Commuters from outside London may need to pay more for their fares to fund London transport upgrades, a report into how to pay for the capital’s upgrades has suggested.

The report is timely as TfL faced a funding crisis, not of its making, but was already warning that the cost of maintaining the network for a growing population was higher than the revenues it earns from fares and taxes.

We live in strange times at the moment, and there has been a lot of armchair chatter about whether London even needs new office blocks and transport upgrades due to the change in working patterns caused by the lockdown.

While it’s to be expected that over the next few months to a year, that transport and central office usage will be lower than normal, these are going to return to pre-lockdown rates. This will happen even when more people work from home in the long term, as population and economic growth will more than compensate for that.

Maintenance will still be needed, which costs money, and as things wear out, better replacements which are longer lasting or cheaper to maintain become available.

The issue is how to fund this long term investment.

The report (pdf) notes that just as with other parts of the country, London should receive a reasonable baseline level of funding from central government, but it should also be prepared to raise supplemental revenues locally; but in return, must have the powers from central government to do that.

Central government funding for London is always a political topic, and even though London pays more into central government in taxes than it receives back in spending, there will always be complaints from the rest of the UK that the government spends more in London than it does elsewhere.

Allowing London to raise more money locally won’t stop the complaints — as I can attest on that forum for polite debate, Twitter. Whenever a locally funded transport project is announced, there will a flurry of well thought out responses debating the merits of how central government is spending money in London to the detriment of the regions — even when the funding is entirely locally raised.

However, a principle that taxes can be raised locally to fund local transport is one which could be used in London, and also across the UK to support regional transport upgrades.

As London First’s report states: “if London does not have access to newly devolved flows of existing taxes, coupled with some revenue-raising powers, the capital’s transport system will either be unable to cope”

In recent years, local funding for London’s transport upgrades has predominantly come from businesses, but new projects, such as Crossrail 2, are more likely to boost residential property values, which it’s harder to tap into the gains the property owners benefit from – unless a new Land Value Capture style tax were introduced to tax capital gains in property prices when sold.

A previous report looked at how Crossrail 2 should deliberately seek to create large plots of land as part of the construction phase to ensure more of the subsequent development profits flow back into the transport network.

The contentious issue raised in the report is that a lot of transport upgrades funded by Londoners are used by people who don’t live in London but commute in from the home counties.

London First suggests that it may be possible to allow London to take a greater share of the fares paid by commuters, either by a review of the split between national railway companies and TfL, or applying a top-up premium on the fares for commuters coming into London.

Economically that needs to be balanced with setting the higher rate at a level that doesn’t drive people to driving instead, but also politically it’s a hard sell to raise fares in the shires when they are already high.

Of course, if TfL were to take over more of the main line rail services, then it gets to capture a lot more of the commuter fare revenues at source.

When TfL took over Silverlink and created the London Overground, it faced a huge upgrade bill to bring the service up to standard, which today would be harder to afford. However, the national commuter trains are all fairly new and the investment needed by TfL to take over a line would be far less today than had it happened a decade ago.

Investment would be needed though, otherwise people outside London would rightly feel aggrieved that nothing changed when TfL takes over a railway line, and living outside the city means they have no say in how the Mayor of London spends their money.

The report concludes that the forthcoming English Devolution Bill provides a good mechanism to create the appropriate new powers for London to raise more funding locally, but warns that such powers need to be tempered to prevent aggressive tax-raising that then kills the developments needed to fund the transport investments.

Property is a long term investment, by the developer as well as the homeowner or office renter — and taxing long term projects over a long term offers the potential for relatively stable long term revenues, which is exactly what long term transport planning requires.

The report is based partially on a workshop held by London First in partnership with KPMG in January 2020, which predates the pandemic lockdown.


Be the first to know what's on in London, and the latest news published on ianVisits.

You can unsubscribe at any time from my weekly emails.


This website has been running now for over a decade, and while advertising revenue contributes to funding the website, it doesn't cover the costs. That is why I have set up a facility with DonorBox where you can contribute to the costs of the website and time invested in writing and research for the news articles.

It's very similar to the way The Guardian and many smaller websites are now seeking to generate an income in the face of rising costs and declining advertising.

Whether it's a one-off donation or a regular giver, every additional support goes a long way to covering the running costs of this website, and keeping you regularly topped up doses of Londony news and facts.

If you like what you read on here, then please support the website here.

Thank you

  1. John B says:

    There is already a big issue that London Boroughs do not uniformly benefit from TfL. Khan’s fare freeze is not popular with rail commuters who’ve seen NR fares rise. So while both Orpington and Sevenoaks are both commuter towns, on subsidises TfL, one does not. Even incorporating Southeastern Metro services into TfL, as was blocked by Failing Grayling, is a problem, as no Sevenoaks passenger catches the slow trains from there, and Orpington passengers will use the fasts if they can.

    Very hard to sell a regional tax that does not become a regional subsidy

  2. Maurice Reed says:

    It’ll not just be fares that go up. This lockdown has cost a lot of money which needs to be repaid. I reckon VAT could rise, the duty on petrol which hasn’t risen for several years will rise, income tax could go up along with duty on booze & fags.

    Food prices have already been creeping up.

  3. Sean says:

    I’m very much of the opinion that London should have a tourist tax, just as many cities I’ve visited have. London will always have its tourists and they’re not going to be put off by a small fee paid at their hotel. Would be a very useful new pot of cash for the city.

  4. Geoffrey Algernon Brabant Demprunt says:

    The argument is often predicated on the only Solution being Public Capital, when we have low Interest Rates and 180 years of successful Railways. Even as recently as last January, the key Objection to Lord Berkeley’s excellent analysis of Hs2 was that small scale Projects, cost more because they can only be undertaken during Weekends.

    Perhaps recent Events will allow a more sophisticated look at Project’s, that with better Planning can deliver better Value for Money.

    JMK and JKB approache’s are needed there’s no time to be Complacent.

    Britain is becoming introverted, let’s hope not isolated they still need Foreign Banks, Utilities and Contractors to keep the Economy going.

    There must be a hundred Schemes, that could be placed before Consortia this year, prior to people becoming Economically Active, that the Rail Insiders can propose.

    A more flexible approach to Construction and Planning, on long – term Publicly Operated Concession Arrangement’are required.

    I don’t now if moving a Station 100m North can ever be Value for Money or whether it’s appropriate at Shadwell and not at East Croydon but even with a few hours analysis one can sée huge Savings are possible on some Scheme’s.

    Topical Examples

    If, the Met Line continues to Watford and the Extension star’s from a new Joint Station at the Grade Road Bridge; alleviating the presumably expensive Engineering to cross the River and Road again. The Met already crosses the Common. If this were added to a revitalised St Albans – Watford Junction and St Albans – Welwyn Line with Trains timetabled to meet the Met, this could be possible.

    If York Way, we’re linked to Camden Road, Kentish Town West and Upper Holloway by a simple Viaduct at Gospel Oak and likewise a new Junction at Camden for Camden Town, South Hampstead, Willesden Junction and Harlesden then men Jobs could be saved.

    In terms of other Sources of Finance:-

    7.5% Levy on all Homes built along a new Rail Ribbon 3% on existing.

    Inflationary Rises to Fares

    90 minute Off – Peak Tickets

    Congestion Charge based on Time spent in the Zone automatically taken and priced in Bands.

    Corporate Car Park Spaces, at Suburban Parkway Rail Staions, rather than under City Buildings

    More Cycle Stations in Suburban Neighbourboods

    Slightly higher Fares from Heathrow to London (plus 15%.)

Home >> News >> Transport News