|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 2, 2021 8:28:31 GMT
Thanks for posting this, lots more information than they normally release about number of boarders and level of success of recent service changes. It’s a shame they don’t include more London hospitals such as West Middlesex to test the effectiveness of the H22 extension.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Nov 25, 2021 19:11:59 GMT
This article from the Evening Standard popped up on my phone earlier today which details what might happen if TfL were to receive no more financial bailouts from the Government following their latest financial committee meeting. I do think there's a bit of scaremongering going on here however. Surely no responsible Government would actively allow their capital's transport provider to go into managed decline and ultimately file for bankruptcy, which also would create further problems for themselves as it will be the government's responsibility to run TfL's services should they file for bankruptcy. The article also makes it out as if the government are "reluctant" to award TfL more funding, which is the impression I got when I read that Andy Byford had requested to start talks with Grant Shapps but had yet to receive a reply. Why on earth would they be reluctant to do so? As the prime minister was once Mayor of London himself and surely realises how important TfL are for not only London's but the overall British economy, there will surely be a further funding deal agreed before the deadline. If the government can bail out energy companies going bankrupt then they have no excuse not to do the same for TfL. It also annoys me that party politics has a factor to play in agreeing more funding, if for example the government allow TfL to go bankrupt just because it's run by a Labour mayor and then step in at the last minute to save it. It should not be a factor in agreeing funding for an essential service that keeps the capital moving.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2021 19:28:41 GMT
This article from the Evening Standard popped up on my phone earlier today which details what might happen if TfL were to receive no more financial bailouts from the Government following their latest financial committee meeting. I do think there's a bit of scaremongering going on here however. Surely no responsible Government would actively allow their capital's transport provider to go into managed decline and ultimately file for bankruptcy, which also would create further problems for themselves as it will be the government's responsibility to run TfL's services should they file for bankruptcy. The article also makes it out as if the government are "reluctant" to award TfL more funding, which is the impression I got when I read that Andy Byford had requested to start talks with Grant Shapps but had yet to receive a reply. Why on earth would they be reluctant to do so? As the prime minister was once Mayor of London himself and surely realises how important TfL are for not only London's but the overall British economy, there will surely be a further funding deal agreed before the deadline. If the government can bail out energy companies going bankrupt then they have no excuse not to do the same for TfL. It also annoys me that party politics has a factor to play in agreeing more funding, if for example the government allow TfL to go bankrupt just because it's run by a Labour mayor and then step in at the last minute to save it. It should not be a factor in agreeing funding for an essential service that keeps the capital moving. The government is effectively managing to annoy all corners of this country in one full swoop, couldn't care less about London hence their 'leveling up' plan nor could less about the north getting the improvements it needs.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 7, 2021 6:20:13 GMT
Published Monday Evening TfL Board, Finance Report, Budget submission, Capital Strategy (haven’t read it yet, but might say what is planned to be happening, in these cash strapped times) board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/b2376/Supplementary%20Agenda%20-%20Item%207%20Wednesday%2008-Dec-2021%2010.00%20Board.pdf?T=93.1 The Budget submission presentation (appendix 1) and the TfL Budget submission to the GLA Budget (including Capital Strategy) (appendix 2) Agenda Item 7 more detail on the Finance Committee paper from 24 November 2021, which outlined what options TfL would need to take to close its funding gap absent further funding. This followed confirmation from Government, as part of its Comprehensive Spending Review, that TfL would not receive any capital funding for 2022/23 – 2024/25 beyond the £1billion per annum devolved business rates already received.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 7, 2021 8:54:30 GMT
So an 18% reaction in bus services between now and 2024 is a definite or a worst case scenario. I can't quite work out if TFL are spelling out what happens without support or whether this is a commitment now to aim to close the funding gap.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 7, 2021 16:55:57 GMT
So an 18% reaction in bus services between now and 2024 is a definite or a worst case scenario. I can't quite work out if TFL are spelling out what happens without support or whether this is a commitment now to aim to close the funding gap. This is a very plausible worst-case scenario where TfL doesn’t receive any government funding for 2022/23. Without funding, TfL are saying they will enter a period of “managed decline” cutting 100 bus routes or equivalent to 18% of buses, plus a 9% reduction in tube services between 2022/23 and 2024/25. TfL also state that fewer buses also jeopardises their ability to achieve an all electric fleet before 2034. That figure for the reductions is caveated by a scenario where London is recovering from COVID and is still subject to consultations (LOL!) and Impact Assessments. It’s blindingly clear that TfL operates at a deficit, even though the Mayor has stripped out a lot from TfL’s back office costs. The COVID situation looks like it will persist for a while yet and only way I can see this being resolved is for Boris Johnson’s disastrous deal with George Osborne to remove all TfL central funding to be reversed. A halfway approach of “emergency funding” saves the PM’s blushes from reversing his previous decision as MoL, but also puts TfL in a bad light with accusations that they are being bailed out. Truth is that without funding from government, many more Londoners will revert back to their cars as they are asked to pay more for fewer services. The poorest will (as usual) be hit the hardest. No car, and often working in jobs with unsocial hours needing access to public transport early morning and late at night. Also London will become less attractive to prospective employers if it ends up with a transport system no better than Leeds. Feels like levelling down, rather than levelling up.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 7, 2021 17:24:13 GMT
So an 18% reaction in bus services between now and 2024 is a definite or a worst case scenario. I can't quite work out if TFL are spelling out what happens without support or whether this is a commitment now to aim to close the funding gap. This is a very plausible worst-case scenario where TfL doesn’t receive any government funding for 2022/23. Without funding, TfL are saying they will enter a period of “managed decline” cutting 100 bus routes or equivalent to 18% of buses, plus a 9% reduction in tube services between 2022/23 and 2024/25. TfL also state that fewer buses also jeopardises their ability to achieve an all electric fleet before 2034. That figure for the reductions is caveated by a scenario where London is recovering from COVID and is still subject to consultations (LOL!) and Impact Assessments. It’s blindingly clear that TfL operates at a deficit, even though the Mayor has stripped out a lot from TfL’s back office costs. The COVID situation looks like it will persist for a while yet and only way I can see this being resolved is for Boris Johnson’s disastrous deal with George Osborne to remove all TfL central funding to be reversed. A halfway approach of “emergency funding” saves the PM’s blushes from reversing his previous decision as MoL, but also puts TfL in a bad light with accusations that they are being bailed out. Truth is that without funding from government, many more Londoners will revert back to their cars as they are asked to pay more for fewer services. The poorest will (as usual) be hit the hardest. No car, and often working in jobs with unsocial hours needing access to public transport early morning and late at night. Also London will become less attractive to prospective employers if it ends up with a transport system no better than Leeds. Feels like levelling down, rather than levelling up. Put some perspective on that, each borough would have to reduce the PVR by roughly 35 ... and if the cut service goes into a neighbouring borough, that borough can not use that cut to boost their own figures.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2021 17:25:07 GMT
So an 18% reaction in bus services between now and 2024 is a definite or a worst case scenario. I can't quite work out if TFL are spelling out what happens without support or whether this is a commitment now to aim to close the funding gap. This is a very plausible worst-case scenario where TfL doesn’t receive any government funding for 2022/23. Without funding, TfL are saying they will enter a period of “managed decline” cutting 100 bus routes or equivalent to 18% of buses, plus a 9% reduction in tube services between 2022/23 and 2024/25. TfL also state that fewer buses also jeopardises their ability to achieve an all electric fleet before 2034. That figure for the reductions is caveated by a scenario where London is recovering from COVID and is still subject to consultations (LOL!) and Impact Assessments. It’s blindingly clear that TfL operates at a deficit, even though the Mayor has stripped out a lot from TfL’s back office costs. The COVID situation looks like it will persist for a while yet and only way I can see this being resolved is for Boris Johnson’s disastrous deal with George Osborne to remove all TfL central funding to be reversed. A halfway approach of “emergency funding” saves the PM’s blushes from reversing his previous decision as MoL, but also puts TfL in a bad light with accusations that they are being bailed out. Truth is that without funding from government, many more Londoners will revert back to their cars as they are asked to pay more for fewer services. The poorest will (as usual) be hit the hardest. No car, and often working in jobs with unsocial hours needing access to public transport early morning and late at night. Also London will become less attractive to prospective employers if it ends up with a transport system no better than Leeds. Feels like levelling down, rather than levelling up. Absolutely spot on - I now wait an inevitable comment from someone saying it’s scaremongering…
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 7, 2021 17:46:04 GMT
This is a very plausible worst-case scenario where TfL doesn’t receive any government funding for 2022/23. Without funding, TfL are saying they will enter a period of “managed decline” cutting 100 bus routes or equivalent to 18% of buses, plus a 9% reduction in tube services between 2022/23 and 2024/25. TfL also state that fewer buses also jeopardises their ability to achieve an all electric fleet before 2034. That figure for the reductions is caveated by a scenario where London is recovering from COVID and is still subject to consultations (LOL!) and Impact Assessments. It’s blindingly clear that TfL operates at a deficit, even though the Mayor has stripped out a lot from TfL’s back office costs. The COVID situation looks like it will persist for a while yet and only way I can see this being resolved is for Boris Johnson’s disastrous deal with George Osborne to remove all TfL central funding to be reversed. A halfway approach of “emergency funding” saves the PM’s blushes from reversing his previous decision as MoL, but also puts TfL in a bad light with accusations that they are being bailed out. Truth is that without funding from government, many more Londoners will revert back to their cars as they are asked to pay more for fewer services. The poorest will (as usual) be hit the hardest. No car, and often working in jobs with unsocial hours needing access to public transport early morning and late at night. Also London will become less attractive to prospective employers if it ends up with a transport system no better than Leeds. Feels like levelling down, rather than levelling up. Absolutely spot on - I now wait an inevitable comment from someone saying it’s scaremongering… This is what it actually says (page 52 of the link) Shaping the bus network: Buses are one of the most affordable, accessible, and inclusive forms of transport in London and are the backbone of London’s transport network. As the main sustainable alternative to the car in many parts of our city, buses and active travel are key to achieving the Mayor’s sustainable transport, safety, and environmental targets. We continuously review the bus network to ensure our services reflect the changing demand of our city and deliver value for money for our customers. The pandemic had a significant impact on bus demand, however, in November 2021 bus ridership was recorded at 72 per cent of normal demand on a weekday and 77 per cent on a weekend, showing a growth in customer confidence. Our Financial Sustainability Plan was clear that wholesale reductions to service levels would be counter-productive, damaging the recovery and increasing the likelihood of a return to car travel. However, the ‘Managed Decline’ scenario means we are now having to plan for up to an 18 per cent reduction in bus services by 2024/25, unless more funding can be made available. Our high-level assessment suggests that achieving this level of service reductions would require over 100 routes to be withdrawn (about a seventh of the network) and over 200 routes (about a third of all remaining routes) would have frequencies reduced. While our intention to date has been to focus changes to frequencies and services in inner London where there are more travel alternatives, as the scale of change increases it becomes impossible to limit changes to central and inner London, and the impact on outer London becomes much larger. board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/b2376/Supplementary%20Agenda%20-%20Item%207%20Wednesday%2008-Dec-2021%2010.00%20Board.pdf?T=9Note use of upto (so this is worst case scenario) about 100 routes axed (one seventh) about 200 routes with frequency cuts (two sevenths) therefore (but not stated) about 400 routes untouched (remaining 4/7th)
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 7, 2021 19:27:32 GMT
It would be a shame to see services cut, I don't know how the meeting went (was it for today?) but the Government have a few other issues to address such as the botched rescue in Kabul this summer, which has pushed this Funding issue into the background... If, like Leeds, bus operators won't force us into base spec vehicles with hard cloth seats with minimal padding, no WiFi, no branding or variety of liveries, and buses can get up to a decent speed even if not as frequent, then I'm all for it I saw a bus on the 214 with torn blinds, a few other buses across London I have seen with rear blinds missing the E200's on the 318 don't even bother setting blinds leaving everything on white blanks. Presentation does count for something. I think as the majority work from home, there's scope to reduce services if they are not being used as much. From a business perspective, it's more practical, especially if the cupboard is bare. I bet there's still a few consultancy roles which could go, and Khan could let go of one of the decoy Range Rovers...
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Dec 7, 2021 19:42:43 GMT
It would be a shame to see services cut, I don't know how the meeting went (was it for today?) but the Government have a few other issues to address such as the botched rescue in Kabul this summer, which has pushed this Funding issue into the background... If, like Leeds, bus operators won't force us into base spec vehicles with hard cloth seats with minimal padding, no WiFi, no branding or variety of liveries, and buses can get up to a decent speed even if not as frequent, then I'm all for it I saw a bus on the 214 with torn blinds, a few other buses across London I have seen with rear blinds missing the E200's on the 318 don't even bother setting blinds leaving everything on white blanks. Presentation does count for something. I think as the majority work from home, there's scope to reduce services if they are not being used as much. From a business perspective, it's more practical, especially if the cupboard is bare. I bet there's still a few consultancy roles which could go, and Khan could let go of one of the decoy Range Rovers... Start with axing the plethora of deputy mayors and most of the special appointments like the night czar and the victims commissioner. Amy Lame earns £75k annually and basically does nothing except hold drag events. God only knows what a victim commissioner does.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2021 20:15:40 GMT
Absolutely spot on - I now wait an inevitable comment from someone saying it’s scaremongering… This is what it actually says (page 52 of the link) Shaping the bus network: Buses are one of the most affordable, accessible, and inclusive forms of transport in London and are the backbone of London’s transport network. As the main sustainable alternative to the car in many parts of our city, buses and active travel are key to achieving the Mayor’s sustainable transport, safety, and environmental targets. We continuously review the bus network to ensure our services reflect the changing demand of our city and deliver value for money for our customers. The pandemic had a significant impact on bus demand, however, in November 2021 bus ridership was recorded at 72 per cent of normal demand on a weekday and 77 per cent on a weekend, showing a growth in customer confidence. Our Financial Sustainability Plan was clear that wholesale reductions to service levels would be counter-productive, damaging the recovery and increasing the likelihood of a return to car travel. However, the ‘Managed Decline’ scenario means we are now having to plan for up to an 18 per cent reduction in bus services by 2024/25, unless more funding can be made available. Our high-level assessment suggests that achieving this level of service reductions would require over 100 routes to be withdrawn (about a seventh of the network) and over 200 routes (about a third of all remaining routes) would have frequencies reduced. While our intention to date has been to focus changes to frequencies and services in inner London where there are more travel alternatives, as the scale of change increases it becomes impossible to limit changes to central and inner London, and the impact on outer London becomes much larger. board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/b2376/Supplementary%20Agenda%20-%20Item%207%20Wednesday%2008-Dec-2021%2010.00%20Board.pdf?T=9Note use of upto (so this is worst case scenario) about 100 routes axed (one seventh) about 200 routes with frequency cuts (two sevenths) therefore (but not stated) about 400 routes untouched (remaining 4/7th) I’m lost as to why your quoting me specifically?
|
|