The debt ratings agency, Moody’s has lowered TfL’s debt ratings, with Moody’s citing weaker economic growth and higher inflation which is hindering the recovery of passenger growth. The implication is that as ratings are used by banks and lenders to judge how likely a firm is to repay its debt, lower ratings usually leads to higher costs as lenders charge more to companies at a higher risk of not being able to pay back their loans.

TfL’s debt stood at £13,070 million at the end of 2021.

The downgrade moves TfL’s debt from Moody’s definition of low risk of default (A3) to moderate risk of default (Baa1).

Moody’s said that the downgrade was due to its opinion that TfL’s operating performance will be weaker than expected due to new hurdles, namely weaker economic growth and higher inflation, hindering the recovery of passenger growth.

The downgrade also reflects the ongoing uncertainty around TfL’s long-term funding framework, especially for capital funding. While Moody’s expects additional government support to be forthcoming, it is unlikely to fully cover TfL’s capital funding needs and is likely to be accompanied by onerous conditions.

TfL is still in discussions with the Department for Transport over a funding settlement that’s been ongoing ever since the pandemic wiped out most of TfL’s income. The current funding settlement expires on 24th June 2022.

Under the current funding settlement, TfL must identify £400 million of cost savings or additional revenue in fiscal 2023. Although the opening of the Elizabeth line in a couple of weeks time, along with the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will raise around £500 – £750 million per year from fiscal 2023, that still leaves a gap of around £1 billion for the year. Moody’s is warning that TfL may require an additional operating subsidy to balance its budget for fiscal 2024 given the more challenging operating environment.

TfL is unusually dependent on fares revenue for its income compared to most other major city public transport networks, where the society benefits are generally considered worthy of central government funding.

Although passenger numbers have grown significantly since pandemic lows with the most recent data reporting ridership across TfL of 72% of pre-pandemic numbers. Moody’s doesn’t expect ridership to exceed 80% by fiscal 2024. Moody’s estimate for passenger income for fiscal 2023 is £4.3 billion, down £400 million from last year’s forecast of £4.7 billion.

High inflation also poses downside risks to this forecast if it increases the sensitivity of passenger demand to TfL’s prices. The link with inflation could see a substantial fares rise next year, as the calculation is based on inflation in July, and that’s predicted to be anywhere between 7% to 9% this coming July – leading to a possible 10% hike in fares next year.

That could see TfL’s ridership fall as people cut back on discretionary spending, which is bad for TfL, but also likely to have knock-on effects on London’s wider cultural venues as they may see a decline in people willing to travel into the West End.

And that in turn puts even more pressure on TfL to cut costs or raise fares to service its debt.

A Transport for London (TfL) spokesperson said: “Moody’s decision to amend our long-term rating by one notch, as well as upgrade our outlook to ‘stable’ reflects a number of factors, including concerns that operating performance will be weaker than expected due to weaker economic growth and higher inflation, as well as the ongoing uncertainty around TfL’s long-term funding framework, especially for capital funding.”

“We continue to rebuild ridership on all our services – with the Tube now seeing more than two thirds of ridership on weekdays compared to pre-pandemic levels and buses consistently being 75-80 per cent of pre-pandemic levels. With the forthcoming opening of the Elizabeth line, the completion of the Bank station capacity upgrade and delivery of more UK-built zero-emission buses across the city, public transport will continue to make a vital contribution to the economic recovery of London and the wider country. To ensure this recovery is successful, it is crucial that a longer-term settlement with Government is confirmed. Our discussions with Government on this continue.”

Updated 9:47am to add TfL spokesperson quote.

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

6 comments
  1. Brian Butterworth says:

    Sound like a GRaa1t Shapps downgrade.

  2. LMonroe says:

    Excellent news, it will restrain Sadiq’s capacity to borrow as he will have to pay higher interest rates.

    Khan and Byford will just have to beg harder.

    • Christopher Benjamin says:

      How does that benefit Londoners, our infrastructure and the wider economy with supply chains. Delusional

  3. ng says:

    LMonroe
    What utter ignorant rubbish, spouting from a tory mouthpiece!
    London has had its transport grants & subsidies systematically removed by Johnson & his cronies, as a set of acts of pure personal & political spite.
    The Londoners are the ones who suffer, as a result.

    Chris Benjamin has it correctly.

    • LMonroe says:

      Londoners suffer because Khan and Byford have agreed 8% pay rises for staff at a time when their revenue is down by 25%. A pay freeze for those paid more than £20K per year pro-rata would have made a big dent in the budget shortfall. Changing the pension scheme to be defined contribution at the statutory minimums would, over time, do even more.

      Pre-pandemic agreements with overpaid tube staff can be torn up at will. Strikes have so much less effect now it’s almost comical – a massive proportion of Londoners can WFH on strike days.

      Why should the rest of the country subsidise London to overpay a bloated and lazy tube workforce?

    • ianVisits says:

      The rest of the UK doesn’t subsidise London’s transport – but let’s say it did and you seem to think that’s a bad thing, preferring local taxes to be spent where they’re raised, do remember that London contributes around £38 billion a year more in tax than is spent on it.

      So if we were to adopt local taxes for local spending, London would be considerably better off, and the rest of the country considerably poorer.

      Do you want that?

Leave a Reply to Brian Butterworth Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Home >> News >> Transport News