Transport for London will "declare itself bankrupt" by end of today (14 May 2020) without emergency finance

[thenorthern]

All exemptions for low emission and electric vehicles are being gradually phased out and will be gone by 2025

That is good news.

 

[nkvuong]

Its fair enough to be borrowing to support a capital expenditure shortfall as you are investing in an asset that retains value and potentially generates new revenue but you should never be borrowing money to provide a service.

Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?

 

[deltic]

How about something really radical , abolish the Mayor of London and all the deadweight that comes with it, should save a few quid. As a Londoner it will make zero difference to my life and many others.

Taking TFL back under Government control all depends on the level of control. Spending will be more scrutinised thats for sure.

TfL has been operating at a loss on their revenue services for several years and they indeed did nothing to adjust their spending after their austerity cut simply borrowing to plug the shortfall. Bus and tram fares in London are way lower than most of the rest of the country, Underground fares are reasonable, Docklands is a bit expensive but the fare cap means you will be rarely suffering it if you make other journeys as well.

Its fair enough to be borrowing to support a capital expenditure shortfall as you are investing in an asset that retains value and potentially generates new revenue but you should never be borrowing money to provide a service.

I doubt TfL has ever covered its operating costs and TfL is not able by law to use borrowing to cover operating expenditure

 

[radamfi]

Prices by City of One-way Ticket (Local Transport) (Transportation)

See current prices by city. These data are refreshed continuously. It is showing prices for cities for which we have full data set.

www.numbeo.com

London is 6th of 33 UK cities by one way ticket price behind

1	Swansea, United Kingdom	4.60
2	Peterborough, United Kingdom	4.54
3	Plymouth, United Kingdom	3.89
4	Manchester, United Kingdom	3.83
5	Portsmouth, United Kingdom	3.70
6	London, United Kingdom	3.68

(Prices in USD)

And 4th by Taxi Start

1	Leicester, United Kingdom	4.15
2	Belfast, United Kingdom	4.02
3	Glasgow, United Kingdom	3.95
4	London, United Kingdom	3.94

The One month season ticket for London isnt really comparable with other cities (user submitted journey from CBD to nearest purely Residential neighbourhood), however its fallen 9% 2018/19 and 16% over the last five years.

The comparison should be with countries with high public transport usage. If London is bad, and the rest of the country is really bad, why does that mean you have to bring London down to an even worse level? How does increasing fares improve the public transport share of the transport market?

 

[Mikey C]

As the government is trying to play "divide and rule" concerning London and the rest of the country, maybe London should have a fare surcharge for those living outside London

 

[WatcherZero]

Londons modal share is already pretty damn good:

Modal share - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2019-20.pdf

TFL 19/20 accounts:
£7.7bn Revenue expenditure
£520m finance costs
£5.2bn Capital expenditure
Total expenditure £13.5bn

£5.7bn Revenue income (all income sources)
£1bn Operating grants
£2.3bn Capital grants
Total income £9bn

And the group accounts are being flattered by a positive revaluation of the Pension fund with the money being taken from the pension reserve being classed as operating income. The notes on the accounts say farebox revenue was down 2.1% while demand was up for most of the year due to the effects of the fare freeze. The auditors report on the accounts says TfL hasnt produced a balanced budget and services will need to be cut to meet government obligations from October (And this is pre-covid trading with the first trading affect on the accounts coming after the tax year in April and the accounts being written in May).

If you drill through all the financing and borrowing instruments and the movements in asset valuation TfL lost about £250m last year on its supposedly balanced budget and was forecast to lose £1bn this year pre-covid.

 

[bramling]

As the government is trying to play "divide and rule" concerning London and the rest of the country, maybe London should have a fare surcharge for those living outside London

Looking back with hindsight it’s amazing just how much divisiveness was triggered by some of Tony Blair’s policies.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Looking back with hindsight it’s amazing just how much divisiveness was triggered by some of Tony Blair’s policies.

Phew.... thank god the Tories never did anything like that, like having a dry run in Scotland with the poll tax

All political legacies of PMs have their positives and negatives though I'm struggling for many positives with either Brown or May.

 

[radamfi]

Londons modal share is already pretty damn good:

Again, so your solution is to reduce modal share? Your aim ought to be to improvement everywhere. Ruining London is unlikely to make it better outside London.

If there is to be a fare rise in London then they could at least take the opportunity to create a proper integrated multi-modal fare system instead of having distinct fare systems for bus, Tube and National Rail, so it doesn't cost any more to change mode than to stay on the same mode.

 

[Mikey C]

Again, so your solution is to reduce modal share? Your aim ought to be to improvement everywhere. Ruining London is unlikely to make it better outside London.

If there is to be a fare rise in London then they could at least take the opportunity to create a proper integrated multi-modal fare system instead of having distinct fare systems for bus, Tube and National Rail, so it doesn't cost any more to change mode than to stay on the same mode.

Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, both
a) because many bus users are poorer, and
b) to ease pressure on the tube.

With the revenue from the first congestion charge, Ken invested in the bus network. These days TfL seems far more anti bus

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?

Depends what you mean by subsidised. If you didn't consider BSOG to be subsidy (as it's basically a tax relief, not a subsidy) then most British bus services.

 

[telstarbox]

I don't think TfL are anti-bus. There are two significant trends:

Cycling has become more popular, even on corridors with no dedicated cycling infrastructure, and that competes well with a bus on journey times (and price). A good example of this is the A202 through Peckham and Camberwell.

Ubers are ubiquitous - if two or three people are travelling for say 30 minutes on the bus, an Uber will be cheaper and faster overall.

Taken together these would both reduce the market for bus travel. The hopper fare helps the bus to remain competitive for some journeys.

 

[radamfi]

Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, both
a) because many bus users are poorer, and
b) to ease pressure on the tube.

With the revenue from the first congestion charge, Ken invested in the bus network. These days TfL seems far more anti bus

The congestion charge was never intended to make much money because of the cost of running the scheme, especially in the beginning when the charge was only £5. However, it did result in reduced operating costs for buses due to the reduced congestion.

Ken Livingstone invested in the buses because results could be achieved much quicker than Tube improvements. Since then, billions have been spent on improving Tube capacity.

Buses and tubes are (or at least should be) completely integrated as one transport system so it is absurd to make one mode cheaper than the other for social reasons. No other big city does this. If people can't afford transport then that should be addressed by having affordable fares across all modes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taken together these would both reduce the market for bus travel. The hopper fare helps the bus to remain competitive for some journeys.

The hopper fare is much needed and stops people being penalised for having to change bus, but to make it revenue neutral it probably should have come alongside a price increase. I'd actually go further and include free bus travel in any rail/Tube fare, but increase those a bit to cover it.

You can have a cheaper network if you don't need a through service from everywhere to everywhere.

Buses and tubes are (or at least should be) completely integrated as one transport system so it is absurd to make one mode cheaper than the other for social reasons. No other big city does this. If people can't afford transport then that should be addressed by having affordable fares across all modes.

Several other do, actually. To name two, in both Merseyside and Greater Manchester, a bus-only season is cheaper than an all-modes one.

It is a curious UK thing, though, and it could do with going away. It perpetuates the idea of duplicating everything with buses; buses should be used to take people to trains if their origin/destination is too far from a station. Traditionally London didn't have the capacity to do that, but post-COVID it may well have.

 

[radamfi]

Several other do, actually. To name two, in both Merseyside and Greater Manchester, a bus-only season is cheaper than an all-modes one.

It is a curious UK thing, though, and it could do with going away. It perpetuates the idea of duplicating everything with buses; buses should be used to take people to trains if their origin/destination is too far from a station. Traditionally London didn't have the capacity to do that, but post-COVID it may well have.

Yes, I meant outside the UK. Maybe Dublin as well, but Ireland tends to copy Britain in many things. I doubt keeping buses cheap for poor people comes into it outside London, however.

The hopper fare is much needed and stops people being penalised for having to change bus, but to make it revenue neutral it probably should have come alongside a price increase.

Could Khan have spun by saying it doesn't break the fare freeze because you get more for your money? Probably difficult politically.

Whilst the Hopper fare is obviously more sensible than the pay on each bus scenario, it was only really installed so that overlapping bus routes could be removed to save money.

 

[plugwash]

Several other do, actually. To name two, in both Merseyside and Greater Manchester, a bus-only season is cheaper than an all-modes one.

Unless things have changed recently I don't think an "all-modes season" exists in GM at all. The "county card" covers all busses and trains but only the "city zone" of metrolink. The only "all modes" ticket is a 1 day off peak one.

 

[RT4038]

Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, both
a) because many bus users are poorer, and
b) to ease pressure on the tube.

With the revenue from the first congestion charge, Ken invested in the bus network. These days TfL seems far more anti bus

Easing pressure on the Underground network was a very important consideration. Bus service could be more easily (quicker and cheaper) expanded than Underground infrastructure, and the only practical method of enticing passengers to (slower) buses is lower fares. Trouble is, if bus fares are too low, they are not covering their costs (or costs minus affordable subsidy) so the bus services are now being cut, hence the impression that TfL are anti-bus. This situation has not been helped by costs increasing due to slower running speeds caused by other transport policy changes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?

Hong Kong, I think, at least up to the point when the "trouble" started last year.
At least MTR makes a healthy profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR

The MTR is one of the most profitable metro systems in the world; it had a farebox recovery ratio of 187 per cent in 2015, the world's highest.

They do have major advantages in terms of population density and low car ownership.

 

[radamfi]

The London Underground is (was) not the only crowded metro service in the world. But I've never heard of anywhere else trying to relieve the pressure by running loads of buses on parallel routes. What about the famous train in Tokyo where people are employed to push people onto the train? Genuine question, I'm curious if such a policy exists anywhere else.

 

[RT4038]

It is a curious UK thing, though, and it could do with going away. It perpetuates the idea of duplicating everything with buses; buses should be used to take people to trains if their origin/destination is too far from a station. Traditionally London didn't have the capacity to do that, but post-COVID it may well have.

It may have the capacity, post Covid, but it would be a dangerous precedent to set until the effects are well established. A big problem is that many journeys bus fares are considerably cheaper than that of the tube. Sharp bus fare increases would not be viewed positively by the travelling public, the abolition of bus flat fares (because bus routes would cross zone boundaries) would be a logistical problem to be solved and fare decreases on tube journeys unaffordable.
In the densely populated urban and suburban areas the network would not lend itself to a clean feeder system to and from stations, (certainly without major inconvenience to existing users) and there would be lots of anomalies, which could only be solved by increased funding, which is unlikely to be available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless things have changed recently I don't think an "all-modes season" exists in GM at all. The "county card" covers all busses and trains but only the "city zone" of metrolink. The only "all modes" ticket is a 1 day off peak one.

Sorry, yes, you're right. But bus only is cheaper than bus and train.

 

[RT4038]

The London Underground is (was) not the only crowded metro service in the world. But I've never heard of anywhere else trying to relieve the pressure by running loads of buses on parallel routes. What about the famous train in Tokyo where people are employed to push people onto the train? Genuine question, I'm curious if such a policy exists anywhere else.

I expect similar policies have been/are being followed all over the world, in one way or another. Increased capacity of rail systems takes a long time to come to fruition and costs a lot of money. How long did the Victoria Line take to build from inception (20 years?). Parallel bus services were then reduced.
How long has Crossrail taken, and still not open? Again, bus services are expected to reduce following opening.
London bus services were particularly increased following the introduction of the congestion charge, which anticipated a switch to public transport. If they had waited for increased rail capacity to come on stream, the congestion charge would still be a pipe dream.

Not sure that pushing people into trains is really a policy we wish to emulate culurally?

 

[radamfi]

It may have the capacity, post Covid, but it would be a dangerous precedent to set until the effects are well established. A big problem is that many journeys bus fares are considerably cheaper than that of the tube. Sharp bus fare increases would not be viewed positively by the travelling public, the abolition of bus flat fares (because bus routes would cross zone boundaries) would be a logistical problem to be solved and fare decreases on tube journeys unaffordable.
In the densely populated urban and suburban areas the network would not lend itself to a clean feeder system to and from stations, (certainly without major inconvenience to existing users) and there would be lots of anomalies, which could only be solved by increased funding, which is unlikely to be available.

Touch in and touch out is used on bus services in many places, even in some British towns nowadays, so I don't see that being a major issue. If central government regains control over TfL then that may be a way of getting the much needed fare reform in place, as there won't be a mayor to worry about adverse publicity.

I expect similar policies have been/are being followed all over the world, in one way or another. Increased capacity of rail systems takes a long time to come to fruition and costs a lot of money. How long did the Victoria Line take to build from inception (20 years?). Parallel bus services were then reduced.
How long has Crossrail taken, and still not open? Again, bus services are expected to reduce following opening.
London bus services were particularly increased following the introduction of the congestion charge, which anticipated a switch to public transport. If they had waited for increased rail capacity to come on stream, the congestion charge would still be a pipe dream.

As I mentioned earlier, Livingstone expanded the bus service as a one off event while Tube enhancements were carried out. That was a long time ago and most of the enhancements have been done or are in construction.

Given that bus fares are not normally cheaper than metro fares in other world cities (again I'm curious to see examples) I'd be surprised if people are using buses instead of metro to any large extent.

Not sure that pushing people into trains is really a policy we wish to emulate culurally?

My point was, if there is a need for a parallel bus service to relieve pressure off a train, then that surely would be the one?

 

[nkvuong]

Hong Kong, I think, at least up to the point when the "trouble" started last year.
At least MTR makes a healthy profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR


They do have major advantages in terms of population density and low car ownership.

So really TfL just need to "sort out" its buses as LU, DLR & LO themselves are sustainable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So really TfL just need to "sort out" its buses as LU, DLR & LO themselves are sustainable.

It needs to "sort out" its fare structure, and make proper provision for wheelchair users (black taxis at Tube fares for wheelchair users, perhaps?), and buses could be all but removed from the central area entirely, and refocused on taking you to your local rail, DLR, Tramlink or Tube station, night buses aside.

I bet the city would breathe far better without all those diesel fumes. Civilised European cities don't clog up their centres with fume-belching diesel buses, they have a handful of routes from nearby inner-urban areas where there isn't a logical railway station to connect to.

 

[philosopher]

Given that bus fares are not normally cheaper than metro fares in other world cities (again I'm curious to see examples) I'd be surprised if people are using buses instead of metro to any large extent.

There must be some cities where tourists choose buses over the metro because they can view their surroundings on a bus, which you cannot do when you are underground.

In London, if they work out where the bus is going, this advantage of buses for tourists will be greater than elsewhere as London's double deckers give a far better view then the single deckers found in most other large cities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There must be some cities where tourists choose buses over the metro because they can view their surroundings on a bus, which you cannot do when you are underground.

In London, if they work out where the bus is going, this advantage of buses for tourists will be greater than elsewhere as London's double deckers give a far better view then the single deckers found in most other large cities.

I like to do Euston<->Waterloo on the bus for that reason (the view across Waterloo Bridge is in my opinion one of the finest views in London, particularly at night). But that's not a reason to keep buses running when they duplicate rail; if you want tourist buses, you can run them at a profit as tourist buses.

 

[RT4038]

Touch in and touch out is used on bus services in many places, even in some British towns nowadays, so I don't see that being a major issue. If central government regains control over TfL then that may be a way of getting the much needed fare reform in place, as there won't be a mayor to worry about adverse publicity.



As I mentioned earlier, Livingstone expanded the bus service as a one off event while Tube enhancements were carried out. That was a long time ago and most of the enhancements have been done or are in construction.

Given that bus fares are not normally cheaper than metro fares in other world cities (again I'm curious to see examples) I'd be surprised if people are using buses instead of metro to any large extent.



My point was, if there is a need for a parallel bus service to relieve pressure off a train, then that surely would be the one?

I am not doubting that bus services need to be reduced, and bus fares need to increase. I do not think that parity between bus and tube fares is achievable in the near timeframe, as fare reductions on the tube are not affordable and the gulf between bus fares and tube fares too wide.
Other world cities generally subsidise their public transport services to a far greater extent than we do. This results in tube fares in London being relatively high, but (pre-Covid) still with high ridership. There is (was) not the capacity to move passengers from buses to trains.

I have never been to Japan, and know very little about their public transport systems, so cannot comment. I have been to Calcutta, where they have a nice metro line, with parallel bus services at cheaper fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have never been to Japan, and know very little about their public transport systems, so cannot comment. I have been to Calcutta, where they have a nice metro line, with parallel bus services at cheaper fares.

Asian countries generally (Singapore and Japan aside) generally have a far, far greater wealth disparity than the UK has, and as a result you do need that split. It's much less needed in the UK (though London's low bus fares do provide it to *some* extent), and indeed single and return bus fares are sometimes more expensive than train fares in parts of the UK.

 

[radamfi]

I have been to Calcutta, where they have a nice metro line, with parallel bus services at cheaper fares.

But is it actual government policy to keep bus fares lower for the specific reason of reducing overcrowding on an overcrowded metro line?