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

[Starmill]

30,000 plus ones for TfL staff £10p.w, £15m.

These sorts of concessions are granted to many hundreds of thousands of railway staff nationally, including some astonishingly large entitlements for 'protected' staff who were employed pre-privatisation, all of which have been set in stone for decades. They're also valid on and issued by the most heavily subsidised operators such as ScotRail, Northern, Cal Sleeper and Merseyrail depending on exactly which measure you choose. Lots of office staff who actually have very little to do with the running of the railways, or staff at some tourist attractions which happen to be railways are also given various travel benefits. There are also retired and dependent entitlements. I don't see any complaints from you about any of this though given the benefits are plainly going to be worth many times over £15 million per year? And what of the fact that offering such benefits may actually be especially shrewd because it partly makes up for pay being uncompetitive against Network Rail or consultants in many TfL roles?

Your view is entirely blinkered, focusing on some small opportunity costs and making up that the Bakerloo line is being used as a hostage.

So what is your definition of a trivial sum of money?

Even collectively these things are all trivial vs the real cause of the financial problems, which were the three main factors I point out above.

Lots of people have now explained this lots of different ways.

 

[SynthD]

It still comes down to whether the current budget is justified and whether to cut services down to that, or whether the current services are justified and the least they cost is the right budget. The previous mayors chose a line down the middle, as does the current. The rest is just the politics of observers.

 

[jayah]

These sorts of concessions are granted to many hundreds of thousands of railway staff nationally, including some astonishingly large entitlements for 'protected' staff who were employed pre-privatisation, all of which have been set in stone for decades. They're also valid on and issued by the most heavily subsidised operators such as ScotRail, Northern, Cal Sleeper and Merseyrail depending on exactly which measure you choose. Lots of office staff who actually have very little to do with the running of the railways, or staff at some tourist attractions which happen to be railways are also given various travel benefits. I don't see any complaints from you about any of this though given the benefits are plainly going to be worth many times over £15 million? And what of the fact that offering such benefits may actually be especially shrewd because it partly makes up for pay being uncompetitive against Network Rail or consultants in many TfL roles?

Tawdry whataboutism. In fact I have complained in general terms about politicians using deficits and borrowing to bribe voters, but your angle now is to find something unrelated to try and shore up a weak argument. My understanding is that only legislation could remove those protected legacy entitlements which were no longer being created since about 1996.

If the private operators of Northern wanted a bailout and they were giving away discretionary bonuses in the form of staff travel cards, anyone would expect that to be challenged.

We hear much of goodwill, if staff are going on strike, any non contractual perks should be the first thing to go and I have said that before.

Uncompetitive pay... Are these companies struggling to recruit? How do station staff wages compares to retail? How many applicants per job for driving?

It still comes down to whether the current budget is justified and whether to cut services down to that, or whether the current services are justified and the least they cost is the right budget. The previous mayors chose a line down the middle, as does the current. The rest is just the politics of observers.

Who decides the budget is justified, where is the middle and does a 'justified' budget even mean anything?

 

[Starmill]

It still comes down to whether the current budget is justified and whether to cut services down to that, or whether the current services are justified and the least they cost is the right budget. The previous mayors chose a line down the middle, as does the current. The rest is just the politics of observers.

Precisely. The solution is clearly going to involve both cost reduction, and raising revenue. It is absolutely right that all options should be on the table with cost reduction, including reorganisation of roles such as through ticket office restructuring, and some service reorganisations which is exactly what is happening on buses. Obviously any cut in service is a bad thing and it would be desirable to avoid it but it's inevitable that some corridors will need to be cut slightly unfortunately.

 

[Wolfie]

Precisely. The solution is clearly going to involve both cost reduction, and raising revenue. It is absolutely right that all options should be on the table with cost reduction, including reorganisation of roles such as through ticket office restructuring, and some service reorganisations which is exactly what is happening on buses. Obviously any cut in service is a bad thing and it would be desirable to avoid it but it's inevitable that some corridors will need to be cut slightly unfortunately.

London Underground ticket offices went a long time ago.

 

[Starmill]

In fact I have complained in general terms about politicians using deficits and borrowing to bribe voters, but your angle now is to find something unrelated to try and shore up a weak argument. My understanding is that only legislation could remove those protected legacy entitlements which were no longer being created since about 1996.

You've complained specifically about the mayor by deploying hyperbole and confected outrage. It's been explained to you time and again that you're outraged about the wrong things. You're wrong. Please try and understand why people are saying that to you and reconsider, rather than lurching into insults in reply as you love doing.

 

[jayah]

Even collectively these things are all trivial vs the real cause of the financial problems, which were the three main factors I point out above.

Did you follow the numbers? Just to confirm, could you add them up, putting the currency in your reply, stating this is a trivial amount?

Even the Treasury only round to £100m.

TfL was running deficits of close to £2bn several years before COVID. The revenue problem isn't new, so why do you think it has all suddenly arisen from COVID?

 

[Starmill]

London Underground ticket offices went a long time ago.

Indeed they did. There are a small number of TfL Rail and London Overground ones which are probably unnecessary now. Tourist information centres which are also able to issue tickets seemed like a good idea to me that worked fairly well but I don't know if they're still going of if there's scope for expansion.

 

[jayah]

London Underground ticket offices went a long time ago.

A bit like National Rail who keep open stations and ticket offices used by a handful of people, I am sure TfL Rail have very little used bus and rail services.

It is part of an efficient operation to keep on top of those matters.

 

[SynthD]

Who decides the budget is justified, where is the middle and does a 'justified' budget even mean anything?

I suppose the electorate is only a suitable answer if you like the answer. Did they ask for the wasteful Routemaster buses? Did they vote for a candidate who explicitly said there will be a fare freeze?

 

[Starmill]

Did you follow the numbers? Just to confirm, could you add them up, putting the currency in your reply, stating this is a trivial amount?

Even the Treasury only round to £100m.

TfL was running deficits of close to £2bn several years before COVID. The revenue problem isn't new, so why do you think it has all suddenly arisen from COVID?

Because if you refer to the 2016/17 Budget and Business Plan onwards you'll notice that until March 2020, the financial position was improving significantly, albeit not quite as quickly as some might have liked. In 2019 they were actually ahead of target.

 

[SynthD]

I am sure TfL Rail have very little used bus … services

I’ll predict that TfL rail’s bus services will be the least used in the country.

 

[jayah]

You've complained specifically about the mayor by deploying hyperbole and confected outrage. It's been explained to you time and again that you're outraged about the wrong things. You're wrong. Please try and understand why people are saying that to you and reconsider, rather than lurching into insults in reply as you love doing.

Why do you accuse people of outrage and insults, when you hear a view you don't agree with?

 

[Starmill]

Uncompetitive pay... Are these companies struggling to recruit? How do station staff wages compares to retail? How many applicants per job for driving?

Yes, recruitment and retention is very poor indeed in lot of TfL office-based roles. For example Technology & Data have been suffering very severely given the substantial pay growth at IT firms over the past three years while TfL have had next to nothing. Bus driver roles as you seem to love talking about have also had to have a large rise, again for the obvious reason that affects all professional road vehicle drivers nationally, the big road hauliers have vastly increased their pay. Despite this there are vacancies galore for bus drivers at TfL contractors online and work going all over the place for third party bus companies.

 

[jayah]

Because if you refer to the 2016/17 Budget and Business Plan onwards you'll notice that until March 2020, the financial position was improving significantly, albeit not quite as quickly as some might have liked. In 2019 they were actually ahead of target.

They reduced the deficit from £1.5bn in 2015 to a projected £742m for 2019. That was ahead on the £897 previously for that year, which is presumably what you mean by ahead of target.

COVID did not cause of these deficits although concessionary travel was still a factor.

How much of that gap was been shrunk by punitive road charging rather than anything on the cost of revenue side in public transport?

 

[SynthD]

The further pages in the same document answer questions like that.

 

[jayah]

I’ll predict that TfL rail’s bus services will be the least used in the country.

Rail Replacement often are.

 

[Starmill]

COVID did not cause of these deficits although concessionary travel was still a factor.

Indeed, but in what manner is any of that at the door of the Mayor? Covid is not the sole cause of the deficits, absolutely correct. However it is the case that without Covid the business plan could have been followed and central government "emergency" funding wouldn't have been required.

concessionary travel was still a factor.

Yes. It was and is a very small factor given the total size of the deficit.

 

[jayah]

Indeed, but in what manner is any of that at the door of the Mayor? Covid is not the sole cause of the deficits, absolutely correct. However it is the case that without Covid the business plan could have been followed and central government "emergency" funding wouldn't have been required.

COVID did happen and the cloth needs to be cut. Central Government have to fund rearmanent, energy security and a lot of other things they weren't expecting two years ago.

The £500m funding can be found without bailouts and without threatening to close a tube line.

 

[Starmill]

How much of that gap was been shrunk by punitive road charging rather than anything on the cost of revenue side in public transport?

At the moment charging is not punitive. That's hyperbole. It applies in the true sense only in a tiny zone in the centre of London where few people drive as a result of the charge and the obvious infrastructure in place in and around the congestion charge zone. There are also the various clean air restrictions common in cities all over the country, all of which are required by law to cut their emissions to improve air quality. Only restrictions to motor traffic will achieve the modest air quality improvements called for. Unlawfully dirty air has already been given a free pass for years.

 

[SynthD]

COVID did happen and the cloth needs to be cut. Central Government have to fund rearmanent, energy security and a lot of other things they weren't expecting two years ago.

The £500m funding can be found without bailouts and without threatening to close a tube line.

Yes. So the government should make a long term funding deal. The short term deals are raising the cost of operations as they can’t enter long term contracts. Is that relevant?

 

[jayah]

Indeed, but in what manner is any of that at the door of the Mayor? Covid is not the sole cause of the deficits, absolutely correct. However it is the case that without Covid the business plan could have been followed and central government "emergency" funding wouldn't have been required.


Yes. It was and is a very small factor given the total size of the deficit.

I have clearly demonstrated with working, that in the context of the deficit, the amount of discretionary concessionary travel being provided in London is very significant.

 

[Starmill]

COVID did happen and the cloth needs to be cut. Central Government have to fund rearmanent, energy security and a lot of other things they weren't expecting two years ago.

The £500m funding can be found without bailouts and without threatening to close a tube line.

OK, so you accept that it's an obvious requirement for central government to temporarily provide much more funding, perhaps on a scale of 5 - 10 years to recover from a 'black swan' event? And of course that they need to do so all over the country.

 

[Wolfie]

At the moment charging is not punitive. That's hyperbole. It applies in the true sense only in a tiny zone in the centre of London where few people drive as a result of the charge and the obvious infrastructure in place in and around the congestion charge zone. There are also the various clean air restrictions common in cities all over the country, all of which are required by law to cut their emissions to improve air quality. Only restrictions to motor traffic will achieve the modest air quality improvements called for. Unlawfully dirty air has already been given a free pass for years.

The rise in the Congestion charge in 2020 was a condition of central Government funding for TfL during the worst of the pandemic. Re your last sentence absolutely spot on.

 

[Starmill]

I have clearly demonstrated with working, that in the context of the deficit, the amount of discretionary concessionary travel being provided in London is very significant.

No you haven't. As I've explained several times. Your figures are incorrect because a) they're the retail value of the journeys rather than the actual opportunity cost i.e. what people would have done without the entitlement and b) you've not correctly accounted for the portion of the funding which comes from London Councils or through other local taxes. In addition you've tried to include some staff travel benefits as a cost, which I've already explained is wrong as these have value to the public purse because they improve staff recruitment and retention.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, recruitment and retention is very poor indeed in lot of TfL office-based roles. For example Technology & Data have been suffering very severely given the substantial pay growth at IT firms over the past three years while TfL have had next to nothing. Bus driver roles as you seem to love talking about have also had to have a large rise, again for the obvious reason that affects all professional road vehicle drivers nationally, the big road hauliers have vastly increased their pay. Despite this there are vacancies galore for bus drivers at TfL contractors online and work going all over the place for third party bus companies.

It's hardly surprising that there are serious recruitment and retention problems. TfL office-based staff have had 7-8 years and counting of either pay freezes or below inflation rises. Its eroded pay to a huge degree.

Planners and strategists, if they join at all, are doing a year or two straight out of uni then going to consultancies when they realise they can earn infinitely more.

In terms of bus driver pay it's not really relevant given that TfL doesn't employ any drivers. In fact contract prices were reducing prior to Covid due to some quite intense completion and I understand that's still the case.

All London bus operators are struggling for staff. Hardly surprising given when you factor in the high cost of living in London pay is probably relatively worse than in other large conurbations.

 

[SynthD]

No you haven't. As I've explained several times. Your figures are incorrect because a) they're the retail value of the journeys rather than the actual opportunity cost i.e. what people would have done without the entitlement and b) you've not correctly accounted for the portion of the funding which comes from London Councils or through other local taxes. In addition you've tried to include some staff travel benefits as cost, which I've already explained is wrong as these have value to the public purse because they improve staff recruitment and retention.

To be unduely fair, they are interested in the cost to the public of the benefit, regardless of who pays. It doesn’t help their point to attribute the full cost to TfL, or to avoid doing the research.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If a £1.65 bus journeys really only make 60p each, then that clearly demonstrates just how much concessionary travel there is.

Of course if road charging money didn't fund wealthy over 60s travelling free, it would be funding the funding gap I am not sure what the fascination is with these thinly disguised circular flows of money.

If London Councils want to fund the Freedom Pass fine, but they can fund TfL too and if they can't fund both, then one of them will have to go. There is no justification for funding Freedom Pass while demanding government bailouts pay for by people who don't get £1.65 bus fares, or free travel at 60.

They have to fund the freedom pass but get the point about extending all teh way out to Reading although why you'd want to sit on a 345 for that long if your over 60 is beyond me.

Central government have no business funding electioneering bribes when the same concessionary travel is not available elsewhere.

Agree 60+ Oyster has to be funded by London.

COVID did happen and the cloth needs to be cut. Central Government have to fund rearmanent, energy security and a lot of other things they weren't expecting two years ago.

We don't need to rearm just defend the UK and provide our fair share to NATO not police the world. Energy security don't make me laugh the Tories haven't bothered about it for the last 12 years and all there doing now is throwing cash at people rather then telling them to turn down the thermostat and put on a jumper.

The £500m funding can be found without bailouts and without threatening to close a tube line.

Agree that fares need to go up but GLA need to be given more of the cake in revenue they raise for the rest of the country ie a Barnett formula

 

[jayah]

Yes. So the government should make a long term funding deal. The short term deals are raising the cost of operations as they can’t enter long term contracts. Is that relevant?

It is well over a year after COVID now.

TfL needs to move to post COVID financial sustainability. The time for emergency bailouts is over.

 

[Starmill]

It's hardly surprising that there are serious recruitment and retention problems. TfL office-based staff have had 7-8 years and counting of either pay freezes or below inflation rises. Its eroded pay to a huge degree.

Planners and strategists, if they join at all, are doing a year or two straight out of uni then going to consultancies when they realise they can earn infinitely more.

In terms of bus driver pay it's not really relevant given that TfL doesn't employ any drivers. In fact contract prices were reducing prior to Covid due to some quite intense completion and I understand that's still the case.

All London bus operators are struggling for staff. Hardly surprising given when you factor in the high cost of living in London pay is probably relatively worse than in other large conurbations.

Indeed. Consultancies, IT firms, even Network Rail are paying more competitively for all kinds of graduate roles, especially for people with a postgraduate degree and especially for those with several years of experience.

As for bus drivers I imagine that the current prices are unsustainable and will feed through although who knows I could be wrong. I also expect personally that the market correction in bus driver pay isn't over yet and that drivers next year will secure further above inflation rises as vacancies continue to run at a very high rate countrywide. I would say that you're right that, for example, a stage carriage driver living in East Lancashire could be better off financially on the Transdev pay than one living nearby a Greater London depot and on their slightly better pay.

To be unduely fair, they are interested in the cost to the public of the benefit, regardless of who pays. It doesn’t help their point to attribute the full cost to TfL, or to avoid doing the research.

That's is a fair enough point. But at the core of the issue it's wrong to identify the costs of a policy and not also identify the benefits.