|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2020 9:51:35 GMT
None of this has any backing at all. Can you actually read the data rather than being unable to open it because it doesn't agree with your opinion? The survey carried out shows the extreme likelihood of a 33% increase in traffic. Why are you trying to argue with collected data unless you have data yourself that says otherwise? Any report that does not state which methodologies and assumptions have been used should not hold much water. If they have just created a lot of perceived worse case scenarios ... then it is unlikely any let alone all of them will happen, just the same as if you base a report on the best case scenarios, which is just as unlikely to happen. Any report should include both the best and worst case scenarios, then justify how they came up with there middle ground figures the are projecting, together with a margin of error. Basically it is a letter with a back of a cigarette packet calculation ... any scientific report would go for many pages. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2020 9:55:31 GMT
Can you actually read the data rather than being unable to open it because it doesn't agree with your opinion? The survey carried out shows the extreme likelihood of a 33% increase in traffic. Why are you trying to argue with collected data unless you have data yourself that says otherwise? Any report that does not state which methodologies and assumptions have been used should not hold much water. If they have just created a lot of perceived worse case scenarios ... then it is unlikely any let alone all of them will happen, just the same as if you base a report on the best case scenarios, which is just as unlikely to happen. Any report should include both the best and worst case scenarios, then justify how they came up with there middle ground figures the are projecting, together with a margin of error. Basically it is a letter with a back of a cigarette packet calculation ... any scientific report would go for many pages. It's still some backing however, unlike someone who's refusing to open the file and read it because they disagree with it... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 10:00:47 GMT
Any report that does not state which methodologies and assumptions have been used should not hold much water. If they have just created a lot of perceived worse case scenarios ... then it is unlikely any let alone all of them will happen, just the same as if you base a report on the best case scenarios, which is just as unlikely to happen. Any report should include both the best and worst case scenarios, then justify how they came up with there middle ground figures the are projecting, together with a margin of error. Basically it is a letter with a back of a cigarette packet calculation ... any scientific report would go for many pages. It's still some backing however, unlike someone who's refusing to open the file and read it because they disagree with it... It is, but the report itself is full of a lot of percentage numbers which mean nothing. Maybe if they looked at data for each borough and determined where the most disadvantaged would be and the average number of expected car journeys increased. It would also be helpful if they looked at whether these are parents specifically driving their kids to school or dropping them at a point on their way to work. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2020 10:04:02 GMT
None of this has any backing at all. Can you actually read the data rather than being unable to open it because it doesn't agree with your opinion? The survey carried out shows the extreme likelihood of a 33% increase in traffic. Why are you trying to argue with collected data unless you have data yourself that says otherwise? I have opened the file and skimmed through it, there is not much I can add to what others have said. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 21, 2020 11:09:47 GMT
The TfL Board papers (for meeting which started at 10am today) have a note that item 8 funding, is being replaced by verbal update
Seems to me there is blunt choice:
Do what mayor wants (and go bust, more strictly section 114)
or get taken over by Government at end of month
I suspect the second option is more palatable to the Board as it will involve fewer cuts. But of course currently accountable to mayor
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 21, 2020 11:39:56 GMT
If you actually read what I linked in my original post you'd see where the figure comes from. I think it's far more believable to believe proper investigations that have been carried out as opposed to your opinion that doesn't seem to have any backing at all. I’m always distrustful of percentage figure increases. I’d prefer it for clarity if they said we expect an approximate extra xxxxx number compared to the current average xxxxx number. Saying percentages sounds way worse unless figures are quantified. Classic media style fear technique. That isn’t to say that any data collected in wrong, it would be fairly obvious to anyone that there would be traffic increases. There’s lies, d*mned lies and statistics! The 33% figure quoted by London Travelwatch comes from page 23 of this weekly national survey: d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/15175600/Travel-during-Covid-19-survey-16-October-2020.pdfLooking at that statement in the wording of the letter: Recently our weekly survey has highlighted the intention of 33% of Londoners to drive more once Covid no longer poses a significant risk. Furthermore, parents are even more likely to say that they will drive more in future than non-parents (34% - a figure conveniently omitted from the letter). The 34% figure refers to all parents nationally and doesn’t actually give a number for parents in London. Also a 33% increase in intention to drive doesn’t translate into a 33% increase in traffic. Before COVID-19, just under 20% of traffic was down to trade/commercial with projections to rise with increased use of online shopping: www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/meetings/documents/s49209/Appendix%201%20-%20Light%20Commercial%20Traffic%20-%20scoping%20paper.pdf So the increase would be about 33% of 80% - which is still significant. The survey doesn’t look into the cause of the increased intention to drive. Looking at booming second hand car sales figures, it would suggest many people across the country have invested in personal transport. If you spent hundreds or even thousands of pounds on a new vehicle so you could avoid public transport during COVID-19, would you really leave it parked up once things went back to normal? No change in bus fare policy is going to reduce the intention to drive that new vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Oct 21, 2020 11:54:41 GMT
Does Shaun Bailey still not realise he is a puppet for the government - it's great he doesn't back congestion charge extension but equally, I don't forsee Shapps dropping that pledge just for Bailey. Bailey doesn't even understand what the Mayor's responsibilities are - ten days ago, he blamed Khan for "letting London fall behind" other countries by not allowing fans to return to football matches in London. He failed to grasp that that decision lies with central Government as a matter of national policy, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Mayor. Words fall out of his mouth, but most of them amount to little more than disingenuous nonsense, ill-informed gibberish, or plain and simple lies - none of which stands up to even the lightest of scrutiny. As we can see, Bailey's "Blame Sadiq!" tactic is working well  |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 21, 2020 12:23:41 GMT
Bailey doesn't even understand what the Mayor's responsibilities are - ten days ago, he blamed Khan for "letting London fall behind" other countries by not allowing fans to return to football matches in London. He failed to grasp that that decision lies with central Government as a matter of national policy, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Mayor. Words fall out of his mouth, but most of them amount to little more than disingenuous nonsense, ill-informed gibberish, or plain and simple lies - none of which stands up to even the lightest of scrutiny. As we can see, Bailey's "Blame Sadiq!" tactic is working well HAHAHAHAHA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 12:29:10 GMT
As much as I hate Sadiq Khan, this whole TfL bailout thing has lost Bailey my support.
While Khan was indeed very stupid when it came to TFL finances, he's not the whole problem. This issue dates back years to the days of Cameron and Osborne, who cut a large chunk of funding from central government, and left TFL with the vast majority of their income coming from fares revenue - which has obviously fallen apart as passenger numbers plummeted due to the pandemic, and so did fares revenue. So whether it was Khan or Zac Goldsmith who won the mayorship, either way TFL would have been in deep financial trouble now.
I too am sceptical about this whole congestion charge zone expansion. I do wonder if this whole thing is simply a pretext for something coming later, but I'll hold judgement on what that could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 21, 2020 17:25:32 GMT
The TfL Board papers (for meeting which started at 10am today) have a note that item 8 funding, is being replaced by verbal update Seems to me there is blunt choice: Do what mayor wants (and go bust, more strictly section 114) or get taken over by Government at end of month I suspect the second option is more palatable to the Board as it will involve fewer cuts. But of course currently accountable to mayor TfL, £12bn in debt, making £400m in repayments is effectively broke. DfT taking over will trim the fat, all the consultants on bloated salaries, along with the Knife Czar cannbe sent packing. Automatic trains are being pushed for, to shift some of the £65k drivers who will strike at the drop of a hat. Even the 1967 stock on the Victoria Line was automated, as is the 2009 stock. I think that Boris Johnson won't force the Congestion Charge Extension through, broke TfL will have no money to give Siemens, Ringway and other contractors involved in infrastructure for the cameras  If Option One is chosen, TfL goes bust, and the government steps in anyway. All TfL should be doing is tube, bus, Overground and Crossrail, Woolwich Ferry and streets including Congestion Charge. Everything else can go. Government is taking on a lot, running two rail franchises (LNER and Northern), along with TfL whilst spending loads with Furlough, Eat Out scheme etc...  |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2020 17:34:30 GMT
The TfL Board papers (for meeting which started at 10am today) have a note that item 8 funding, is being replaced by verbal update Seems to me there is blunt choice: Do what mayor wants (and go bust, more strictly section 114) or get taken over by Government at end of month I suspect the second option is more palatable to the Board as it will involve fewer cuts. But of course currently accountable to mayor TfL, £12bn in debt, making £400m in repayments is effectively broke. DfT taking over will trim the fat, all the consultants on bloated salaries, along with the Knife Czar cannbe sent packing. Automatic trains are being pushed for, to shift some of the £65k drivers who will strike at the drop of a hat. Even the 1967 stock on the Victoria Line was automated, as is the 2009 stock. I think that Boris Johnson won't force the Congestion Charge Extension through, broke TfL will have no money to give Siemens, Ringway and other contractors involved in infrastructure for the cameras If Option One is chosen, TfL goes bust, and the government steps in anyway. All TfL should be doing is tube, bus, Overground and Crossrail, Woolwich Ferry and streets including Congestion Charge. Everything else can go. Government is taking on a lot, running two rail franchises (LNER and Northern), along with TfL whilst spending loads with Furlough, Eat Out scheme etc... Overground and Crossrail become part of NR |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 21, 2020 18:42:44 GMT
What’s the news on Silvertown tunnel in all of this? That project costs £1.2bn of TfL funds. Any sign of that project being in jeopardy or is it still going ahead?
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 21, 2020 19:07:36 GMT
What’s the news on Silvertown tunnel in all of this? That project costs £1.2bn of TfL funds. Any sign of that project being in jeopardy or is it still going ahead? The risk is with the consortium building the tunnel. I assume if they can no longer commit then new contractors will be sought. TfL dont start paying for the tunnel until it is open |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 21, 2020 19:17:36 GMT
The London Travelwatch investigation is interesting, and to my mind it is political suicide to remove free travel from children or senior citizens.
Without doubt there is a crater of gigantic proportions in TfL finances that needs to be addressed and the question is how. Much comes down to politics and how you think public transport should be funded. If you believe central government should part fund transport, then you argue as the Mayor does that government should provide the bailout. If as the government believes fare income should finance TfL then you have a different problem because there simply aren't the passengers at the current time to do this. Therefore in order to reduce / minimise a government bailout other options are being put on the table from reducing concessions, increased council tax, expanded congestion charge and so on. Add to that what seems to be a government hatred of the some of the Mayoral policies such as the fares freeze making a bailout toxic for them, even though TfL would still be 'bankrupt' if there hadn't been a fares freeze.
I think a lot of what the government is doing is also designed to affect the Mayoral election, albeit it is yet to have much effect for them. I see the Mayor is potentially in a very difficult spot, for if he were to agree to remove concessions, expand the congestion charge etc he would be blamed and it could well impact his re-election. If he refuses then TfL won't go bust, the government will assume control. That will leave a big question about what the Mayoralty is for with no control of TfL. Nevertheless based on the demands we know, I see this as the Mayor's least worst option - at least he can say he stood up for Londoners, and that is likely to play well for him in the forthcoming election. This would then turn the spotlight on the government as they will now be blamed for what happens at TfL. If the government then reduce concessions, increase congestion charge etc they may well try and blame that on the Mayor, but I don't think that will wash, I think it will have the opposite effect and strengthen the Mayor. If on the other hand the government can show some form of 'mismanagement' and show how much better they can run things whilst not reducing concessions or increasing the congestion charge area that could be very bad news for the Mayor.
Whoever removes concessions will pay a high political price. Senior citizens are also more likely to vote, need I say more. I think extending the congestion charge to the north and south circular roads will be completely toxic, it simply won't go down well and there will also be a high economic price to pay, something we can ill-afford given the current pandemic. On the other hand raising fares more is likely to be more acceptable given the current predicament. This may also be the time to introduce a Council Tax levy for TfL, that could potentially solve a lot of problems and be more politically acceptable. It could also save us from removing concessions etc. It would also be a better bet for those with lower incomes as they could be largely shielded from the increase via council tax discount.
Interesting times and be prepared for a very bumpy ride!
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 21, 2020 21:16:32 GMT
The London Travelwatch investigation is interesting, and to my mind it is political suicide to remove free travel from children or senior citizens. Without doubt there is a crater of gigantic proportions in TfL finances that needs to be addressed and the question is how. Much comes down to politics and how you think public transport should be funded. If you believe central government should part fund transport, then you argue as the Mayor does that government should provide the bailout. If as the government believes fare income should finance TfL then you have a different problem because there simply aren't the passengers at the current time to do this. Therefore in order to reduce / minimise a government bailout other options are being put on the table from reducing concessions, increased council tax, expanded congestion charge and so on. Add to that what seems to be a government hatred of the some of the Mayoral policies such as the fares freeze making a bailout toxic for them, even though TfL would still be 'bankrupt' if there hadn't been a fares freeze. I think a lot of what the government is doing is also designed to affect the Mayoral election, albeit it is yet to have much effect for them. I see the Mayor is potentially in a very difficult spot, for if he were to agree to remove concessions, expand the congestion charge etc he would be blamed and it could well impact his re-election. If he refuses then TfL won't go bust, the government will assume control. That will leave a big question about what the Mayoralty is for with no control of TfL. Nevertheless based on the demands we know, I see this as the Mayor's least worst option - at least he can say he stood up for Londoners, and that is likely to play well for him in the forthcoming election. This would then turn the spotlight on the government as they will now be blamed for what happens at TfL. If the government then reduce concessions, increase congestion charge etc they may well try and blame that on the Mayor, but I don't think that will wash, I think it will have the opposite effect and strengthen the Mayor. If on the other hand the government can show some form of 'mismanagement' and show how much better they can run things whilst not reducing concessions or increasing the congestion charge area that could be very bad news for the Mayor. Whoever removes concessions will pay a high political price. Senior citizens are also more likely to vote, need I say more. I think extending the congestion charge to the north and south circular roads will be completely toxic, it simply won't go down well and there will also be a high economic price to pay, something we can ill-afford given the current pandemic. On the other hand raising fares more is likely to be more acceptable given the current predicament. This may also be the time to introduce a Council Tax levy for TfL, that could potentially solve a lot of problems and be more politically acceptable. It could also save us from removing concessions etc. It would also be a better bet for those with lower incomes as they could be largely shielded from the increase via council tax discount. Interesting times and be prepared for a very bumpy ride! It's the perfect storm... although great investment has been made in some areas (replacing 40 year old trains on the Overground in West Anglia Inners, new sub surface stock), few investments can be seen in others. Threadbare seat moquette is very common, sadly on newer stock... I thought Staines was near Heathrow before I sat on the Victoria line Bus operators may begrudgingly operate services at a loss (TfL's loss more than theirs), requests for new buses must have dried up with more of a make do and mend policy (see teenage buses on the 318s), as the cupboard is bare. Those elderly people not at home will not appreciate paying for fares, but the threat of Congestion Charge Extension is just that- a threat. I can't see it happening. TfL can sell off the multitude of offices they have acquired. DfT takeover will happen as both Khan and the Tories own candidate have condemned the Congestion Charge Extension... |
|
