TFL to extend Congestion Charge Zone...?!
Discussion
Robertj21a said:
NomduJour said:
Quite. You're using data from 5 years ago, before all of the improvements since.
https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/lethal...
If the other ULEZ thread is anything to go by, he'll start heading around in circles and kick off the personal attacks shortly.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
ULEZ doesn't bother me too much, means one of our cars doesn't qualify but it was on the way anyway
Congestion Extension bothers me more as there is no easy way round it barring full electric and even thats not long term, although it does mean going to see the MiL would cost money, so maybe its not all bad
Congestion Extension bothers me more as there is no easy way round it barring full electric and even thats not long term, although it does mean going to see the MiL would cost money, so maybe its not all bad
Public transport may be good for those in zone 1 or 2 but for the majority of those not living within a couple of miles of the centre it's no better than elsewhere, I lived in Zone 4 and commuted by bus to school in Zone 5, used to take over an hour compared to by car which was less than ten minutes.
Busses in London aren't fit for purpose, in rush hour they can't cope with the demand (mainly due to free travel being introduced for children who pop on a bus for literally a couple of stops to save a five minute walk) and outside of rush hour they only operate at around 10% capacity so are a very inefficient and polluting method of transport.
I live less than a couple of miles away from the proposed cut off line for the zone so if introduced will make all the roads near to me a complete rat run as people try and skirt the zone to avoid the charge.
I don't see why TFL have any remit over the roads in London as they just design for buses to the detriment of all over modes of transport, whenever there's road improvements they expand the pavement and get rid of the indented bus lanes forcing all other traffic (including other buses) to get stuck behind and now ontop when buses are ahead of schedule they can't just wait at the bus stop but instead crawl along at 10mph causing other motorists to perform risky overtakes.
Busses in London aren't fit for purpose, in rush hour they can't cope with the demand (mainly due to free travel being introduced for children who pop on a bus for literally a couple of stops to save a five minute walk) and outside of rush hour they only operate at around 10% capacity so are a very inefficient and polluting method of transport.
I live less than a couple of miles away from the proposed cut off line for the zone so if introduced will make all the roads near to me a complete rat run as people try and skirt the zone to avoid the charge.
I don't see why TFL have any remit over the roads in London as they just design for buses to the detriment of all over modes of transport, whenever there's road improvements they expand the pavement and get rid of the indented bus lanes forcing all other traffic (including other buses) to get stuck behind and now ontop when buses are ahead of schedule they can't just wait at the bus stop but instead crawl along at 10mph causing other motorists to perform risky overtakes.
Robertj21a said:
brickwall said:
You’re right.
What I think is actually going on here is:
1. TfL have had the most generous budgets anywhere in the country, for years. This is because
a) Turning off TfL would grind London to a halt; the economics of that were utterly unpalatable. Governments of all creed and colour have kept signing the subsidy cheques for that reason
b) Usage is incredibly high - Car or no car a huge proportion of Londoners make substantial use of public transport; pre Covid every train, tube and bus was rammed at rush hour, even at ‘quiet’ times (weekends, late evenings) there are good numbers on them
2. Despite being so busy and getting such big subsidies, TfL still perpetually runs out of money. This is because
- It is massively over-staffed. Tube drivers are the most egregious example, but it’s rife throughout. Per point (a) above, the unions are incredibly powerful. As a case in point - during lockdown TfL was begging for a bailout saying “we run out of cash in a month” whilst simultaneously topping up furloughed salaries to 100%. There have been no significant redundancies in response to CV19.
- The management of capital projects is very poor. Yes, the infrastructure is ageing, and needs £££ to upgrade, but that’s an argument for the project budgets to be high; not an excuse for perpetually over-running said budgets.
- Fares are a political football. Given point (b) above fares are a big, easy way of getting votes.
3. Government is fed up of writing ever larger cheques to prop up deep inefficiencies at TfL.
The government would much rather divert funds to regional transport services that are
- In a much worse state than London
- Full of many more Tory swing voters (the old ‘Red wall’), who’ve been promised a “levelling up”
CV19 is a perfect opportunity to finally say that TfL needs to balance the books somehow, and slow the reliance on central funds.
Three ways to achieve this
- Cut the scope of service
- Get more efficient
- Find ways of ways of raising money
Whitehall is intentionally suggesting a money-making scheme that is deeply unpalatable, in the hope & expectation that Sadiq/TfL will choose a more sensible option. They’re hoping that in order to avoid a massive congestion charge zone, Sadiq will choose instead to
- Raise fares
- Cut concessions (e.g. downgrade pensioner freedom passes to bus passes, apply under-16 fares)
- Cut salaries & jobs at TfL, and take the heat from the unions for doing so
It’s brinksmanship, but then again almost all negotiations are.
Excellent. Someone who properly understands the whole issue. Thank you.What I think is actually going on here is:
1. TfL have had the most generous budgets anywhere in the country, for years. This is because
a) Turning off TfL would grind London to a halt; the economics of that were utterly unpalatable. Governments of all creed and colour have kept signing the subsidy cheques for that reason
b) Usage is incredibly high - Car or no car a huge proportion of Londoners make substantial use of public transport; pre Covid every train, tube and bus was rammed at rush hour, even at ‘quiet’ times (weekends, late evenings) there are good numbers on them
2. Despite being so busy and getting such big subsidies, TfL still perpetually runs out of money. This is because
- It is massively over-staffed. Tube drivers are the most egregious example, but it’s rife throughout. Per point (a) above, the unions are incredibly powerful. As a case in point - during lockdown TfL was begging for a bailout saying “we run out of cash in a month” whilst simultaneously topping up furloughed salaries to 100%. There have been no significant redundancies in response to CV19.
- The management of capital projects is very poor. Yes, the infrastructure is ageing, and needs £££ to upgrade, but that’s an argument for the project budgets to be high; not an excuse for perpetually over-running said budgets.
- Fares are a political football. Given point (b) above fares are a big, easy way of getting votes.
3. Government is fed up of writing ever larger cheques to prop up deep inefficiencies at TfL.
The government would much rather divert funds to regional transport services that are
- In a much worse state than London
- Full of many more Tory swing voters (the old ‘Red wall’), who’ve been promised a “levelling up”
CV19 is a perfect opportunity to finally say that TfL needs to balance the books somehow, and slow the reliance on central funds.
Three ways to achieve this
- Cut the scope of service
- Get more efficient
- Find ways of ways of raising money
Whitehall is intentionally suggesting a money-making scheme that is deeply unpalatable, in the hope & expectation that Sadiq/TfL will choose a more sensible option. They’re hoping that in order to avoid a massive congestion charge zone, Sadiq will choose instead to
- Raise fares
- Cut concessions (e.g. downgrade pensioner freedom passes to bus passes, apply under-16 fares)
- Cut salaries & jobs at TfL, and take the heat from the unions for doing so
It’s brinksmanship, but then again almost all negotiations are.
TfL now receives NO subsidy and it relies on fare income to support 72% of its finances which is one of the highest ratios in the world and makes it particularly vulnerable to passenger fluctuation numbers and when that collapses due to a pandemic then it feels the pain more than its comparable transport authorities around the world. It is also the only major transport authority to receive no subsidy for day to day running costs.
TfL were also in track to completely eliminate its running cost deficit next year having made over 3000 people redundant over the last few years and reducing its spending by over £1bn. The debt increase is mainly down to Crossrail overruns and the resultant lack of fares (remember how much TfL rely on the fare box). TfL only took complete ownership of Crossrail last month so the problems are laid at the door of the contractors AND the mayors (both Boris and Sadiq) for lack of oversight and blindly believing what the contractors were telling them.
If you knew how unions worked within TfL land (let’s be honest, you mean tube drivers (who only make up about 15% of the workforce)) then you’d know that whilst they are very noisy, the company gets it way virtually all the time. It’s also worth pointing out that the tube is the most efficient part producing a surplus of something like £700m p/a and runs even today over 97% of timetabled services. It’s everything else (run by private companies contracted to TfL) that runs at a loss. Funny that. Ask why 2bn passenger journeys a year on 9000 buses can run at a loss...
I agree that bus routes need looking at (far to much duplication)and also the roads should be left to councils to maintain and improve.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, TfL would be on course never to burden the taxpayer again (capital projects aside) but thanks to the removal of the subsidy, foisting Crossrail overruns onto TfLs books and massive overreliance on the farebox, we are where we are.
Edited by valiant on Monday 19th October 11:10
C70R said:
He also loves to conveniently ignore the more detailed data shown here (which demonstrates that Private Cars are the biggest issue within Greater London), and completely ignore the huge strides made by TfL to make their green bus fleet the largest in Europe.
What a surprise - I present data which refutes your points (as they are - it generally seems to be, “I care and want everyone to know just how very much because I bought a hybrid car and another petrol car which pollutes as highly as the rules permit”), you choose to ignore it. Targeting the private motorist is political, it’s nothing to do with tackling either pollution or congestion.
If I had a theory, it's that we're going through a transition period. Changes in living locations, job and shopping habits towards online and at home. Less interest in cars as machines or rights of passage in respect of kids these days. Cars increasingly being considered 'white goods'. Ownership models more in tune with short-term rentals as opposed to asset purchase.
In other words, our relationship with the car is (slowly) changing. It stands to reason there needs to be corresponding action on behalf of related authorities and organisations to respond to or even influence that change. Some is going to be carrot (supply of public transport, grants for green vehicles etc.) and some stick (congestion charging, repurposing of road space to pedestrian and cycle, lowered speed limits). There's no doubt some people will be disadvantaged throughout the process. Twas ever thus with any largescale change.
In other words, our relationship with the car is (slowly) changing. It stands to reason there needs to be corresponding action on behalf of related authorities and organisations to respond to or even influence that change. Some is going to be carrot (supply of public transport, grants for green vehicles etc.) and some stick (congestion charging, repurposing of road space to pedestrian and cycle, lowered speed limits). There's no doubt some people will be disadvantaged throughout the process. Twas ever thus with any largescale change.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
If I had a theory, it's that we're going through a transition period. Changes in living locations, job and shopping habits towards online and at home. Less interest in cars as machines or rights of passage in respect of kids these days. Cars increasingly being considered 'white goods'. Ownership models more in tune with short-term rentals as opposed to asset purchase.
Depends where you live. That is the agenda that journalists push yes, but most of them are based in London. Many areas still have youngsters learning to drive at roughly the same ages they always did and public transport is of little relevance to most.
valiant said:
Except where it’s wrong.
TfL now receives NO subsidy and it relies on fare income to support 72% of its finances which is one of the highest ratios in the world and makes it particularly vulnerable to passenger fluctuation numbers and when that collapses due to a pandemic then it feels the pain more than its comparable transport authorities around the world. It is also the only major transport authority to receive no subsidy for day to day running costs.
TfL were also in track to completely eliminate its running cost deficit next year having made over 3000 people redundant over the last few years and reducing its spending by over £1bn. The debt increase is mainly down to Crossrail overruns and the resultant lack of fares (remember how much TfL rely on the fare box). TfL only took complete ownership of Crossrail last month so the problems are laid at the door of the contractors AND the mayors (both Boris and Sadiq) for lack of oversight and blindly believing what the contractors were telling them.
If you knew how unions worked within TfL land (let’s be honest, you mean tube drivers (who only make up about 15% of the workforce)) then you’d know that whilst they are very noisy, the company gets it way virtually all the time. It’s also worth pointing out that the tube is the most efficient part producing a surplus of something like £700m p/a and runs even today over 97% of timetabled services. It’s everything else (run by private companies contracted to TfL) that runs at a loss. Funny that. Ask why 2bn passenger journeys a year on 9000 buses can run at a loss...
I agree that bus routes need looking at (far to much duplication)and also the roads should be left to councils to maintain and improve.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, TfL would be on course never to burden the taxpayer again (capital projects aside) but thanks to the removal of the subsidy, foisting Crossrail overruns onto TfLs books and massive overreliance on the farebox, we are where we are.
TfL buses run at a loss because they haven't increased the fares for ages, and they're ridiculously low anyway.TfL now receives NO subsidy and it relies on fare income to support 72% of its finances which is one of the highest ratios in the world and makes it particularly vulnerable to passenger fluctuation numbers and when that collapses due to a pandemic then it feels the pain more than its comparable transport authorities around the world. It is also the only major transport authority to receive no subsidy for day to day running costs.
TfL were also in track to completely eliminate its running cost deficit next year having made over 3000 people redundant over the last few years and reducing its spending by over £1bn. The debt increase is mainly down to Crossrail overruns and the resultant lack of fares (remember how much TfL rely on the fare box). TfL only took complete ownership of Crossrail last month so the problems are laid at the door of the contractors AND the mayors (both Boris and Sadiq) for lack of oversight and blindly believing what the contractors were telling them.
If you knew how unions worked within TfL land (let’s be honest, you mean tube drivers (who only make up about 15% of the workforce)) then you’d know that whilst they are very noisy, the company gets it way virtually all the time. It’s also worth pointing out that the tube is the most efficient part producing a surplus of something like £700m p/a and runs even today over 97% of timetabled services. It’s everything else (run by private companies contracted to TfL) that runs at a loss. Funny that. Ask why 2bn passenger journeys a year on 9000 buses can run at a loss...
I agree that bus routes need looking at (far to much duplication)and also the roads should be left to councils to maintain and improve.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, TfL would be on course never to burden the taxpayer again (capital projects aside) but thanks to the removal of the subsidy, foisting Crossrail overruns onto TfLs books and massive overreliance on the farebox, we are where we are.
Edited by valiant on Monday 19th October 11:10
JagLover said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
If I had a theory, it's that we're going through a transition period. Changes in living locations, job and shopping habits towards online and at home. Less interest in cars as machines or rights of passage in respect of kids these days. Cars increasingly being considered 'white goods'. Ownership models more in tune with short-term rentals as opposed to asset purchase.
Depends where you live. That is the agenda that journalists push yes, but most of them are based in London. Many areas still have youngsters learning to drive at roughly the same ages they always did and public transport is of little relevance to most.
JagLover said:
Depends where you live. That is the agenda that journalists push yes, but most of them are based in London.
Many areas still have youngsters learning to drive at roughly the same ages they always did and public transport is of little relevance to most.
Totally agree. I was brought up in rural Cumbria. Moved to semi-rural Belgium. Spent a lot of time in London and for the past 8 years lived in suburban Leeds. Many areas still have youngsters learning to drive at roughly the same ages they always did and public transport is of little relevance to most.
The needs and demands from transport are different from place to place. What can't be denied is that technology is driving changes in how we live, work and shop, and this is and will continue to have a direct effect on demand for transport. For example, in Leeds it might mean homeworking reduces the need for a commuter car and it won't be displaced onto public transport. In Cumbria home shopping from the supermarket 15 miles away means car journeys to shop are displaced into single delivery journeys to multiple households. And so on.
On top of technology per se, you have the push and pull of the environmental agenda and the emergence of electric vehicles. This of itself will accelerate changes in behaviour. In rural Cumbria the local commuter traffic is having limited effect on air quality, whereas in Leeds it very much does. It might mean action to try and influence driver behaviour and take up of electric is justified in Leeds but not Cumbria.
Overall, the picture is that things are changing (at different speeds with different effects in different locations), but change they will. During change, it's inevitable some people will be disadvantaged (and others the opposite).
Robertj21a said:
TfL buses run at a loss because they haven't increased the fares for ages, and they're ridiculously low anyway.
Buses are very much functional in London with, er, base level trim interms of creature comforts, being a seat that has minimal padding. Bus operators outside London know they are competing with car use, and will have advertising, branding, leather seats in some cases and a premium service. £1.50 may be a bargain for a journey in London but the quality of the journey is fairly low, often blighted by traffic. I guess we'll see what happens next regarding the Congestion Charge...
The biggest problem I find with London bus routes is the distance between stops is short and then you have a tragedy of the commons type effect where everybody is too lazy to go, "here is close enough, I'll get off now to save the bus stopping again". This means any long straight road where the bus could get a bit of a zip on you instead have every 100m *ding* one person gets off *ding* another single person leaves *ding* a couple exit the bus *ding* nobody gets off, maybe with a distant "sorry drive, thought that was my stop" from somewhere down the back if you're lucky. Each time is a full cycle of stop, doors open, wait for the one person to get clear of the bus, doors close, wait for someone to let the bus out... resulting in an average velocity somewhere around a smart walking pace. If you're fit and healthy the only purpose of the bus is as a sort of communal umbrella.
Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
valiant said:
Robertj21a said:
brickwall said:
You’re right.
What I think is actually going on here is:
1. TfL have had the most generous budgets anywhere in the country, for years. This is because
a) Turning off TfL would grind London to a halt; the economics of that were utterly unpalatable. Governments of all creed and colour have kept signing the subsidy cheques for that reason
b) Usage is incredibly high - Car or no car a huge proportion of Londoners make substantial use of public transport; pre Covid every train, tube and bus was rammed at rush hour, even at ‘quiet’ times (weekends, late evenings) there are good numbers on them
2. Despite being so busy and getting such big subsidies, TfL still perpetually runs out of money. This is because
- It is massively over-staffed. Tube drivers are the most egregious example, but it’s rife throughout. Per point (a) above, the unions are incredibly powerful. As a case in point - during lockdown TfL was begging for a bailout saying “we run out of cash in a month” whilst simultaneously topping up furloughed salaries to 100%. There have been no significant redundancies in response to CV19.
- The management of capital projects is very poor. Yes, the infrastructure is ageing, and needs £££ to upgrade, but that’s an argument for the project budgets to be high; not an excuse for perpetually over-running said budgets.
- Fares are a political football. Given point (b) above fares are a big, easy way of getting votes.
3. Government is fed up of writing ever larger cheques to prop up deep inefficiencies at TfL.
The government would much rather divert funds to regional transport services that are
- In a much worse state than London
- Full of many more Tory swing voters (the old ‘Red wall’), who’ve been promised a “levelling up”
CV19 is a perfect opportunity to finally say that TfL needs to balance the books somehow, and slow the reliance on central funds.
Three ways to achieve this
- Cut the scope of service
- Get more efficient
- Find ways of ways of raising money
Whitehall is intentionally suggesting a money-making scheme that is deeply unpalatable, in the hope & expectation that Sadiq/TfL will choose a more sensible option. They’re hoping that in order to avoid a massive congestion charge zone, Sadiq will choose instead to
- Raise fares
- Cut concessions (e.g. downgrade pensioner freedom passes to bus passes, apply under-16 fares)
- Cut salaries & jobs at TfL, and take the heat from the unions for doing so
It’s brinksmanship, but then again almost all negotiations are.
Excellent. Someone who properly understands the whole issue. Thank you.What I think is actually going on here is:
1. TfL have had the most generous budgets anywhere in the country, for years. This is because
a) Turning off TfL would grind London to a halt; the economics of that were utterly unpalatable. Governments of all creed and colour have kept signing the subsidy cheques for that reason
b) Usage is incredibly high - Car or no car a huge proportion of Londoners make substantial use of public transport; pre Covid every train, tube and bus was rammed at rush hour, even at ‘quiet’ times (weekends, late evenings) there are good numbers on them
2. Despite being so busy and getting such big subsidies, TfL still perpetually runs out of money. This is because
- It is massively over-staffed. Tube drivers are the most egregious example, but it’s rife throughout. Per point (a) above, the unions are incredibly powerful. As a case in point - during lockdown TfL was begging for a bailout saying “we run out of cash in a month” whilst simultaneously topping up furloughed salaries to 100%. There have been no significant redundancies in response to CV19.
- The management of capital projects is very poor. Yes, the infrastructure is ageing, and needs £££ to upgrade, but that’s an argument for the project budgets to be high; not an excuse for perpetually over-running said budgets.
- Fares are a political football. Given point (b) above fares are a big, easy way of getting votes.
3. Government is fed up of writing ever larger cheques to prop up deep inefficiencies at TfL.
The government would much rather divert funds to regional transport services that are
- In a much worse state than London
- Full of many more Tory swing voters (the old ‘Red wall’), who’ve been promised a “levelling up”
CV19 is a perfect opportunity to finally say that TfL needs to balance the books somehow, and slow the reliance on central funds.
Three ways to achieve this
- Cut the scope of service
- Get more efficient
- Find ways of ways of raising money
Whitehall is intentionally suggesting a money-making scheme that is deeply unpalatable, in the hope & expectation that Sadiq/TfL will choose a more sensible option. They’re hoping that in order to avoid a massive congestion charge zone, Sadiq will choose instead to
- Raise fares
- Cut concessions (e.g. downgrade pensioner freedom passes to bus passes, apply under-16 fares)
- Cut salaries & jobs at TfL, and take the heat from the unions for doing so
It’s brinksmanship, but then again almost all negotiations are.
TfL now receives NO subsidy and it relies on fare income to support 72% of its finances which is one of the highest ratios in the world and makes it particularly vulnerable to passenger fluctuation numbers and when that collapses due to a pandemic then it feels the pain more than its comparable transport authorities around the world. It is also the only major transport authority to receive no subsidy for day to day running costs.
TfL were also in track to completely eliminate its running cost deficit next year having made over 3000 people redundant over the last few years and reducing its spending by over £1bn. The debt increase is mainly down to Crossrail overruns and the resultant lack of fares (remember how much TfL rely on the fare box). TfL only took complete ownership of Crossrail last month so the problems are laid at the door of the contractors AND the mayors (both Boris and Sadiq) for lack of oversight and blindly believing what the contractors were telling them.
If you knew how unions worked within TfL land (let’s be honest, you mean tube drivers (who only make up about 15% of the workforce)) then you’d know that whilst they are very noisy, the company gets it way virtually all the time. It’s also worth pointing out that the tube is the most efficient part producing a surplus of something like £700m p/a and runs even today over 97% of timetabled services. It’s everything else (run by private companies contracted to TfL) that runs at a loss. Funny that. Ask why 2bn passenger journeys a year on 9000 buses can run at a loss...
I agree that bus routes need looking at (far to much duplication)and also the roads should be left to councils to maintain and improve.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, TfL would be on course never to burden the taxpayer again (capital projects aside) but thanks to the removal of the subsidy, foisting Crossrail overruns onto TfLs books and massive overreliance on the farebox, we are where we are.
Edited by valiant on Monday 19th October 11:10
TfL used to receive substantial (£1bn+ IIRC) direct operating subsidy, up until 2017ish.
That central government operating subsidy was wound down, but replaced by a very generous business rates retention arrangement - which is also subsidy just from another source.
However that still left them c.£1bn short, so for the past 2 years (up to Covid) TfL borrowed and used cash reserves to fund the shortfall. It was absolutely not balancing the books.
I don’t doubt that the tube runs an operating surplus, but it also needs to self-fund its capital costs too.
I’m not surprised the buses make a loss - I’d wager a very healthy proportion of passengers have concessionary passes (Freedom pass, ZipCard etc.) so aren’t paying fares.
I’m not that bothered about privatisation vs state-owned company; but what is abundantly clear is that TfL is not institutionally or culturally accustomed to having to self-fund. There are still insane levels of excessive staff cost:
- Defined benefit pension scheme with 1/60 accrual and eligible to draw pension from age 60 (staff contribute only 5% of salary!). Switch that to a 5% + 5% DC scheme and you’d lop 20% off your staff cost.
- Free travel on the underground, buses and some trains for all staff and a +1. And if you retire with >20 years service, it’s for life.
- 30 days holiday per year, plus bank holidays
TfL will need to make some hard choices, likely including
- Removing concessions for pensioners and/or young people
- Fare hikes
- Cutting costs - and that means taking on the unions
brickwall said:
Well, not quite. TfL does receive a subsidy, and still can’t balance the books.
TfL used to receive substantial (£1bn+ IIRC) direct operating subsidy, up until 2017ish.
That central government operating subsidy was wound down, but replaced by a very generous business rates retention arrangement - which is also subsidy just from another source.
However that still left them c.£1bn short, so for the past 2 years (up to Covid) TfL borrowed and used cash reserves to fund the shortfall. It was absolutely not balancing the books.
I don’t doubt that the tube runs an operating surplus, but it also needs to self-fund its capital costs too.
I’m not surprised the buses make a loss - I’d wager a very healthy proportion of passengers have concessionary passes (Freedom pass, ZipCard etc.) so aren’t paying fares.
I’m not that bothered about privatisation vs state-owned company; but what is abundantly clear is that TfL is not institutionally or culturally accustomed to having to self-fund. There are still insane levels of excessive staff cost:
- Defined benefit pension scheme with 1/60 accrual and eligible to draw pension from age 60 (staff contribute only 5% of salary!). Switch that to a 5% + 5% DC scheme and you’d lop 20% off your staff cost.
- Free travel on the underground, buses and some trains for all staff and a +1. And if you retire with >20 years service, it’s for life.
- 30 days holiday per year, plus bank holidays
TfL will need to make some hard choices, likely including
- Removing concessions for pensioners and/or young people
- Fare hikes
- Cutting costs - and that means taking on the unions
The Zip card should be cut to 16s and under. Most kids get quite substantial pocket money, the majority would get driven to school.TfL used to receive substantial (£1bn+ IIRC) direct operating subsidy, up until 2017ish.
That central government operating subsidy was wound down, but replaced by a very generous business rates retention arrangement - which is also subsidy just from another source.
However that still left them c.£1bn short, so for the past 2 years (up to Covid) TfL borrowed and used cash reserves to fund the shortfall. It was absolutely not balancing the books.
I don’t doubt that the tube runs an operating surplus, but it also needs to self-fund its capital costs too.
I’m not surprised the buses make a loss - I’d wager a very healthy proportion of passengers have concessionary passes (Freedom pass, ZipCard etc.) so aren’t paying fares.
I’m not that bothered about privatisation vs state-owned company; but what is abundantly clear is that TfL is not institutionally or culturally accustomed to having to self-fund. There are still insane levels of excessive staff cost:
- Defined benefit pension scheme with 1/60 accrual and eligible to draw pension from age 60 (staff contribute only 5% of salary!). Switch that to a 5% + 5% DC scheme and you’d lop 20% off your staff cost.
- Free travel on the underground, buses and some trains for all staff and a +1. And if you retire with >20 years service, it’s for life.
- 30 days holiday per year, plus bank holidays
TfL will need to make some hard choices, likely including
- Removing concessions for pensioners and/or young people
- Fare hikes
- Cutting costs - and that means taking on the unions
Fares need to go up, Sadiq Khan froze them for too long. Despite this, ridership on buses continues to fall. Bus enthusiast forums lament of low speeds, filthy vehicles, more congestion thanks to extra cycling lanes. Unions hold TfL to ransom, most of the newer tube trains could be automated (DLR is, and even the Victoria Line has been since 1967 where driver just pushes a button. At some stations, you will see a blue signal light rather than a green one for go, which shows the automatic system in operation. Older stock from 1972 and 73 on Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines do not have this technology yet, but new stock will be made "in a few years time ").
Cultural change towards how they are funded, and cutting of salaries is needed, but TfL is in fear of strike action. Private bus operators, who tire of TfL's every changing request, grow weary. Each bus route tender costs millions of pounds, from buying new vehicles in some cases (buses can be up to 15 years old), or refurbished.
They control too much, such as management of major roads and maintenance, river services, and a cable car which is barely used.
I think central government will take control and DfT will take over at some point, so funding can go to other areas in the country that need it more. Boris Johnson suggested that subsidies for TfL be cut as he was finishing up as Mayor, just before returning to Parliament. It appears Sadiq Khan didn't get the email and continued spending despite funding being reduced, hence the mess it's in now...
Timberwolf said:
The biggest problem I find with London bus routes is the distance between stops is short and then you have a tragedy of the commons type effect where everybody is too lazy to go, "here is close enough, I'll get off now to save the bus stopping again". This means any long straight road where the bus could get a bit of a zip on you instead have every 100m *ding* one person gets off *ding* another single person leaves *ding* a couple exit the bus *ding* nobody gets off, maybe with a distant "sorry drive, thought that was my stop" from somewhere down the back if you're lucky. Each time is a full cycle of stop, doors open, wait for the one person to get clear of the bus, doors close, wait for someone to let the bus out... resulting in an average velocity somewhere around a smart walking pace. If you're fit and healthy the only purpose of the bus is as a sort of communal umbrella.
Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
I hate to be the one to say it, but the allowances/changes/mods to buses to enable the disabled have caused the slowness. Were the new Routemasters able to operate with an open rear platform the way the old ones did, there'd be far fewer of the cycles you mention.Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
Gecko1978 said:
The only point I would take issue with is raising fares. Fares for commuters rise each year but in the last 10 I have seen no significant improvement in service. Trains are newer and have wifi....well news flash I could give a s
t. I want them to run on time. I want drivers to be available who are qualified to drive into moorgate, i want signal issues rectified. I don't care about services out of commuting hours, i don't care if there is an app or a paper time table. I just want to turn up 7am Monday to Friday and get on a train / tube into London.
Or I can work from home...its that simple
Another poor soul that travels on Thameslink (not so) Great Northern....t. I want them to run on time. I want drivers to be available who are qualified to drive into moorgate, i want signal issues rectified. I don't care about services out of commuting hours, i don't care if there is an app or a paper time table. I just want to turn up 7am Monday to Friday and get on a train / tube into London.Or I can work from home...its that simple
And the Wifi is so unreliable it isn't worth having.
Pothole said:
Were the new Routemasters able to operate with an open rear platform the way the old ones did, there'd be far fewer of the cycles you mention.
Absolutely. The New Routemaster never stood a chance under Khan with the Boris associations - a real shame because (A/C issues aside) it’s a massively more pleasant thing to travel on than any other London bus.Jinx said:
Gecko1978 said:
The only point I would take issue with is raising fares. Fares for commuters rise each year but in the last 10 I have seen no significant improvement in service. Trains are newer and have wifi....well news flash I could give a st. I want them to run on time. I want drivers to be available who are qualified to drive into moorgate, i want signal issues rectified. I don't care about services out of commuting hours, i don't care if there is an app or a paper time table. I just want to turn up 7am Monday to Friday and get on a train / tube into London.
Or I can work from home...its that simple
Another poor soul that travels on Thameslink (not so) Great Northern....t. I want them to run on time. I want drivers to be available who are qualified to drive into moorgate, i want signal issues rectified. I don't care about services out of commuting hours, i don't care if there is an app or a paper time table. I just want to turn up 7am Monday to Friday and get on a train / tube into London.Or I can work from home...its that simple
And the Wifi is so unreliable it isn't worth having.
Timberwolf said:
The biggest problem I find with London bus routes is the distance between stops is short and then you have a tragedy of the commons type effect where everybody is too lazy to go, "here is close enough, I'll get off now to save the bus stopping again". This means any long straight road where the bus could get a bit of a zip on you instead have every 100m *ding* one person gets off *ding* another single person leaves *ding* a couple exit the bus *ding* nobody gets off, maybe with a distant "sorry drive, thought that was my stop" from somewhere down the back if you're lucky. Each time is a full cycle of stop, doors open, wait for the one person to get clear of the bus, doors close, wait for someone to let the bus out... resulting in an average velocity somewhere around a smart walking pace. If you're fit and healthy the only purpose of the bus is as a sort of communal umbrella.
Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
Also with London's buses "being held to regulate the service"... if you are late for work, you may experience this situation where your bus driver it told by his garage to park up at a stop for ages (GPS tracking apparently), very frustrating when another bus on the same route goes past and overtakes you. Route numbers can be baffling, does nothing for my OCD with a route 375 and no 374, W3 but no W2 etc... lots of routes were withdrawn as the money dried up, like a popular 48 into London Bridge from east London.Of course the stops have to be close because you have a decent proportion of people with impaired mobility use the bus. Wheelchair users or elderly actually need the stop to be right outside the shop/church/community centre. So I'm not sure there's an easy solution unless you spend several generations training the kind of general populace who go, "this is close enough and the bus is already stopping, I'll step off now so everyone else's journey can be faster" - which we're currently heading in the opposite direction of so not much hope there. Maybe some kind of special mobility pass to use certain stops, like the old toilet keys?
Entrenched traditions have made TfL the way it is, the private bus operators are running at a loss. The whole of TfL needs reform. Advertising revenue slumped long before Coronavirus, Sadiq Khan was very upset with "Beach Body Ready" ads and advertising had to walk a very steady path. Most "adverts" consist of TfL in house posters telling people to "SLOW DOWN" "MIND THE GAP"... these can be viewed from the filthy seats of most tube trains.
Someone with proper knowledge of how private train and bus operators work, be it with pricing etc needs to come in and improve their (lack of) business model. I would happily pay for a clean train seat or carriage of more pride was taken in the service provided.
I think this Section 114 order (Declaration of bankruptcy) will become a reality within days...
CourtAgain said:
Also with London's buses "being held to regulate the service"... if you are late for work, you may experience this situation where your bus driver it told by his garage to park up at a stop for ages (GPS tracking apparently), very frustrating when another bus on the same route goes past and overtakes you. Route numbers can be baffling, does nothing for my OCD with a route 375 and no 374, W3 but no W2 etc... lots of routes were withdrawn as the money dried up, like a popular 48 into London Bridge from east London.
Entrenched traditions have made TfL the way it is, the private bus operators are running at a loss. The whole of TfL needs reform. Advertising revenue slumped long before Coronavirus, Sadiq Khan was very upset with "Beach Body Ready" ads and advertising had to walk a very steady path. Most "adverts" consist of TfL in house posters telling people to "SLOW DOWN" "MIND THE GAP"... these can be viewed from the filthy seats of most tube trains.
Someone with proper knowledge of how private train and bus operators work, be it with pricing etc needs to come in and improve their (lack of) business model. I would happily pay for a clean train seat or carriage of more pride was taken in the service provided.
I think this Section 114 order (Declaration of bankruptcy) will become a reality within days...
Never understood why tube seats are cloth. It’s got to be one of the most idiotic decisions ever made for public transport. People avoid cloth sofas because they get dirty easily, but hang on, lets use that material to cover the seats for public transport used by millions of different people a month. Entrenched traditions have made TfL the way it is, the private bus operators are running at a loss. The whole of TfL needs reform. Advertising revenue slumped long before Coronavirus, Sadiq Khan was very upset with "Beach Body Ready" ads and advertising had to walk a very steady path. Most "adverts" consist of TfL in house posters telling people to "SLOW DOWN" "MIND THE GAP"... these can be viewed from the filthy seats of most tube trains.
Someone with proper knowledge of how private train and bus operators work, be it with pricing etc needs to come in and improve their (lack of) business model. I would happily pay for a clean train seat or carriage of more pride was taken in the service provided.
I think this Section 114 order (Declaration of bankruptcy) will become a reality within days...
The entire MRT network in Hong Kong and most other Asian countries have metal seats. They are comfortable, but far more hygienic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff