy might cover, for example, night shift cleaners who have to travel on night buses for 10+ miles each way in order to get to work and back.

 

[endicomark69@g]

I have no dislike for London whatsoever, and in my comment was clear that as the capital city, and the UK's (if not Europe's) only global city, London justifies enhanced expenditure on transport.

As for the statistics, you are right to an extent and I hold my hands up! I have been interested in regional disparity for quite some years and I hadn't realised that since 2017 the ONS have been using experimental models to try to allocate tax receipts more fairly between regions. They never used to.

Even on their latest estimated model (it is estimated because HMRC don't actually tax based on where profits / earnings are generated, but based on where the person lives / company is registered), Corporation Tax allocated to London amounts to double the share of London's tax revenue than everywhere else in the country (every other region - including the non-London South East being virtually the same). Yet VAT, which taxes consumption, is much less of London's tax share than elsewhere in the country. To an extent this could be due to Londoners having to spend a larger amount on buying or renting property (VAT free) and less on normal spending, but not enough to justify that disparity. So either London based customers are considerably more profitable for companies as those everywhere else (inlcuding in the affluent Home Counties) and at the same time Londoners spend less money (which seems counterintuitive to me!) or the ONS model (which they themselves call "experimental") is still skewed to the effect of London-based head offices.

Going back to the topic of TfL finances, though, why should the pre-2016 funding model be used? TfL losses, pre-Covid were almost entirely down to the net loss on buses (£722 million in 2019). That's £80 per man, woman and child living in the GLA area. By contrast total expenditure in Greater Manchester on buses (including supported transport and concessionary fares) came to £78.8 million in 2019, amounting to £28 per head of population. Yes spend more, but three times as much?? On an area which on any measure is richer and can afford to pay more? And that's before you factor in post-Covid working from home, too!

M'Learned friend above has given a broad answer to the Manchester/London bus costs disparity, it's just not comparing apples with apples. Whether there are inefficiencies accounting for "some" of that x2.6 difference wouldn't be doubted, but not likely anything like the built in inefficiency of traffic levels slowing average journey times across London. The average bus journey is longer, slower and more polluting/polluted (although that's relative, breathing diesel in a Manchester traffic jam isn't better than doing the same in London) and as mentioned will disproportionately carry lower earners and those on lower levels of pension.

My broader pre-2016 point is that while any Govt is unlikely to return TfL funding to exactly how it was, a Govt less ideologically incapable of understanding that running a World City Transport Network on the current settlement isn't sustainable when times go bad - like now.

Boris and Osborne are SOLELY responsible for all the big numbers on why TfL can't get by at present with their shameful deal that only works when ever increasing ridership/customers are always going to come through the door. They were told the model couldn't work if that was disrupted, and not five years later that's happened.

Unforgivably piss poor planning then shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged, nor dictate the sole direction of "recovery" now. Khan wouldn't be doing any kind of job at all if he didn't make that very clear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

M'Learned friend above has given a broad answer to the Manchester/London bus costs disparity, it's just not comparing apples with apples. Whether there are inefficiencies accounting for "some" of that x2.6 difference wouldn't be doubted, but not likely anything like the built in inefficiency of traffic levels slowing average journey times across London. The average bus journey is longer, slower and more polluting/polluted (although that's relative, breathing diesel in a Manchester traffic jam isn't better than doing the same in London) and as mentioned will disproportionately carry lower earners and those on lower levels of pension.

My broader pre-2016 point is that while any Govt is unlikely to return TfL funding to exactly how it was, a Govt less ideologically incapable of understanding that running a World City Transport Network on the current settlement isn't sustainable when times go bad - like now.

Boris and Osborne are SOLELY responsible for all the big numbers on why TfL can't get by at present with their shameful deal that only works when ever increasing ridership/customers are always going to come through the door. They were told the model couldn't work if that was disrupted, and not five years later that's happened.

Unforgivably piss poor planning then shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged, nor dictate the sole direction of "recovery" now. Khan wouldn't be doing any kind of job at all if he didn't make that very clear.

Along these lines, my view would be that bus fares should be increased (though it'd have to be stepped) to about £2.50 single (at the low end of typical bus fares in other cities), but potentially including a free or very heavily discounted connecting bus journey at either end of a Tube/NR journey on Oyster/contactless. With passenger numbers down we no longer need to relieve capacity by pushing people onto buses, so buses duplicating the Tube become a waste of money except where specifically needed for reasons of accessibility. Integrating fares in this way would make better utility of a trimmed network.

A means-tested discount on all modes, not just bus, should then be made available for those on Universal Credit, rather than making buses cheap for everyone. This is also more progressive in that you're not making the bus network an inferior option for poor people, you're making the whole network available to them at a price they can afford.

 

[XAM2175]

Along these lines, my view would be that bus fares should be increased (though it'd have to be stepped) to about £2.50 single (at the low end of typical bus fares in other cities), but potentially including a free or very heavily discounted connecting bus journey at either end of a Tube/NR journey on Oyster/contactless. ...

A means-tested discount on all modes, not just bus, should then be made available for those on Universal Credit, rather than making buses cheap for everyone. ...

I agree.

 

[bakerstreet]

Does anyone in London

- on minimum or low wage,
- who relies on the buses each week but not every day
- who after property (rent council tax) and other living and non transport costs often has less money left over than the equivalent low paid worker in other cities in the UK
- who is already choosing between heating their home and feeding themselves or giving their children their own share of food
- who does not cross the threshold for increased benefits or reduced transport fares
- with food prices increasing far more in percentage terms than CPI or even RPI
- whose domestic fuel and heating costs are rising at 50 plus per cent this year with more increases to come and is probably paying the highest costs by feeding a meter
- who is probably already over borrowed

Do any of these people agree that bus fares should increase from their current position by more than the usual inflation linked calculation?

And if these people are key workers, what might happen to London’s economy when they are priced off public transport?

I keep seeing posts in this thread, often repeated points by the same people, who seem excited by the prospect of London fares rising significantly.

I don’t share that excitement myself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Did you see where I said that such people would receive a means tested discount on all modes, and thus be in a better position than being forced to use the slow, uncomfortable bus?

If those people are only using the bus, and they aren't the majority of people, then doing that with increased bus fares will increase income. If they are the majority (and I would be surprised if they were) then something seriously needs to change in London.

 

[SynthD]

Means testing often makes it more expensive than giving everyone the benefit. That's politically negotiable maths, see anything to do with pensioners.

 

[bakerstreet]

Did you see where I said that such people would receive a means tested discount on all modes, and thus be in a better position than being forced to use the slow, uncomfortable bus?

If those people are only using the bus, and they aren't the majority of people, then doing that with increased bus fares will increase income. If they are the majority (and I would be surprised if they were) then something seriously needs to change in London.

I did see that yes and appreciated it.

My post was borne out of conversations I’ve had with the lowest paid workers at the large corporate building I work in. They really struggle.

. I think the issue in London is that much of the discounted or free travel concessions already exist.

Disabled freedom pass
Oyster 60 plus
Job seekers
Zip cards
18+ student
Apprentice

etc.

I can’t remember them all!

The beauty of the system in London is that at 1.55 no one is priced off. It’s simple. It’s fair. No one needs to apply for a product.
And pre Covid it worked well and I believe TfL was in surplus.
It may well be again as numbers rise abc perhaps the tourists come back.

I worry about anything being linked to universal credit or having to apply. Or having to rely on central government’s whims of whatever hue.

What would be good is if the 1.55 target was the desire and achievement of other cities.

Don’t aim for race to bottom. Aim high.

The gov are already chasing huge rises to fares so to see others doing the same saddens me, that’s all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would be good is if the 1.55 target was the desire and achievement of other cities.

Unless a rapid transit rail journey was also £1.55 (which would be unaffordable), I don't agree. We should not be pricing people onto specific modes. The whole system, used as a whole and not as a set of parts, should be available to all. This is not just for reasons of equality, but also because you can then plan the system as a whole, and not waste money duplicating rail with bus.

The long term aim is that you don't have "train fares" and "bus fares", you have "public transport fares" covering any combination of modes necessary to make the desired journey, with pricing being based on a factor (e.g. distance, zones) not related to mode nor the number of vehicles used. Then you can plan optimally.

For many, many reasons, the idea of buses being "peasant wagons" is undesirable, and undercharging for bus travel while charging more realistically for other modes does just that.

Freedom Passes don't pose a problem - all we're talking about is adding something similar for those on Universal Credit.

 

[Acton1991]

Unless a rapid transit rail journey was also £1.55 (which would be unaffordable), I don't agree. We should not be pricing people onto specific modes. The whole system, used as a whole and not as a set of parts, should be available to all. This is not just for reasons of equality, but also because you can then plan the system as a whole, and not waste money duplicating rail with bus.

The long term aim is that you don't have "train fares" and "bus fares", you have "public transport fares" covering any combination of modes necessary to make the desired journey, with pricing being based on a factor (e.g. distance, zones) not related to mode nor the number of vehicles used. Then you can plan optimally.

For many, many reasons, the idea of buses being "peasant wagons" is undesirable, and undercharging for bus travel while charging more realistically for other modes does just that.

Freedom Passes don't pose a problem - all we're talking about is adding something similar for those on Universal Credit.

Totally agree with you - paying an extra £3.10 per day just to catch a bus to and from the tube station is mind-boggling to me. Should be fully integrated, which would then allow those on lower wages access to the tube instead of spending more time above ground on a bus.

 

[Richardr]

Even on their latest estimated model (it is estimated because HMRC don't actually tax based on where profits / earnings are generated, but based on where the person lives / company is registered), Corporation Tax allocated to London amounts to double the share of London's tax revenue than everywhere else in the country (every other region - including the non-London South East being virtually the same). Yet VAT, which taxes consumption, is much less of London's tax share than elsewhere in the country. To an extent this could be due to Londoners having to spend a larger amount on buying or renting property (VAT free) and less on normal spending, but not enough to justify that disparity. So either London based customers are considerably more profitable for companies as those everywhere else (inlcuding in the affluent Home Counties) and at the same time Londoners spend less money (which seems counterintuitive to me!) or the ONS model (which they themselves call "experimental") is still skewed to the effect of London-based head offices.

and you don't think this has anything to do with the City / financial services being based in London, and to a large extent earning profits from exported services?

 

[Horizon22]

Totally agree with you - paying an extra £3.10 per day just to catch a bus to and from the tube station is mind-boggling to me. Should be fully integrated, which would then allow those on lower wages access to the tube instead of spending more time above ground on a bus.

It would be interesting if modelling would suggest this would increase revenue (by reducing the overall cost and encouraging modal shift) or reduce revenue (by reducing the fares of those making these journeys already without significant modal shift). If it's the latter, then in the context of TfL's finances, it wouldn't be beneficial.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be interesting if modelling would suggest this would increase revenue (by reducing the overall cost and encouraging modal shift) or reduce revenue (by reducing the fares of those making these journeys already without significant modal shift). If it's the latter, then in the context of TfL's finances, it wouldn't be beneficial.

What it would allow is cutting back of the bus network which would itself save money.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Along these lines, my view would be that bus fares should be increased (though it'd have to be stepped) to about £2.50 single (at the low end of typical bus fares in other cities), but potentially including a free or very heavily discounted connecting bus journey at either end of a Tube/NR journey on Oyster/contactless. With passenger numbers down we no longer need to relieve capacity by pushing people onto buses, so buses duplicating the Tube become a waste of money except where specifically needed for reasons of accessibility. Integrating fares in this way would make better utility of a trimmed network.

A means-tested discount on all modes, not just bus, should then be made available for those on Universal Credit, rather than making buses cheap for everyone. This is also more progressive in that you're not making the bus network an inferior option for poor people, you're making the whole network available to them at a price they can afford.

I don't know of instances where the tube and bus "duplicate" one another. The buses always have much more closely spaced stops than the tubes - so they fulfil a function that the tube alone can't.

 

[urbophile]

I don't know of instances where the tube and bus "duplicate" one another. The buses always have much more closely spaced stops than the tubes - so they fulfil a function that the tube alone can't.

But the buses cater mostly for local passengers so as long as they interconnect at stations there is less need for them to run long routes across central London. Many or most of which have already been cut back anyway.

 

[endicomark69@g]

With 12-18% cuts to service levels all over already happening I'd be interested to hear exactly what Bus Routes people think are "over-provision" because they are either too long, or duplicate a Tube Line.

 

[leytongabriel]

But the buses cater mostly for local passengers so as long as they interconnect at stations there is less need for them to run long routes across central London. Many or most of which have already been cut back anyway.

Mostly maybe but there are still notably busy routes to town like the 3, 8, 18, 38 or 73, especially where there are no tubes, and some longish orbital ones which are the only way to avoid journeys in and out of zone one on the tube. Really long ones have been cut into two in some cases e.g. 6 / 26, 14 /91 so you can come into the centre from one side but not cross it on the same bus.

 

[Cbob]

I think Mojo's point is that if someone has to drive within the charging zone to reach the nearest TfL station, they will either drive anyway, or take a National Rail service (helping the climate but not TfL's finances).

If such a charging boundary was defined as Greater London, or as the M25, more than half of TfL terminii would cause such a situation.

You'd have to introduce this with an escalating cost as you go further in. We've now got the infrastructure in at the North/South circular boundary thanks to ULEZ, so that could be the middle circle, with the inner circle being the existing congestion charge