Transport for London (TfL) has outlined more details about the cuts needed and how it will charge more for services in order to deal with the hole in its income caused by the pandemic and rising inflation.

TfL currently has a funding deal that expires just before midnight tomorrow (Friday 4th February) and is in talks to secure both a funding deal to keep services running this year and also a commitment to medium-term investments to keep the services running in years to come.

(c) TfL

At the moment, under TfL’s proposed “managed decline” status, London’s public transport network would be kept running, but with reduced maintenance and investment, over time, parts of the service will need to be closed to avoid safety problems.

TfL is already looking at making cuts in services to reduce costs, although the fixed cost of running the tube means that cuts to services generate fairly modest savings. Despite the hype, switching to driverless trains at some point in the future has a negligible impact on the cost of running a railway as so much of the cost is embedded in providing the infrastructure.

The main concern is maintenance budgets though.

At TfL’s board meeting held yesterday, TfL’s Chief Finance Officer, Simon Kilonback, noted that in an ideal situation, maintenance is carried out at the optimum time for the asset, but that requires long term assurance that funding will be available to pay for the works. If they have to carry out short-term patches of equipment to keep it running, that tends to be some 20-30% more expensive than planning long-term maintenance.

So on the one hand there’s less money to pay for maintenance, but with a lack of long term funding commitments, the cost of maintenance that is carried out ends up being more expensive, so it’s a double-hit to the network.

This starts to affect the transport network as buses and trains have to be taken out of service as they reach a point where they could be unsafe to keep running. However, as TFL’s Commissioner, Andy Byford noted, that raises the pressure on other services to take up the slack, so they need more maintenance than planned for. Decaying assets also means higher costs from more regular safety inspections that need to be carried out.

This cascades along the transport network as fewer trains or buses in service means more people using the ones that remain, leading to ever higher maintenance costs.

However, an unreliable transport network drives people to other forms of private transport, and that means at a time of higher costs, TfL has less fares income, so a spiral of decline begins.

You only have to look at what the London Underground looked like in the late 1970s to mid-1980s when it was starved of investment, in part due to declining population in London, but the service saw faster declines in passengers as people simply couldn’t rely on the tube to get to work.

As Andy Byford put it, “you cut back on infrastructure and cut back on services at your peril”

It took about three decades of investment to recover from one decade of decline.

The other pressure on TfL’s financial planning at the moment comes from a place that affects us all – inflation.

Simon Kilonback said that in a normal year, inflation pushes TfL costs up by £200-300 million, but they expect that the current rates of inflation could push up TfL’s costs by £600-700 million, and TfL “can’t deal with that”. Wage bills will also rise higher than had been planned, thanks to the rise in National Insurance, so another £16 million hit to the budget.

The funding uncertainty is also hitting the bus network. The buses are run by private companies, who sign 5-7 year contracts with TfL. There are around 600 contracts in total, and since they had to pause renewals, there are now 25 contracts in suspension. The services remain being provided to customers, but neither TfL nor the bus company can make any medium to long term plans for them until the funding situation is sorted.

TfL’s Deputy Commissioner, Gareth Powell outlined that’s some £400 million worth of contracts on hold at the moment, and also as contracts are renewed with obligations to remove older polluting buses, they are unable to confirm with bus manufacturers their commitments to order 80-90 new buses, with the obvious impact that has on manufacturers in Northern Ireland and the rest of England.

This comes to the crux of the argument TfL is putting forward, that as so much of its capital investment budget is spent buying products from UK manufacturers, it’s in the governments own best interest to support TfL, as that creates jobs across the rest of the UK.

Many of TfL’s suppliers, for whom TfL is their largest, or even, their only supplier need long-term certainty to rebuild their own businesses. If they struggle or go under, then TfL has to look elsewhere for supplies, and that could result in TfL facing delays or higher costs, or both.

Andy Byford summed it up “You can’t have a UK recovery without London. You can’t have a London recovery without a viable, properly funded transport system”

On a positive note, he said that the ongoing negotiations with the Department for Transport (DfT) are looking positive in securing a long term capital investment agreement. TfL is working on a list of shared priorities with the Treasury and DfT for the major assets managed by TfL, not just the tube, but also the national road network that TfL pays for so that TfL has a vision of where focusing work is also likely to secure government funding.

That does sound like TfL will have the money, but it’s the DfT that’ll decide how it’s spent. This feels partially like a return to the pre-TfL days when London’s transport priorities were decided in Whitehall rather than City Hall.

The big issue that’s regularly being raised though is that, unlike most major transport networks, TfL is unusually highly dependent on fares for its income and received very little running cost subsidy from the government. Most cities receive a subsidy because the economic gains to improving public transport generally outweigh the cost. In essence, governments usually make a profit from the subsidy.

With TfL predicting that fares income will remain subdued rising to maybe 80% of pre-pandemic usage, this leaves a running £1.5 billion gap between where it expected its income to be, and where it’s likely to end up. TfL needs to find money from somewhere to fill the gap between the cost of operating a service and its income. Deep service cuts have been outlined, but that still leaves at least £500 million per year to find, and that needs to be found within a couple of years under the current agreement with the DfT.

As previously announced, there are plans to change some of the fares, which will bring in around £100 million a year by 2024/25, and around £180 million from the rise in London council taxes. The bulk of the funding gap, some £300 million is likely to come from emissions charging on road users.

However, none of these are guaranteed, as they need to pass an equalities impact test, and could be challenged in court by affected groups.

So the key takeaway is that TfL faces a long period of uncertainty, and for any organisation that needs to make long-term decisions, that’s the worst-case situation to find yourself in.

NEWSLETTER

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.

Tagged with:
SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE

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

10 comments
  1. Anon says:

    Excellent analysis as always. There was something in TFL’s latest document about the increase in trains on the ELL from 16tph to 20tph. Do you know if that’s impacted by the TFL cuts (given the money is from the HIF) and when that’s due?

  2. Brian Butterworth says:

    Perhaps a bit of a reset is required. The orgalization feels like Transport Aginst London at the moment.

    What happened to the happy smiling staff helping Londoners around (like when the London Overground started)?

    These days the staff all act grumpy and can’t wait for a excuse to boss people around.

    I’d start, myself, by letting us Londoners back on the whole of the DLR trains, rather than blocking of 25% of them for the PSA.

    Let’s get Transport FOR London back!

  3. Brian Butterworth says:

    I totally want the transport system in London to be used and popular, but that’s not going to happen when people are being so disregarded.

    Take the endless endless endless loops of tellings-off at Statford station, delivered with a self-satisfied tone and not a single “please”!

    Yes, I get it, when it rains the floor is wet. When it’s sunny and you have thing for fainting, take some water with you. If you don’t like busy stations, travel some other time.

    But I don’t have an e-scooter so I don’t need a message played every single minute whilst I’m waiting for a tube/DLR/train telling me that they’re no allowed. Wouldn’t that information be useful AT THE GATELINE?

    And so on, Transport Against Londoners has to go!

  4. Melvyn says:

    What a pity we can’t get Ken Livingstone back as I’m sure he would find a way of getting more or at least the same for less !

    Perhaps the problems with the bus network could be seen as a way of improving it and reducing costs . For example unless Artic buses are to be reinstated then several routes that were changed when they were introduced could be simplified.

    For example re- extend the 149 to Ponders End and remove the separate 349 likewise extend the 476 to Oxford Circus and remove the 73 ( which would provide more links from Oxford Circus!) . There are no doubt other routes which could be extended and combined reducing the number of buses required and costs of operations.

  5. Pete Jackson says:

    Unfortunately, TFL is still stuck in the stone ages with how they operate buses and that is what is killing them financially. Until they adopt change, nothing will change.

    While it means cutting back very slightly on some standards, they can save an absolute fortune.
    Opening up school bus contracts to the open market (as per the rest of the country). They don’t need ibus, Wayfarer can be sorted. Don’t need dual doors and the kids don’t care what colour the bus is. There you go, just saved you tends of thousands of pounds each year. Just like that.

    Why does TFL have buses so far over the borders? The 411 runs 90% out of London, give it to commercial companies and run it under LSP.

    Most of the routes can save 1-3 buses by cutting layover, many of the buses spend as long running as they do sat on layover. What a waste.

    TFL waste so much money, this is long overdue, make them save a bit. Unfortunately, the monkeys in that office don’t have the braincells to make changes like those above, instead it’s just big cuts to areas and blaming everyone else for their inability to have a clue what they are doing!

  6. Nicholas Bennett says:

    Automate the underground. Both the Jubilee and Victoria lines were built for automated trains.

    • ianVisits says:

      No, they weren’t.

    • ChrisC says:

      And where are the billions that would cost going to come from?

      Plus all the disruption from the line closures for it to be installed and tested.

      If it was as simple as that then why didn’t Boris start the process off in 2008?

      Because it’s not that simple.

  7. LMonroe says:

    Costs will obviously be cut if demand is lower. At that point there are political choices to be made between cuts to services, cuts to capital expenditure, and cuts to long-term staff costs.

    The latter is by far the preference. Pensions can be slashed to become defined contribution at statutory minimum contributions. Pay can be frozen for the entirety of the mayoral term. Open all TfL jobs up to full market, rather than have artificial barriers to entry restricting certain jobs to existing TfL staff. Remove unions from any training element of the jobs.

    Make national DfT contracts with Waymo etc for widespread self-driving car trials contingent on delivering success with self-driving tube trains (a trivial problem in comparison, and with various levels of automation already widely deployed throughout the world, despite all the bleating by RMT apologists about Turnham Green).

    • ChrisC says:

      Lower demand does not automatically lead to cost savings and if they do they are marginal at best when it comes to the total expeniture of TFL.

      It costs the same to run and maintain a station wether it’s used by 10,000 people or 10,000,000.

      Changes to pension rules can take decades to come to full fruition.

      As to things like self driving tube stations where are the BILLIONS that will cost going to come from? And implementing automation is hardly ‘trivial’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Home >> News >> Transport News