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

[DynamicSpirit]

The problems is, I have seen no evidence that congestion charging has used for or done anything for TFL and why should motorists subsidise public transports.

Eh? The congestion charge certainly reduced congestion when it was introduced. Besides the direct revenue to TfL, that would have reduced bus journey times, in turn making buses cheaper to run. That impact has lessened over time because of the loophole that private hire vehicles didn't have to pay the charge - which Uber has obviously taken advantage of, but the charge still provides a much needed revenue stream to TfL. It seems absurd to suggest the congestion charge hasn't done anything for TfL.

 

[Bald Rick]

£100 a day over 6 days is £600 =£31,200 a year times over so many vans in a fleet. That's a massive expense for a fleet

Indeed, and yet around 100 vehicles a day are paying it. And evidently not going out of business.

I can't see Night Tube returning. With a backlog of driver training, why waste money paying to train staff who can only do 2 days of productive work driving largely empty trains around, when you can pay the same money to train staff who can do 5 days?



Strikes ahead, then! It could be done by just making changes for new starters, but of course the savings would take many many years to filter through.

Agree.

As an aside I always find strikes about changes to the pension scheme for new entrants odd. That is people striking now, and losing money now, so that people that are not employees nor fellow union members, potentially get a better pension in 40 years time.

Edit - we must be on a telepathic wavelength, as I made my ‘aside’ comment before you had edited your post!

The savings actually come through almost immediately, as the actuarial valuation variances can be translated into contribution changes.

 

[Mojo]

Besides, if you're - say - Hertfordshire - it's hardly practical to impose congestion charges ONLY on London-registered vehicles: If you want to impose a charge on outside visitors, you'd have to do it for vehicles entering from everywhere outside Hertfordshire. Having said that, if other counties went down the same route, it would be a bit tough on quite a few motorists in the short term, but would lead to a more sustainable transport network in the longer term, which seems to me to be a good thing.

I would hope however that there was some consideration given to those living just outside Greater London but which have their nearest shops are inside London. I can think of one street around 5/10 min from me where neighbours are in London and next door in one of the home counties.

 

[bramling]

As an aside I always find strikes about changes to the pension scheme for new entrants odd. That is people striking now, and losing money now, so that people that are not employees nor fellow union members, potentially get a better pension in 40 years time.

One way or other, it looks like there's going to be an extremely bumpy ride over the next year or so. Perhaps the mayoral election being over will then take the heat out of it all. I wonder if BJ and company actually think they have a chance of stealing that? If so, they're deluded as much as Khan isn't particularly popular I can't see him losing. The Conservatives seem to have gone out of their way to choose an utterly ghastly candidate.

The savings actually come through almost immediately, as the actuarial valuation variances can be translated into contribution changes.

Presumably (assuming things remain unchanged for legacy staff) that works best when you have an organisation with a relatively high turnover of staff, though? I'd imagine that's kind of the opposite of TFL, especially in some of the operational grades where long service is typical?

 

[Mojo]

The problems is, I have seen no evidence that congestion charging has used for or done anything for TFL and why should motorists subsidise public transports.

If you read the report or news article linked to you would actually see that the present situation is the reverse in that in London it is public transport users subsidising roads.

 

[bramling]

If you read the report or news article linked to you would actually see that the present situation is the reverse in that in London it is public transport users subsidising roads.

Is that such a bad thing given the proliferation of buses in London, and the amount of road-space dedicated or partially dedicated to them?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably (assuming things remain unchanged for legacy staff) that works best when you have an organisation with a relatively high turnover of staff, though? I'd imagine that's kind of the opposite of TFL, especially in some of the operational grades where long service is typical?

I’m not an actuarial expert, but I guess that does have an effect, yes.

But I wouldn’t assume things remain unchanged for existing staff. They certainly changed at Network Rail, and without a dispute.

 

[bramling]

I’m not an actuarial expert, but I guess that does have an effect, yes.

But I wouldn’t assume things remain unchanged for existing staff. They certainly changed at Network Rail, and without a dispute.

I can’t see how it could be done without a dispute, and a pretty ugly one at that. I wouldn’t have thought even a salary bump-up to buy people off would cut it.

Focussing in new starters is the way to avoid a dispute, or at least a really disruptive and damaging one.

The Conservatives do need to be careful though. Excreting on London is one thing (though there are still a few blue seats in London, though possibly for the last time!), however peeving voters in the wider south-east is another matter entirely. Places like Stevenage or Basildon are not a shoe-in, and could easily return red if Labour get half an act together. This might not be Boris’s problem, but in a year or two’s time it’s sure going to be *someone’s* problem, and the next election won’t be fought on Brexit.

 

[Bald Rick]

I can’t see how it could be done without a dispute, and a pretty ugly one at that. I wouldn’t have thought even a salary bump-up to buy people off would cut it.

Well the RMT agreed to the change at NR, at ‘the highest level’. It affected the managerial grades more, so I guess the RMT didn’t care about that. Except that a worthy proportion of RMT members go on to the managerial grades...

 

[Vespa]

Eh? The congestion charge certainly reduced congestion when it was introduced. Besides the direct revenue to TfL, that would have reduced bus journey times, in turn making buses cheaper to run. That impact has lessened over time because of the loophole that private hire vehicles didn't have to pay the charge - which Uber has obviously taken advantage of, but the charge still provides a much needed revenue stream to TfL. It seems absurd to suggest the congestion charge hasn't done anything for TfL.

It would be hugely ironic if congestion charging is a little too successful and not enough coming in to provide a viable income stream.

Yes I said that, income stream because that's what it is.....

 

[bramling]

Well the RMT agreed to the change at NR, at ‘the highest level’. It affected the managerial grades more, so I guess the RMT didn’t care about that. Except that a worthy proportion of RMT members go on to the managerial grades...

Presumably a difference would be that in any TFL dispute ASLEF would be involved. That’s a bit of a game-changer, as I’d say there would be some pretty solid support there, and, unlike some disputes, with pensions there would be plenty of operational manager types who would quietly be going along or even encouraging things.

TFL et all need to be careful, as sourcing of quality staff has been a problem in the past, and to some extent continues to be despite the modern phenomenon of high numbers of applications per role. Combined with measures like the proposed outsider-charge, things like downscoping of pensions could result in a mass loss of staff from outside the immediate boundary of London, which probably wouldn’t be a good outcome in the medium term.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be hugely ironic if congestion charging is a little too successful and not enough coming in to provide a viable income stream.

Which is precisely what happened with the ULEZ.

TFL and the Mayor are on record as saying they would be delighted if revenue from the ULEZ was below estimates as that would mean that the number of the most polluting vehicles (and vehicles overall) entering the area was fewer than forecast.

And so it proved.

And thus, even before Covid, Londoners were breathing the cleanest air since records began.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It would be hugely ironic if congestion charging is a little too successful and not enough coming in to provide a viable income stream.

If the congestion charge were that successful, it would be mean a lot of traffic had been deterred from coming into London. That would mean less congestion and faster journeys for people in London, probably some extra revenue on trains and buses, and buses becoming a lot cheaper to run and more attractive to use because they don't get held up on congestion. I don't think the Mayor or anyone at TfL (or indeed, almost anyone in their right mind living in London) would object to that!

Yes I said that, income stream because that's what it is.....

I have no objection to that. An income stream is precisely what TfL needs - and if you can reduce congestion and pollution at the same time - that would be excellent for London. You might consider that, pre-Covid, the best estimates were of about ten thousand people in London dying prematurely every year because of pollution - much of which is caused by road traffic.

 

[Vespa]

If the congestion charge were that successful, it would be mean a lot of traffic had been deterred from coming into London. That would mean less congestion and faster journeys for people in London, probably some extra revenue on trains and buses, and buses becoming a lot cheaper to run and more attractive to use because they don't get held up on congestion. I don't think the Mayor or anyone at TfL (or indeed, almost anyone in their right mind living in London) would object to that!



I have no objection to that. An income stream is precisely what TfL needs - and if you can reduce congestion and pollution at the same time - that would be excellent for London. You might consider that, pre-Covid, the best estimates were of about ten thousand people in London dying prematurely every year because of pollution - much of which is caused by road traffic.

Drivers detered from going to London because of congestion charging wouldn't necessarily go over to the buses and tubes, they may well avoid going to London altogether, the last time I was in London, the place is dead, very little traffic and low ridership, quite a lot of it is due to Covid and changing business practice because of it, they now find with zoom, hot desking and hiring offices by the day for meetings in the outskirts, they don't need to go into central London, TFL and Khan is forced to go cap in hand to the central government for funding, expanding congestion charging won't change that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Drivers detered from going to London because of congestion charging wouldn't necessarily go over to the buses and tubes, they may well avoid going to London altogether,

Sure, not everyone deterred from driving will swap to buses and trains. Some people will swap to buses and trains. A few who are going short distances just over the boundary will walk or cycle instead. And as you say, some will avoid going to London altogether. But that doesn't change the point that it will all add up to less congestion, less pollution, faster buses, and at least some increased public transport revenue (albeit perhaps more to the rail companies rather than TfL).

the last time I was in London, the place is dead, very little traffic and low ridership, quite a lot of it is due to Covid and changing business practice because of it, they now find with zoom, hot desking and hiring offices by the day for meetings in the outskirts, they don't need to go into central London, TFL and Khan is forced to go cap in hand to the central government for funding, expanding congestion charging won't change that.

Not sure when you were last in London, but I live there, and I can assure you that the last couple of weeks, the roads have on the whole been extremely busy during the day (quieter than normal in the evenings, presumably because of fewer people going out in the evenings). (Obviously these are exceptional times at the moment with Covid. I'd expect things would long since have returned to roughly normal by the time any new congestion charge is introduced - since that's obviously going to be a couple of years away).

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure when you were last in London, but I live there, and I can assure you that the last couple of weeks, the roads have on the whole been extremely busy during the day (quieter than normal in the evenings, presumably because of fewer people going out in the evenings). (Obviously these are exceptional times at the moment with Covid. I'd expect things would long since have returned to roughly normal by the time any new congestion charge is introduced - since that's obviously going to be a couple of years away).

That matches my experience. This week parts of London have been back to ‘normal’ traffic wise in daytime.

 

[JonathanH]

The savings actually come through almost immediately, as the actuarial valuation variances can be translated into contribution changes.

Not necessarily. Once you close a pension scheme, you have a finite end point and have to start planning around securing it with an insurer rather than investing for the long term. Therefore, you might be paying less for new accrual of benefits but you are paying more for a more defensive investment strategy.

 

[HSTEd]

Not necessarily. Once you close a pension scheme, you have a finite end point and have to start planning around securing it with an insurer rather than investing for the long term. Therefore, you might be paying less for new accrual of benefits but you are paying more for a more defensive investment strategy.

Do you ever have a definite end point for a pension scheme given that you (presumably) don't know exactly how long the members will live?

 

[JonathanH]

Do you ever have a definite end point for a pension scheme given that you (presumably) don't know exactly how long the members will live?

No, but you have a date in mind by which all the remaining members are pensioners and at that point, you are likely to want to secure the scheme with an insurer to get it off the books. The funding regime is likely to require schemes to have this as the focus for their planning.

Clearly some members will live to their 100s and others will die a few years after retirement but an insurer can price (and reinsure) this risk.

The report suggests that the government give a guarantee for the existing liabilities, rather than have TfL try to fund to the insurance cost. Whether the government would be interested in doing this is another matter.

 

[telstarbox]

From my observations in the last couple of weeks, A202 Camberwell New Road and A2 Old Kent Road are as busy as ever at the moment - and these are before you get to the Congestion Charge / ULEZ boundary.

 

[Envy123]

As someone who used to live in London, the extra £3.50 to drive into London is not so much of an issue for me. But scrapping suburban bus services is really worrying.

People use buses to get to tube stations or else it’s a very long walk. Car parking spaces are very few or nonexistent in most tube stations, in part because of the usual good bus services.

I was tempted to move back to a London suburb one of those days, but if that policy goes ahead, it'd be easier and cheaper to commute from, say, Hitchin to London everyday...

 

[matt_world2004]

Wait til lorries start boycotting London because of the charges, the shelves will be empty in 3 days, less if there's panic buying.

It's just a cash cow for Khan, flogging motorists and commercial vehicles.

There's already a larger charge for lorries entering greater London as part of the low emissions zone

 

[hwl]

What a stupid thing to be suggesting. Does it occur to him that most motorists living in London will also venture outside the capital using roads that, in Khans' eyes they haven't paid to use. So perhaps Surrey/Essex/Hertfordshire/Kent should also charge motorists leaving London because they haven't paid any tax outside London. Sigh. It's just idiotic. Especially so since he was arguing against the extension of the congestion charge when the Government proposed it!

Unlike the rest of England /UK, TfL get no funding for the "trunk" road network that they maintain from Central government. So London drivers contribute to road maintenance in the rest of the country through VED and other taxes and duties via central government, but there is no central government funding going towards London.
The road maintenance was funded from other TfL income sources like surplus (above cost) tube income advertising both of which have disappeared in 2020. The other main road maintenance funding source is the mayoral council tax slice but then non Londoners don't pay that

The road funding was an issue that needed to be addressed anyway and HMT asked TfL to come up with road pricing proposal as HMT will need a way to replace significant lost VED and fuel VAT due to electrification of the vehicle fleet from 2025 onwards.

As central government isn't contributing to the maintenance cost of non-Londoners use of the roads, the proposal from the mayor is incredibly logical especially in the light of likely London council tax increases in April and ULEZ etc covering Londoners use of roads.

In everyone (who has bothered to inform themselves) eyes apart for the governments Londoners contribute to the road maintenance elsewhere but no road users outside London contribute to road maintenance in London. This proposal is about addressing that discontinuity and was invited by HMT.

It can easily be rolled out using the commercial vehicle LEZ ANPR camera network.

There's already a larger charge for lorries entering greater London as part of the low emissions zone

And most fleet operators have focused their new Euro VI vehicles over the last few years to the London area especially with commercial LEZ part 2 coming in 4 months.

From my observations in the last couple of weeks, A202 Camberwell New Road and A2 Old Kent Road are as busy as ever at the moment - and these are before you get to the Congestion Charge / ULEZ boundary.

That matches my experience. This week parts of London have been back to ‘normal’ traffic wise in daytime.

That matches what I'm seeing too.

 

[MotCO]

The charging infrastructure is already there, and has been since 2008, for the HGV LEZ. ANPR and cameras at the GLA boundary.

Is that always the case? At Pratts Bottom on the A21, there is a signpost anouncing the Low Emission Zone, but no sign of any cameras. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3...XY4u9G7p-5C6epm_gWiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

 

[hwl]

Is that always the case? At Pratts Bottom on the A21, there is a signpost anouncing the Low Emission Zone, but no sign of any cameras. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3...XY4u9G7p-5C6epm_gWiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

There are a few gaps including that one which is a very popular exit point for vehicles that have just been stolen in south London (according to the Met.).

 

[Mojo]

Is that always the case? At Pratts Bottom on the A21, there is a signpost anouncing the Low Emission Zone, but no sign of any cameras. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3...XY4u9G7p-5C6epm_gWiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

The LEZ isn’t quite the entirety of local roads within Greater London either; there’s a boundary here as well (https://goo.gl/maps/iL4QGSA2bBaEJE8C8) that is over 1.3km from the boundary as the crow flies and further by road, again no ANPR cameras.

This map off the TfL website says is the LEZ boundary (marked in blue) but the key thinks to suggest otherwise. Looking at a few random points it appears to be both the LEZ and the Direct Vision standard boundary.

http://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/low-emission-zone-map.pdf

 

[island]

Especially when you consider London is the second most populated region in the country - can't imagine it's much of a recipe for success for a business to decide to stop stocking their branches in London.

Only the second?

 

[bramling]

Only the second?

Beaten by the wider south-east I think, something London (and Sadiq Khan in particular) would perhaps do well to remember when going down insular and parochial policy routes. Indeed, a lot of London’s prosperity is tied to the wider south-east.

 

[Mojo]

Only the second?

The latest ONS estimates have the South East with an estimated population of 9.18 Million and London with 8.96 Million.

 

[Domh245]

Worth remembering that the ONS definition of "the South East" is everything south east of a line from Banbury to the Thames Estuary - A more populous region sure, but certainly not a homogenous one, nor as high a population density (ie each store in the South East will serve fewer people on average and require more distribution than an equivalent London store)