TFL & "Managed Decline"

[urbophile]

Particularly if the same folk see serious transport expenditure up north.....

Is there a serious suggestion that this might happen?

 

[nw1]

The problem for the Tories is that, whilst London is Labour, a LOT of those who use TFL services (even with significant amounts doing a fair amount of WFH) will be blue wall voters from the SE. As such I suspect that come next election there could be a fair number of those voters asking, for example, why their rail services aren't likely to improve any time soon because TfL aren't able to deliver Crossrail 2?

Maybe in that case they could badger their Tory MP to get the Government to fund Crossrail 2.

 

[leytongabriel]

Maybe in that case they could badger their Tory MP to get the Government to fund Crossrail 2.

Are we sure the good burghers of the affluent SW London burbs and NW Surrey are so keen to get across london to sample the delights of Tottenham, Edmonton and Wood Green?

 

[rebmcr]

Are we sure the good burghers of the affluent SW London burbs and NW Surrey are so keen to get across london to sample the delights of Tottenham, Edmonton and Wood Green?

Hardly anybody uses metro-style services end-to-end. Do you think the only benefit of the Central Line is for people travelling from Ruislip to Epping?

 

[kevin_roche]

The problem for the Tories is that, whilst London is Labour, a LOT of those who use TFL services (even with significant amounts doing a fair amount of WFH) will be blue wall voters from the SE. As such I suspect that come next election there could be a fair number of those voters asking, for example, why their rail services aren't likely to improve any time soon because TfL aren't able to deliver Crossrail 2?

It is also apparent that there would be great benefits to commuters from further away who will benefit from a more reliable and hopefully more frequent service into Waterloo. They might never use Crossrail 2 but removing some suburban services from the line between Wimbledon and Waterloo will be to their benefit too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hardly anybody uses metro-style services end-to-end. Do you think the only benefit of the Central Line is for people travelling from Ruislip to Epping?

Well, quite. It is the same as cross city bus operation - you join stuff up because it saves money on providing large city centre termini where property is expensive, and it allows a choice of destinations across the city centre from both ends. Some will no doubt go across, but the vast majority will not.

 

[nw1]

It is also apparent that there would be great benefits to commuters from further away who will benefit from a more reliable and hopefully more frequent service into Waterloo. They might never use Crossrail 2 but removing some suburban services from the line between Wimbledon and Waterloo will be to their benefit too.

That's the thing. It's been discussed before that the reason that Dorking can't have a 1996-style 37-minute limited-stop service into Waterloo, for example (north of Epsom it went fast to Wimbledon, then Clapham and Vauxhall, there's a thread on the Nostalgia subforum about this) is due to congestion on the lines so Crossrail 2 would relieve that and allow some of the Surrey towns with slow services to presumably have an improved service.

 

[Snow1964]

Latest TfL Board meeting papers are published, and appears a draft financial settlement is in existence (subject to mayor doing certain things)

6.4 The DfT’s proposed extension to the current funding agreement also includes a number of conditions, some of which are amendments to conditions in the current agreement and some of which are new. The key conditions proposed are:
(a) by 14 January 2022, the Mayor will provide DfT with a working draft of a paper in relation to road user charging. The Mayor will also be required to provide a final draft by the 19 January 2022;
(b) a requirement for the Mayor to cover with new income any Mayoral decisions related to service changes, operating cost increases or policies that result in a loss of net revenue without recourse to borrowing, service changes, savings and deferrals. This is a widening of the condition in the current agreement which applies this to changes to congestion charging, the Ultra Low Emission Zone and concessionary fares;
(c) confirmation that the existing condition in relation to the Hammersmith ferry is no longer required; and
(d) confirmation that, should the Mayor align headline fares increases with National Rail fares increases from March 2022, and this be a lower fares increase than assumed in TfL’s plans, then this shortfall will not be met by Government after April 2023 which means any shortfall will, therefore, be met by Government beforehand. DfT has informed us separately that they will write to clarify this will be covered by the revenue True Up mechanism in future funding agreements.

6.5 As in previous funding agreements, in this draft extension, DfT confirms that the comfort concerning TfL’s future financial position and balanced budget obligations will continue. This has also been supplemented with additional comfort that financial commitments made by TfL during the funding period will be taken into account in future funding agreements, as was the case in the extension to 17 December. Government also affirm their commitment now, and in the future, to mitigating TfL’s loss of fare revenue as a result of the pandemic. This is considered sufficient to enable TfL to continue to enter into contracts that extend beyond 4 February 2022.

6.6 DfT’s intention, as set out in the draft terms, is that further settlement will be possible from 4 February 2022, and, subject to the delivery of the conditions set out above, is when the Government will be ready to work with TfL to consider a longer-term capital settlement to support TfL to achieve, and subsequently maintain, financial sustainability by April 2023.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s17243/Finance%20Committee%20Chairs%20Actions%20on%20Funding%20Extensions%20-%20December%202021.pdf

 

[SynthD]

A) I understand, though I expect people will forget the mayor had no choice. B) Does this prevent anything he has proposed? C) What’s the context? The ferry is cancelled because the current pedestrian/cycle bridge is acceptable to central government? D) Wasn’t this already the case?

 

[Snow1964]

TfL have produced a budget update supplement ahead of Wednesday‘s Board meeting

At the Board in December, we described how even with the mitigating actions including dropping to Managed Decline, a funding gap remained

• Modifications to fares structure and ticketing:
otheintroductionofanalldaypeakfareonthePiccadillylinebetweenZone1stationsandHeathrow;
o increasingtheOystercarddepositto £7;
owithdrawingfromtheTravelcardAgreement,whichwillrequirethesupportofHMG;
oretainingthecurrentrestrictiononuseof60+ concessionaryfarestoafter09:00eachday;and
oincreasingtheageofeligibilityforthe60+concessiononaphasedbasis(subjecttoconsiderationofthe benefit being retained for those on low incomes).

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/b2490/Supplementary%20Agenda%20Wednesday%2002-Feb-2022%2010.00%20Board.pdf?T=9

 

[duncanp]

I see Mr Khan is throwing his toys out of the pram once again, and threatening to shut the tube for "days on end"

Sadiq Khan threatens to shut the Tube for days on end as black hole hits £1.5bn

Mayor warns a 'road tax' and extending congestion charging zone will not be enough to balance Transport for London's books

www.telegraph.co.uk

Sadiq Khan threatens to shut the Tube for days on end as black hole hits £1.5bn​

Mayor warns a "road tax" and extending congestion charging zone will not be enough to balance Transport for London's books

Sadiq Khan is threatening to shut the Tube for days on end and close bridges and tunnels across the capital as a black hole in London’s transport budget balloons to £1.5bn.
Introducing a road tax, increasing council tax and extending a congestion charging zone will not be enough to balance the books at Transport for London (TfL), board papers published on Tuesday reveal.
Meanwhile, a programme to avoid road deaths will need to be put on hold, officials from the transport authority warned.
TfL’s finances have been ravaged by sharp fall in fare revenue during the pandemic. Critics of the London mayor claim that his 2016 pledge to freeze fares contributed to the authority’s plight.
Mr Khan, who is also TfL chairman, has been dependent on a series of bailouts from Westminster to avoid the London Underground and buses grinding to a halt. The funding has come with strings attached, however, such as a pledge to explore the introduction of driverless Tubes.
The Department for Transport has snubbed pleas for TfL to retain its share of vehicle excise duty, or “road tax”, leading to Mr Khan proposing the introduction of a £2 “clear air charge” for drivers in the capital.
A so-called boundary charge of up to £5.50 a day levied on motorists entering greater London is also being considered.
Gareth Bacon, Conservative MP for Orpington, said: "The Government will cover the cost of coronavirus, but Sadiq Khan needs to come up with a plan to pay for London's public transport in the long term. Undoubtedly, his decision to freeze fares, which lost TfL at least £640m, has made this task far harder.
"Getting to grips with the cost of TfL's gold-plated pensions, staff perks and bonuses will save millions of pounds. But the Mayor needs to look at ways to revive London's economy and boost ridership. That's the key to restoring the network’s finances.”
Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat member of the Greater London Authority and transport committee chairman, said: “Bus services have already seen a decline in frequency and soon many other TfL transport services will be cut back as well, unless the Government starts to treat TfL on the same terms as the financial support it readily offers to the train operating companies.
“The playing of games over London’s transport services needs to come to an end.”

The latest funding deal, announced in December, runs out on Friday. Talks between Mr Khan and Andrew Gilligan, Boris Johnson’s transport adviser, are believed to be ongoing.

The TfL budget update, prepared for its board meeting on Wednesday, sets out plans to put the London Underground into “managed decline”.

“A declining network with ageing assets that will fail more regularly,” officials warned. “The risk of major asset reliability issues on the Tube that could cause multi-day closures.”

Meanwhile, TfL earmarks six roads that are facing “imminent closure” because there is no money available to maintain them. They include Vauxhall Bridge, where the steel structure is in a “very poor” condition; the Rotherhithe Tunnel, which is due to have its fire and ventilation systems repaired; and Brent Cross flyovers that are also in “very poor” structural condition.

Board papers claim that the omicron variant, soaring inflation and energy prices have exacerbated the hole in TfL’s finances by more than £250m.

A spokesman for Mr Khan said: “This is a small window into the stark reality of the financial crisis facing TfL, just days away from the current government funding deal expiring.

“Without a new, sustainable long-term funding deal there is a real risk of major projects being paused, cuts to services, trains falling into disrepair and closures on major road networks – all of which would disrupt services for hundreds of thousands of people and stifle the economic recovery of London and the country.”

 

[kristiang85]

Well he did say there would be no strikes during his Mayorship - no tubes, no strikes!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Time to increase bus fares, for one. They are well below other parts of the UK and this cannot be justified, as effectively other taxpayers in the UK are paying twice, higher fares plus tax to fund TfL in this bailout request.

 

[43066]

Time to increase bus fares, for one. They are well below other parts of the UK and this cannot be justified, as effectively other taxpayers in the UK are paying twice, higher fares plus tax to fund TfL in this bailout request.

I suppose one justification for that is that London is incredibly expensive for housing, car ownership is low (impossible for many), and buses are disproportionately used by the poorest - so any increase will have something of a regressive impact.

People in most parts of the U.K. overwhelmingly won’t suffer higher fares because they simply won’t use buses at all.

I’m also not sure any other parts of the U.K. would win a contest with London over “whose taxes most subsidise other parts of the country!”

 

[alexjames10]

London housing is vastly expensive but that doesn’t really matter for those that invested many years ago. Car ownership is low cos many people have figured out that public transport works. I am one of them and it’s “free to me” Except that it’s not. London has an efficient public transport system but it continues to be supported by general taxation via Council tax. I have no problem with that. £30 quid pa for a free transit pass works for me. An economic model that should be copied by many other cities. Not that the temporary Tory Govt will ever agree to that. Those fools just love polluting ICE cars. Idiots.

The general dislike for buses continues to confound me. Why? Pure snobbery for many people. Quite why they are so conceited that they do not wish to sit near their fellow citizens is beyond me.

And my man above has it right on economic production. London has been earning the profits, doing it’s rather more than it’s fair share of UKGDP for many years. Long may it continue.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Time to increase bus fares, for one. They are well below other parts of the UK and this cannot be justified, as effectively other taxpayers in the UK are paying twice, higher fares plus tax to fund TfL in this bailout request.

If lower fares cut car usage, then that saves everyone's taxes, given the massive direct and indirect environmental, health and social cost of car usage.

 

[bramling]

I suppose one justification for that is that London is incredibly expensive for housing, car ownership is low (impossible for many), and buses are disproportionately used by the poorest - so any increase will have something of a regressive impact.

People in most parts of the U.K. overwhelmingly won’t suffer higher fares because they simply won’t use buses at all.

I’m also not sure any other parts of the U.K. would win a contest with London over “whose taxes most subsidise other parts of the country!”

The latter question is an interesting one. London’s tax contribution must be slightly skewed towards those people who pay quite a lot of tax, as there must equally be a lot of Londoners who pay comparatively little tax. The south-east as a whole must, I’d imagine, contribute quite heavily.

 

[endicomark69@g]

The "South East" meaning mostly London is anything from 25-34% of the total UK Tax-take depending on year and circumstances.

Whenever I read/hear any of this "must be fair to taxpayers...." tosh about any of the current Govt and it's well wishers excuses for why they want to kneecap ANYTHING that isn't in their pocket I'm waiting for that little factoid to cross people's minds when talking about tax.

Every single Londoner pays £3,000+ more in tax than they receive -2017 seems to be the last time this was updated by the ONS - so tell me again (and again) how London shouldn't get even a fair share of its own revenue......

TfL may not be to everyone's taste, but pretending they currently operate on anything other than a Tory Government's string for reason that are transparent and pernicious is dishonest at best and fraudulent at worst.

 

[Acton1991]

Perhaps Londoners should pay less for TfL services, with visitors (domestic and international) paying a small increase of fare

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps Londoners should pay less for TfL services, with visitors (domestic and international) paying a small increase of fare

Bit difficult to do that with contactless. I would not oppose a tourist tax applicable to hotel nights, though.

 

[deltic]

It looks like road user charging or extension of ULEZ to cover the whole of Greater London will be used to raise some much needed cash.

 

[jumble]

I see Mr Khan is throwing his toys out of the pram once again, and threatening to shut the tube for "days on end"

Sadiq Khan threatens to shut the Tube for days on end as black hole hits £1.5bn

Mayor warns a 'road tax' and extending congestion charging zone will not be enough to balance Transport for London's books

www.telegraph.co.uk

What I fail to understand is
Why do the TFL Enforcement lot not deal with revenue instead of standing around doing not a lot ?
Why did TFL waste heaven knows how much money making Cycle lanes in Hatch End in what looks like August 2020 and no doubt elsewhere only to remove them very soon afterwards

( This is a normal Dual Carriage way now)

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Acton1991]

It looks like road user charging or extension of ULEZ to cover the whole of Greater London will be used to raise some much needed cash.

Charge those who don't live in Greater London to access the capital. Would then also push more people onto trains giving the operators much needed cash.
I have so many friends who live in the South East who drive to London and park in say Zone 2/3 to then travel into central vs getting public transport.

 

[Dave W]

Why did TFL waste heaven knows how much money making Cycle lanes in Hatch End in what looks like August 2020 and no doubt elsewhere only to remove them very soon afterwards

Was that TfL? Or was it the borough council? Another example of an installed cycle lane later removed was Victoria Street - again not TfL maintained.

I think all of the cycle lanes TfL have put in on their roads have stayed (happy to be corrected on that).

 

[43066]

It looks like road user charging or extension of ULEZ to cover the whole of Greater London will be used to raise some much needed cash.

Much as I’m no fan of Khan generally, I will give him some credit for ULEZ. Air quality in London is steadily improving year on year, albeit from an appallingly low base.

The latter question is an interesting one. London’s tax contribution must be slightly skewed towards those people who pay quite a lot of tax, as there must equally be a lot of Londoners who pay comparatively little tax. The south-east as a whole must, I’d imagine, contribute quite heavily.

Indeed. London and the SE is vilified by those from the north especially, yet is essentially the financial engine room of the country!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. London and the SE is vilified by those from the north especially, yet is essentially the financial engine room of the country!

That's because Government policy favours it being that. Capital-centricism is not there in the same way in most other European countries. We should spread the wealth and work better here, too. The resentment is completely understandable.

Only really France is like the UK in this regard.

 

[jumble]

Was that TfL? Or was it the borough council? Another example of an installed cycle lane later removed was Victoria Street - again not TfL maintained.

I think all of the cycle lanes TfL have put in on their roads have stayed (happy to be corrected on that).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

Was that TfL? Or was it the borough council? Another example of an installed cycle lane later removed was Victoria Street - again not TfL maintained.

I think all of the cycle lanes TfL have put in on their roads have stayed (happy to be corrected on that).

Council to remove cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhood schemes – Harrow Council

Experimental low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and cycles lanes to be removed from Harrow. School streets trial to be extended for six months. Road safety measures to be reviewed.

www.harrow.gov.uk

Says it was TFL: Streetspace

 

[Craig1122]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

Council to remove cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhood schemes – Harrow Council

Experimental low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and cycles lanes to be removed from Harrow. School streets trial to be extended for six months. Road safety measures to be reviewed.

www.harrow.gov.uk

Says it was TFL: Streetspace

Nope, central government funding routed via Tfl but that's a borough scheme:

Streetspace funding and guidance

Boroughs can apply for funds to carry out work under the Streetspace for London programme

tfl.gov.uk

 

[Dave W]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

Council to remove cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhood schemes – Harrow Council

Experimental low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and cycles lanes to be removed from Harrow. School streets trial to be extended for six months. Road safety measures to be reviewed.

www.harrow.gov.uk

Says it was TFL: Streetspace

But that also quite clearly shows it was a council decision to remove them. They were built using money Harrow bid for from the TfL pot central government gave them for Streetscape. If anything it shows a council happy to bid and take what they can, then realise they've cocked up later. It's not TfL's job to know every single detail of road usage on every single road in London. If Harrow made a compelling case that this dual carriageway needed a cycle lane for Streetspace purposes, TfL would - and should - have accepted that case.

I don't see how this particular charge can be laid at TfL's door. A general mishandling of money and budget by TfL might well be reasonably in the spotlight, but this case (and others like this) don't reflect that.

 

[bicbasher]

It's worth noting that while London has the lowest single bus fare in the country, London taxpayers also subsidise extra help for passengers who are in receipt of means tested benefits, such as Universal Credit and those on legacy benefits such as Employment & Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance, which allows them to have a discount photocard for Bus and Trams, so they pay 75p per journey or 1/2 price on passes as a discount added to an Oyster card.

The scheme was originally brought in by Red Ken who was able to get discounted fuel for buses from Venezuela. Boris axed that scheme, but reintroduced it using taxpayers money and has been kept by Khan.