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

[MotCO]

Government policy (cutting TfL's grant - £700m per year) has had a much larger impact than Kahn's fair freeze (£640m total spread over 4 years) when it comes to TfL funding though.
Sure it may have given TfL a little less slack - but given how much the government grant cut drawfs anything else - I think he is totally right to shift the blame onto Westminster.

But Westminster announced it was withdrawing the grant in November 2015 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34923879) , effective from 2018. Khan came into post in May 2016 so knew that the grant funding was going to be removed, yet still he introduced his fare freeze and Hopper fares. The blame should rest with Khan.

 

[philosopher]

Or maybe it should radically reduce service levels - not many people will notice the difference between 36tph and 30tph or 24tph and 20tph. Staffing levels seem very high on stations that are underground - not sure how many are really needed for safety reasons

With the collapse of the evening economy can the service close down earlier?

The bus network needs a radical change - now with hopper fares in place there is less of a case for 5-6 different services operating along the same corridors for miles on end

Lots of difficult decisions will need to be made

Short term I think this is sensible to save costs. I suspect tube trains at midnight now on say Tuesday are very empty with the 10pm curfew (though I have not used the tube at this time to confirm this). Longer term however I think they have to avoid service reductions if at all possible as it is only going to make London’s recovery more difficult. For example once the threat from Covid-19 recedes, closing the service down earlier is not going to help London’s evening economy recover.

 

[bramling]

When trains are almost empty all day in Zone 1 , you know you have a long term problem. (till the West End opens up in some way , and some sort of re-start kicks in on commuting - albeit in a differing way) , it is , to quote the much favoured phrase of the Daily Express , "heartbreaking" to see the darkened West End Theatre land. Little incentive to go there now , especially as you cannot meet up for a drink in moderation as you used to.

Do you really need - did you ever need - a 10 min service to Watford Met , or Harrow and Wealdstone all day ? - especially when some of the relatively sparse off peak passengers were riding free (and yes - I know these lines very well) , or observed the virtually ecs to Stanmore for much of the day. In the past , the rush to get "social benefits" even used to extend to converting such gems as the 00xx Harrow and Wealdstone empties to Stonebridge Park into a passenger service - not one I would have wanted , or needed to travel to. Even in the 1990's they were costing something like £18 a train mile.

So - yes - hard decisions - keep stations as now for staffing , but thin out train miles where sensible , because you can always put them back in incrementally at some time.

And before I get accused of ill- favouring TfL , which I have the ultimate respect and affection for , we can do the same on the suburban network. My son , had the pleasure of a 10-car Southern train to himself the other evening on a route that would have had "reasonable" loadings not so long ago.

You’re absolutely right about frequencies to some of the extremities, however on some of the lines the trouble is there’s nowhere to terminate trains short.

Take the Northern Line. On the Edgware branch you have Golders Green, however the middle platform there is valuable for doing things with the service - for example sorting out the order of trains, putting aside an early train, changing over a defective train, etc. It’s already used in the peaks, during which time recovery is pretty much impossible as a result. Then there’s Colindale, which by the time you’ve turned a train there it might as well run to Edgware. Similar on the Barnet side, only Finchley Central offers a reasonably viable turnback opportunity, but again removing your prime recovery facility for that branch, and introducing a flat junction. Down the south end you only have Tooting Broadway, and again by the time that’s used one might as well go to Morden. Then there’s demand factors, Colindale seems to have enough flats going up to house the entire population of London, so that probably does start to justify a frequent off-peak service.

Unfortunately in many cases the reason there are these frequencies to the extremes is because it’s either the only operational option, or the demand actually is there.

There is some scope to pull back evening services, but that’s probably about as far as it’s possible to go. Weekend services are probably back to their old levels of usage in places. It’s the mass commuter peak that’s missing, so that’s probably the place to look at if trying to match capacity with demand.

But, there’s the cautionary lesson from the 1980s - start stripping capacity out, and one can get spectacularly caught out if it returns.

Ultimately IMO there will have to be a realisation that London Transport, as was, *is* an essential service, and needs to be maintained as such. I’d be quite happy for the “political” arm of TFL to be stripped out, there’s so much political rubbish in there. A return to an organisation focussed on running trains and buses wouldn’t go amiss.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

You’re absolutely right about frequencies to some of the extremities, however on some of the lines the trouble is there’s nowhere to terminate trains short.

Take the Northern Line. On the Edgware branch you have Golders Green, however the middle platform there is valuable for doing things with the service - for example sorting out the order of trains, putting aside an early train, changing over a defective train, etc. It’s already used in the peaks, during which time recovery is pretty much impossible as a result. Then there’s Colindale, which by the time you’ve turned a train there it might as well run to Edgware. Similar on the Barnet side, only Finchley Central offers a reasonably viable turnback opportunity, but again removing your prime recovery facility for that branch, and introducing a flat junction. Down the south end you only have Tooting Broadway, and again by the time that’s used one might as well go to Morden. Then there’s demand factors, Colindale seems to have enough flats going up to house the entire population of London, so that probably does start to justify a frequent off-peak service.

Unfortunately in many cases the reason there are these frequencies to the extremes is because it’s either the only operational option, or the demand actually is there.

There is some scope to pull back evening services, but that’s probably about as far as it’s possible to go. Weekend services are probably back to their old levels of usage in places. It’s the mass commuter peak that’s missing, so that’s probably the place to look at if trying to match capacity with demand.

But, there’s the cautionary lesson from the 1980s - start stripping capacity out, and one can get spectacularly caught out if it returns.

Ultimately IMO there will have to be a realisation that London Transport, as was, *is* an essential service, and needs to be maintained as such. I’d be quite happy for the “political” arm of TFL to be stripped out, there’s so much political rubbish in there. A return to an organisation focussed on running trains and buses wouldn’t go amiss.

Agree - particularly on your last comment about politics and reality. Some of the suburban thinning out , off peak would be at least an indication that "something is being done" Ditto on buses in that area. After all, there is (no matter what an excellent job is being done on fleet cleanliness etc) , people are still not inclined to use public transport. Where they can , or can afford to , use the car. Nice point about Colindale. Well made.

 

[telstarbox]

What functions would you remove though?

The work they do on (larger) planning applications is useful and means that blocks of flats etc work with local transport.

Roads like the A40 and A20 are too strategic to be left to the boroughs.

Someone needs to licence taxis and Ubers and again this wouldn't work on a borough basis.

 

[thenorthern]

What functions would you remove though?

The work they do on (larger) planning applications is useful and means that blocks of flats etc work with local transport.

Roads like the A40 and A20 are too strategic to be left to the boroughs.

Someone needs to licence taxis and Ubers and again this wouldn't work on a borough basis.

Many major trunk routes outside London such as the A50 and most of the A5 they are managed by Highways England.

With trains though in London I know Khan wanted control of Southern during the strikes over DOO trains. This to me is idiotic given that Southern operate a large number of services outside of Greater London. It makes sense for London Overground to be overseen by TFL however as apart from a small number of stations on the Watford DC line all other Overground stations are within Greater London.

 

[deltic]

Not clear what transferring TfL's road network to Highways England would achieve in transport terms although it would save TfL a couple of hundred million in maintenance costs. TfL long before Kahn wanted control of London's rail network.

 

[hwl]

But Westminster announced it was withdrawing the grant in November 2015 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34923879) , effective from 2018. Khan came into post in May 2016 so knew that the grant funding was going to be removed, yet still he introduced his fare freeze and Hopper fares. The blame should rest with Khan.

SK made the "Fares Freeze" promise before Nov 15 but his team didn't assess the impact of the grant elimination on his promises and he still kept promising all the way till early May. His team then had a early sit down with TfL where the reality of their "lack of recalculation of grant loss" screw up was broken to them.

SK should have reassessed post grant cut and said hsi original promises were unaffordable give the enormity of the grant cut.

 

[radamfi]

Which major world city costs more than London for multi-mode journeys?

 

[kristiang85]

Which major world city costs more than London for multi-mode journeys?

I lived in Melbourne 9 years ago and that was blooming expensive for a shoddy service. And Sydney wasn't that much better. I'm pretty sure at the time I found them far more expensive than London. Maybe someone with more recent experience can give an update.

However, the local average wages are higher.

But your inferred point is true - I cannot think of any other major city with such high Metropolitan transport costs (and I've been to most major cities in the world).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which major world city costs more than London for multi-mode journeys?

When considering spending national taxes, the rest of the UK is the comparison. I agree fares should be cheaper, but if it's not the London taxpayer funding it then that should be done nationally.

That said, fares in the PTE areas do tend to be lower than London so maybe those should increase a bit to balance.

 

[radamfi]

I lived in Melbourne 9 years ago and that was blooming expensive for a shoddy service. And Sydney wasn't that much better. I'm pretty sure at the time I found them far more expensive than London. Maybe someone with more recent experience can give an update.

I can easily look at the website. Melbourne has a very simple fare structure. Zones 1+2 covers Melbourne including contiguous suburbs. A 2 hour ticket for Zones 1+2 is $4.50 and a daily cap is $9. That's about £2.25 and £4.50 respectively. A Zone 3 to Zone 1 (probably covering a smaller area than Melbourne zones 1+2) trip in London costs £3.30 peak (tube only), £2.80 peak (tube only) and £8.50 daily cap. If a bus is required on top, for a single that's £4.80 peak, £4.30 off-peak.

That said, fares in the PTE areas do tend to be lower than London so maybe those should increase a bit to balance.

A combined bus and tram journey in Manchester can easily be over £5 so it is extortionate there too.

 

[thenorthern]

Khan has said on Twitter that he won't accept Fares rising more than inflation, Increased council taxes to pay for TFL, an extension to the congestion charge zone or loss of free travel for under 18s and over 60s.

With fares rising more than inflation it happens every year in the rest of the United Kingdom so why should London be exempt? Council Tax rises make sense as if London wants a world class transport network someone has to pay for it, the Congestion charge needs looking at anyway and the electric car exemption needs to end finally under 18s have to pay for public transport in other parts of the United Kingdom why should London be exempt?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Khan has said on Twitter that he won't accept Fares rising more than inflation, Increased council taxes to pay for TFL, an extension to the congestion charge zone or loss of free travel for under 18s and over 60s.

With fares rising more than inflation it happens every year in the rest of the United Kingdom so why should London be exempt? Council Tax rises make sense as if London wants a world class transport network someone has to pay for it, the Congestion charge needs looking at anyway and the electric car exemption needs to end finally under 18s have to pay for public transport in other parts of the United Kingdom why should London be exempt?

TfL should certainly not be provided with central Government funding to have service or fare levels that are not provided in other British cities; that would be grossly unfair. Such enhanced service should come from taxation on those who live, operate businesses in and visit London (i.e. Council Tax, business rates and the Congestion Charge).

That said, will other cities be forced to have a CC to even that side of things out?

 

[thenorthern]

TfL should certainly not be provided with central Government funding to have service or fare levels that are not provided in other British cities; that would be grossly unfair. Such enhanced service should come from taxation on those who live, operate businesses in and visit London (i.e. Council Tax, business rates and the Congestion Charge).

That said, will other cities be forced to have a CC to even that side of things out?

Durham has one, Birmingham, Leeds and Bath are introducing one.

 

[hwl]

TfL should certainly not be provided with central Government funding to have service or fare levels that are not provided in other British cities; that would be grossly unfair. Such enhanced service should come from taxation on those who live, operate businesses in and visit London (i.e. Council Tax, business rates and the Congestion Charge).

That said, will other cities be forced to have a CC to even that side of things out?

Unlike the rest of GB/England (post Highway Agency being broken up), TfL doesn't get any trunk road funding (Highways England and other relevant councils do) so the London trunk roads have to be funded by TfL from other means this was originally one of the reason for the grant. Post abolition of the grant, road maintenance costs (£257m for capex in the last financial year, opex about £180m) were paid for by tube operating surpluses and other TFL income streams (e.g. physical advertising). So how about DfT /HMT pony up for road maintenance (including the backlog since grant abolition which is about £1bn for Capex alone) like they do for everyone else?

The Hammersmith Bridge funding issue is another case of the previous iteration of trunk road devolution gone wrong.

 

[matt_world2004]

Even with the bailout TfLs "subsidy " would still be less than Northerns was before the coronavirus crisis

 

[deltic]

SK made the "Fares Freeze" promise before Nov 15 but his team didn't assess the impact of the grant elimination on his promises and he still kept promising all the way till early May. His team then had a early sit down with TfL where the reality of their "lack of recalculation of grant loss" screw up was broken to them.

SK should have reassessed post grant cut and said hsi original promises were unaffordable give the enormity of the grant cut.

The fare freeze was not unaffordable and TfL absorbed its cost. If TfL did not freeze fares they would have probably used that revenue for other capital projects - they would not have put in the bank for a rainy day, so the freeze has no implications for the present day situation. The loss of Crossrail revenue has caused a major hole pre-covid. When Crossrail started going off the rails is a mute point and certainly decisions made when Boris was mayor led to some of those delays. What is apparent is that no-one in DfT or TfL seemed to have had a clue what was going on and were clearly asleep on the job over a very long period of time.

 

[Taunton]

Unlike the rest of GB/England (post Highway Agency being broken up), TfL doesn't get any trunk road funding (Highways England and other relevant councils do) so the London trunk roads have to be funded by TfL from other means this was originally one of the reason for the grant. Post abolition of the grant, road maintenance costs (£257m for capex in the last financial year, opex about £180m) were paid for by tube operating surpluses and other TFL income streams (e.g. physical advertising). So how about DfT /HMT pony up for road maintenance (including the backlog since grant abolition which is about £1bn for Capex alone) like they do for everyone else?

The Hammersmith Bridge funding issue is another case of the previous iteration of trunk road devolution gone wrong.

Just to clarify this one, AGAIN, the Mayor (owner of TfL and through whom all government funds go) had his eyes on the substantial commercial property rates money of London, which all used to go to central government. Now I don't have the exact figures but it was finally agreed that something like £3bn pa of this money would now go to the Mayor. However, as part of this the existing government grants for TfL operations, which were about £1bn pa at the time, were netted off that. The resulting £2bn overall increase was still a great benefit to the Mayor. Of course, what then happened was they whinged and whined, and continue to do so, about the loss of the TfL specified money (especially the main roads bit), while keeping completely quiet about it being part of a deal which led to them having much more money than before. Which has been squandered elsewhere.

I see there's active government consideration now to taking the whole of TfL, rail, bus, main roads, everything, back into mainstream government control. Are they having behind-the-scenes chats with Andy Byford about this?

 

[hwl]

The fare freeze was not unaffordable and TfL absorbed its cost. If TfL did not freeze fares they would have probably used that revenue for other capital projects - they would not have put in the bank for a rainy day, so the freeze has no implications for the present day situation. The loss of Crossrail revenue has caused a major hole pre-covid. When Crossrail started going off the rails is a mute point and certainly decisions made when Boris was mayor led to some of those delays. What is apparent is that no-one in DfT or TfL seemed to have had a clue what was going on and were clearly asleep on the job over a very long period of time.

Agree re crossrail see my previous comments...
It started to go wrong in 2013 (completion date and cost impacts) but this took along time to filter out. The 2010/11 value engineering exercise only realised ~10-15% of it savings in reality as 85-90% of what was take out had to go back in which is circa £1bn!

Just to clarify this one, AGAIN, the Mayor (owner of TfL and through whom all government funds go) had his eyes on the substantial commercial property rates money of London, which all used to go to central government. Now I don't have the exact figures but it was finally agreed that something like £3bn pa of this money would now go to the Mayor. However, as part of this the existing government grants for TfL operations, which were about £1bn pa at the time, were netted off that. The resulting £2bn overall increase was still a great benefit to the Mayor. Of course, what then happened was they whinged and whined, and continue to do so, about the loss of the TfL specified money (especially the main roads bit), while keeping completely quiet about it being part of a deal which led to them having much more money than before. Which has been squandered elsewhere.

I see there's active government consideration now to taking the whole of TfL, rail, bus, main roads, everything, back into mainstream government control. Are they having behind-the-scenes chats with Andy Byford about this?

I've never fully got my head round the rate share impact but I think the net benefit was smaller in reality. Certainly with commercial rents coming down the rates take will too.
Andy probably though he would have quieter life after New York's politics

 

[Mikey C]

Durham has one, Birmingham, Leeds and Bath are introducing one.

Durham's congestion charge covers a miniscule area in the centre.

Birmingham, Leeds and Bath are introducing clean air zones, not a congestion charge

 

[thenorthern]

Durham's congestion charge covers a miniscule area in the centre.

Birmingham, Leeds and Bath are introducing clean air zones, not a congestion charge

Technically true although they work in the same way.

 

[radamfi]

Technically true although they work in the same way.

Leeds and Bath won't be charging private cars at all. Birmingham will only be charging a small minority of cars. So hardly comparable to a congestion charge at all.

 

[Mikey C]

Technically true although they work in the same way.

Congestion charges are completely different to pollution charges, as the latter are designed to stop people in polluting vehicles driving into cities. If you have a clean vehicle (and for petrol vehicles this is very easy to pass) you pay nothing.

With a congestion charge, everyone pays

 

[thenorthern]

With a congestion charge, everyone pays

Except for electric cars which defeats the object of a congestion charge. With electric cars though soon the cost of running them will shoot up.

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

 

[radamfi]

Underground fares are reasonable, Docklands is a bit expensive.

Does that mean public transport fares outside the UK are too low?

 

[ScottGallagher]

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.

 

[deltic]

Except for electric cars which defeats the object of a congestion charge. With electric cars though soon the cost of running them will shoot up.

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

 

[WatcherZero]

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.