Article: The next TfL financial crunch will be wrapped in a purple ribbon, and labelled “Crossrail”.

[Bantamzen]

<Puts on tin hat>

Actually, whilst there is certainly an element of anti public transport feel about the blog (and that is what it is), the author does raise some important points. Firstly, and most importantly is the impact of the massive delay & overspend of the project, most of which cannot be attributed to covid. Like it or not, but funding decisions in the public sector are massively influenced on previous projects. If one goes over budget, or is delayed, or both this can & does impact on future aspirations. Politicians & Civil Servants are for the most part very risk adverse, if something goes wrong they tend not to want to go back there if they can help it. We've already seen parts of HS2 scaled back, and there is scope for more of that to come such as the Manchester leg, or frankly anything north of Birmingham. And don't get me started on NPR, which started out as basically a HS3 but has withered down to a half-arsed commitment to throw some wires at the easy bits of track, and if we are really, really lucky a bit of double tracking, again if its easy.

Secondly the author discusses what financial value Crossrail will bring. Sure it will make some journeys easier for existing commuters, and will make others so too, But will it generate new revenue? Now to be fair the author does seem to have expected some contingency planning for the pandemic long before it was known to be a thing, which is totally unfair. But nonetheless the question remains, will it attract new business, new passengers? After all it is a hugely expensive, and dare I say it massively over-engineered project to make life a bit easier for some London-based commuters. This again will influence future spending decisions. For all that it looks fantastic, and Crossrail does look fantastic, the vast cost of those massive, cavernous stations, tunnels and trains will be scrutinised by politicians and Civil Servants alike. If all it achieves is a spreading out of loads rather than lots of new business, then this will be taken into account in the planning & approval of other projects.

But worse still, if Crossrail sees TfL going under completely, which frankly is not out of the question, what will that mean for aspirations of similar models elsewhere? Given that we currently have a government keen on spending cuts (with an opposition far from looking like forming the next one two years from now), and frankly lukewarm at best on future public transport initiatives, this should be a worry to anyone with a vested interest in public transport, be it as a user or enthusiast. This is, in my humble opinion, was what the author was getting at.

<Takes off tin hat, runs to bunker>

 

[Craig1122]

Might ridiculous not be a little bit far? A key reason for offering free travel to under 16s was that they couldn't use cash to pay for child tickets any more, so free Oyster Zip cards were issued instead. Obviously there are alternatives, especially now. But might bot an expansion of free travel for under 11s and concession rates for under 18s be viewed as desirable for a whole host of reasons?

Also in part it compensated for the withdrawal of the family travelcard, which was actually a massive hidden fare rise for a lot of people off peak.

2 adults, 2 children all zones was £8.80 in the early 2000's. That's £13.51 adjusted for inflation, the current daily cap for one adult off peak is now more than that.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

<Puts on tin hat>

Actually, whilst there is certainly an element of anti public transport feel about the blog (and that is what it is), the author does raise some important points. Firstly, and most importantly is the impact of the massive delay & overspend of the project, most of which cannot be attributed to covid. Like it or not, but funding decisions in the public sector are massively influenced on previous projects. If one goes over budget, or is delayed, or both this can & does impact on future aspirations. Politicians & Civil Servants are for the most part very risk adverse, if something goes wrong they tend not to want to go back there if they can help it. We've already seen parts of HS2 scaled back, and there is scope for more of that to come such as the Manchester leg, or frankly anything north of Birmingham. And don't get me started on NPR, which started out as basically a HS3 but has withered down to a half-arsed commitment to throw some wires at the easy bits of track, and if we are really, really lucky a bit of double tracking, again if its easy.

Secondly the author discusses what financial value Crossrail will bring. Sure it will make some journeys easier for existing commuters, and will make others so too, But will it generate new revenue? Now to be fair the author does seem to have expected some contingency planning for the pandemic long before it was known to be a thing, which is totally unfair. But nonetheless the question remains, will it attract new business, new passengers? After all it is a hugely expensive, and dare I say it massively over-engineered project to make life a bit easier for some London-based commuters. This again will influence future spending decisions. For all that it looks fantastic, and Crossrail does look fantastic, the vast cost of those massive, cavernous stations, tunnels and trains will be scrutinised by politicians and Civil Servants alike. If all it achieves is a spreading out of loads rather than lots of new business, then this will be taken into account in the planning & approval of other projects.

But worse still, if Crossrail sees TfL going under completely, which frankly is not out of the question, what will that mean for aspirations of similar models elsewhere? Given that we currently have a government keen on spending cuts (with an opposition far from looking like forming the next one two years from now), and frankly lukewarm at best on future public transport initiatives, this should be a worry to anyone with a vested interest in public transport, be it as a user or enthusiast. This is, in my humble opinion, was what the author was getting at.

<Takes off tin hat, runs to bunker>

No need to run for the bunker!

You're quite right to question how much new, additional revenue will be generated by The Elizabeth Line. (The same question should be asked about HS2) I'm confident that most people living on the east side of London will now make it their first option for going to Heathrow and that fewer minicab journeys will be the result. I suppose that more visitors landing at Heathrow from abroad will use EL to access central London and that fewer taxi journeys will be made. Possibly the shorter journey times will persuade people living on the west side of London to consider taking jobs in the city as opposed to the West End. I don't expect the total amount of new revenue will be huge but the main original purpose of the scheme was to increase capacity which decades ago seemed to be an urgent requirement.

If TfL does lose its independence, it will not be because of the new railway line. It will be mainly because senior civil servants in both the Treasury and DfT are power hungry control freaks who loathe any public body having the money and freedom to be able to wave two fingers at them. Until Sadiq Khan and Covid arrived, TfL had major independence and those civil servants have used the current crisis to reduce that.

 

[LLivery]

Modal shift - by definition u16 can't drive. They also have fantastic and quite conspicuous spending power.

If they can't afford a bus fare now, wait until they try and insure a car a year later.

No funding crisis necessary.

Under 16s cant work. 16+ can.

Most 17 year olds don't have a licence, let alone a car.

 

[jayah]

Under 16s cant work. 16+ can.

Most 17 year olds don't have a licence, let alone a car.

Exactly. They have plenty of money and no reason to get free travel paid for by the taxpayer.

 

[LLivery]

Exactly. They have plenty of money and no reason to get free travel paid for by the taxpayer.

It wasn't that long ago I was 16. I certainly didn't have plenty of money. I hear this same nonsense with unpaid apprenticeships and placements. Unless you're from a wealthy household, it's impossible to afford.

 

[miami]

It wasn't that long ago I was 16. I certainly didn't have plenty of money. I hear this same nonsense with unpaid apprenticeships and placements. Unless you're from a wealthy household, it's impossible to afford.

Not just wealthy. And not just unpaid.

If your parents live outside of London and you want a job in London then you'll struggle even on a starting salary of £1500 a month.

If your parents live in the London commuter belt though you're quids in.

Two people on the same career path in a London centric industry, one with the London based parents will have saved a deposit to buy a house in the first few years, the other will have run up credit card debt paying eyewatering rents (probably to those London parents who have a second home to rent out, one that's balooned in value thanks to the elizabeth line).

 

[JonathanH]

Also in part it compensated for the withdrawal of the family travelcard, which was actually a massive hidden fare rise for a lot of people off peak.

2 adults, 2 children all zones was £8.80 in the early 2000's. That's £13.51 adjusted for inflation, the current daily cap for one adult off peak is now more than that.

The increase in off-peak fares paid for a fairer fare structure for part-time workers which was a persistent desire of stakeholders.

 

[jayah]

It wasn't that long ago I was 16. I certainly didn't have plenty of money. I hear this same nonsense with unpaid apprenticeships and placements. Unless you're from a wealthy household, it's impossible to afford.

The vast majority of under 16s have disposable income and can afford to pay 50% bus fares, just like they do outside London.

 

[stuu]

The vast majority of under 16s have disposable income and can afford to pay 50% bus fares, just like they do outside London.

Source?

 

[AlbertBeale]

The move within inner London is towards people living and working in tall accommodation blocks. Private transport [I assume you mean the motor car] is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as indeed are tube and, especially, bus services.

I don't understand the idea that bus services are "increasingly irrelevant" ... many people in London rely on them every day, and the existing (and planned) cuts to services are making (and will make) many people's lives much harder.

 

[Horizon22]

<Puts on tin hat>

Actually, whilst there is certainly an element of anti public transport feel about the blog (and that is what it is), the author does raise some important points. Firstly, and most importantly is the impact of the massive delay & overspend of the project, most of which cannot be attributed to covid. Like it or not, but funding decisions in the public sector are massively influenced on previous projects. If one goes over budget, or is delayed, or both this can & does impact on future aspirations. Politicians & Civil Servants are for the most part very risk adverse, if something goes wrong they tend not to want to go back there if they can help it. We've already seen parts of HS2 scaled back, and there is scope for more of that to come such as the Manchester leg, or frankly anything north of Birmingham. And don't get me started on NPR, which started out as basically a HS3 but has withered down to a half-arsed commitment to throw some wires at the easy bits of track, and if we are really, really lucky a bit of double tracking, again if its easy.

Secondly the author discusses what financial value Crossrail will bring. Sure it will make some journeys easier for existing commuters, and will make others so too, But will it generate new revenue? Now to be fair the author does seem to have expected some contingency planning for the pandemic long before it was known to be a thing, which is totally unfair. But nonetheless the question remains, will it attract new business, new passengers? After all it is a hugely expensive, and dare I say it massively over-engineered project to make life a bit easier for some London-based commuters. This again will influence future spending decisions. For all that it looks fantastic, and Crossrail does look fantastic, the vast cost of those massive, cavernous stations, tunnels and trains will be scrutinised by politicians and Civil Servants alike. If all it achieves is a spreading out of loads rather than lots of new business, then this will be taken into account in the planning & approval of other projects.

But worse still, if Crossrail sees TfL going under completely, which frankly is not out of the question, what will that mean for aspirations of similar models elsewhere? Given that we currently have a government keen on spending cuts (with an opposition far from looking like forming the next one two years from now), and frankly lukewarm at best on future public transport initiatives, this should be a worry to anyone with a vested interest in public transport, be it as a user or enthusiast. This is, in my humble opinion, was what the author was getting at.

<Takes off tin hat, runs to bunker>

Some fair comments about adversity to risk and evidently Crossrail had some almost comical delays - who genuinely thought in Autumn 2018 it could possibly be ready in 3 months?!

Whilst Crossrail may be as you say “massively over-engineered” I personally am glad to see something built that can be relied on for the long term (50+ years) instead of patchy, piecemeal work that ultimately can be more expensive when added up. Unfortunately what various governments (and especially this one) seem to prefer is the latter. Cutting expenses now even if this means overall expenditure is increased over 5-10 years is seen as preferable and “someone else’s problem”. And it’s endemic of infrastructure development in this (and to be fair others too) country.

 

[stuu]

Secondly the author discusses what financial value Crossrail will bring. Sure it will make some journeys easier for existing commuters, and will make others so too, But will it generate new revenue? Now to be fair the author does seem to have expected some contingency planning for the pandemic long before it was known to be a thing, which is totally unfair. But nonetheless the question remains, will it attract new business, new passengers? After all it is a hugely expensive, and dare I say it massively over-engineered project to make life a bit easier for some London-based commuters. This again will influence future spending decisions. For all that it looks fantastic, and Crossrail does look fantastic, the vast cost of those massive, cavernous stations, tunnels and trains will be scrutinised by politicians and Civil Servants alike. If all it achieves is a spreading out of loads rather than lots of new business, then this will be taken into account in the planning & approval of other projects.

A trip on the Victoria Line in the peak will show you very quickly the effect of building the minimum level of infrastructure. TfL have been forced to spend huge sums upgrading existing underground stations, so getting it right first time for the next 100 years is by far the most sensible approach

 

[Robert Ambler]

If crossrail traffic does not live up to projections once the full project is operational there are plenty of places that costs in the related rail system could be cut.

An end to the residual surface suburban trains out of Paddington and Liverpool street etc etc etc.

Given the functionally infinite life of the project, I really don't think it is credible to suggest that this is the White Elephant he says it is.
Leaving aside the functionally infinite material wealth of modern society making such projects far cheaper in real terms than they might appear.

EDIT:

He appears to be demanding the effective end of all capital spending in favour of pouring money into day-to-day spending that will just accelerate the systemic death spiral.
His political views are not surprising give his cushy consultancy roles in the Blairite governments of the early 2000s.

I would much rather have £18bn spent on crossrail than £18bn spent propping up the NHS for a couple more years before the inevitable sets in again.

£18bn would pay the running costs of the NHS for about 5 weeks. The NHS is on an altogether different scale as a business than the rail industry.

Government and Government bodies are required to account for Capital spending and Revenue spending in very different ways and they are paid for in very different ways and so cannot be compared. Private businesses do not have to do this in the same way. Capital spending on infrastructure can be spread over the lifetime of the item constructed so the annualised cost becomes fairly low. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Capital spend on Railways is tiny compared with that on roads even allowing for Crossrail and HS2.

 

[mmh]

A trip on the Victoria Line in the peak will show you very quickly the effect of building the minimum level of infrastructure. TfL have been forced to spend huge sums upgrading existing underground stations, so getting it right first time for the next 100 years is by far the most sensible approach

I find it very unlikely the Victoria Line was the minimum level in the 1960s. All those cross-platform interchanges weren't by accident.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It is also worth bearing in mind that the Capital spend on Railways is tiny compared with that on roads even allowing for Crossrail and HS2.

Could you give some figures?

(And please don't just quote "£27 billion for the Road Investment Strategy 2 : 2020-2025". Much of that is for routine renewals, a bit like Network Rail's periodic review settlement. There are very few 'new roads' apart from the additional Thames Crossing, which is the sort of thing that needs to be compared with 'new railways' like Crossrail and HS2.)

 

[swt_passenger]

Could you give some figures?

(And please don't just quote "£27 billion for the Road Investment Strategy 2 : 2020-2025". Much of that is for routine renewals, a bit like Network Rail's periodic review settlement. There are very few 'new roads' apart from the additional Thames Crossing, which is the sort of thing that needs to be compared with 'new railways' like Crossrail and HS2.)

Both NR and HE seem to have PR departments that are confused by the concept of preventive maintenance, and spin just about every new announcement as being about so called “improvements”.

 

[Wolfie]

A trip on the Victoria Line in the peak will show you very quickly the effect of building the minimum level of infrastructure. TfL have been forced to spend huge sums upgrading existing underground stations, so getting it right first time for the next 100 years is by far the most sensible approach

A lesson learned in the Jubilee line extension and thankfully carried forward to Crossrail.

 

[stuu]

I find it very unlikely the Victoria Line was the minimum level in the 1960s. All those cross-platform interchanges weren't by accident.

The design was sound and very well thought out, but the actual passenger tunnels were very limited. The Treasury provided the absolute minimum of funding, to the extent that some stations are still missing escalators and even some of the platform lining at the northern end. See any detailed history of the Underground if you still find it very unlikely

 

[Coolzac]

London is suffering from ever increasing traffic congestion. It was ranked as the world's worst I believe in December 2021. Therefore it seems strange to be thinking that it needs to cut spending on public transport. I'm sure there are examples where better management would help reduce costs, but the article does seem to have an anti public transport viewpoint.

Those in charge in London are generally waking up to the fact that private cars are inefficient in a large city. It's far better to have small journeys done by bike, and longer journeys and public transport.

Does anyone seriously think in 20 years time we will regret the decision to have built crossrail? The population of London will only increase.

Whilst other cities probably don't deserve something like crossrail, they do deserve much better public transport. Some cities already have a good network- Nottingham for example, has a great bus and tram network that I'm pretty sure hasn't cost the earth. If we want our cities to be pleasant places to be, we need to move away from cars.

As you have probably guessed, I very much disagree with most of the article!

 

[jayah]

Source?

Do I need to provide a source? They pay for take aways and public transport in every other part of the country. There is precisely zero justification for non means tested free transport in London.

Same for the Freedom Pass.

London is suffering from ever increasing traffic congestion. It was ranked as the world's worst I believe in December 2021. Therefore it seems strange to be thinking that it needs to cut spending on public transport. I'm sure there are examples where better management would help reduce costs, but the article does seem to have an anti public transport viewpoint.

Those in charge in London are generally waking up to the fact that private cars are inefficient in a large city. It's far better to have small journeys done by bike, and longer journeys and public transport.

Does anyone seriously think in 20 years time we will regret the decision to have built crossrail? The population of London will only increase.

Whilst other cities probably don't deserve something like crossrail, they do deserve much better public transport. Some cities already have a good network- Nottingham for example, has a great bus and tram network that I'm pretty sure hasn't cost the earth. If we want our cities to be pleasant places to be, we need to move away from cars.

As you have probably guessed, I very much disagree with most of the article!

The problem isn't cutting public transport it is getting someone to pay for it.

Only Ages 17-59 pay in London, and any anyone who uses London buses knows only about two thirds of those tap the readers.

 

[stuu]

Do I need to provide a source? They pay for take aways and public transport in every other part of the country. There is precisely zero justification for non means tested free transport in London.

If you are going to make definitive statements then of course you do. What makes you think the vast majority of under 16s have a disposable income?

 

[Malaxa]

I don't understand the idea that bus services are "increasingly irrelevant" ... many people in London rely on them every day, and the existing (and planned) cuts to services are making (and will make) many people's lives much harder.

Well, the answer to that is increase the number of largely empty buses running around the capital in order to make peoples' lives much much easier. Do you ever go and watch them or travel on them. TfL buses need root and branch pruning not tinkering with a few routes.

 

[Wolfie]

Do I need to provide a source? They pay for take aways and public transport in every other part of the country. There is precisely zero justification for non means tested free transport in London.

Same for the Freedom Pass.


The problem isn't cutting public transport it is getting someone to pay for it.

Only Ages 17-59 pay in London, and any anyone who uses London buses knows only about two thirds of those tap the readers.

Your level of accuracy about the Freedom pass makes me question your whole post.

 

[theageofthetra]

The move within inner London is towards people living and working in tall accommodation blocks. Private transport [I assume you mean the motor car] is becoming increasingly irrelevant, as indeed are tube and, especially, bus services.

I don't recall being asked to vote on this?

Not just wealthy. And not just unpaid.

If your parents live outside of London and you want a job in London then you'll struggle even on a starting salary of £1500 a month.

If your parents live in the London commuter belt though you're quids in.

Two people on the same career path in a London centric industry, one with the London based parents will have saved a deposit to buy a house in the first few years, the other will have run up credit card debt paying eyewatering rents (probably to those London parents who have a second home to rent out, one that's balooned in value thanks to the elizabeth line).

Or have parents with a council or ex council flat in London.

 

[DC1989]

I don't recall being asked to vote on this?

You vote for the national government, London mayor and local council don't you?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

£18bn would pay the running costs of the NHS for about 5 weeks. The NHS is on an altogether different scale as a business than the rail industry.

Government and Government bodies are required to account for Capital spending and Revenue spending in very different ways and they are paid for in very different ways and so cannot be compared. Private businesses do not have to do this in the same way. Capital spending on infrastructure can be spread over the lifetime of the item constructed so the annualised cost becomes fairly low. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Capital spend on Railways is tiny compared with that on roads even allowing for Crossrail and HS2.

Having just pointed out the difference between various forms of Government spending, you must be aware of the different ways road and rail are financed in this country. I'm sure you're also aware that far more people and freight travel by road than by rail.

 

[Coolzac]

Well, the answer to that is increase the number of largely empty buses running around the capital in order to make peoples' lives much much easier. Do you ever go and watch them or travel on them. TfL buses need root and branch pruning not tinkering with a few routes.

I think the answer is creating more bus only routes and bus lanes. It's not fair that a lot of buses get caught in congestion caused by cars!

 

[bicbasher]

When I was 16 in 1995, I had no choice but to pay adult rate for everything to go to college (I eventually got the 16-25 Railcard), but I don't begrudge older teenagers from being able to access free transport in London currently. It helps those who used to receive the EMA grant which I also didn't get, which the Tories axed.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don't recall being asked to vote on this?

In common with most democracies we have a representative democracy. If you want a direct democracy then Switzerland is the country for you.