|
Post by SILENCED on May 29, 2021 10:36:32 GMT
It seems there's no agreement yet on a new funding package. A press release has just been published by TfL: It's not clear under what terms TfL is continuing to operate without a funding agreement in place, but I would assume there's some form of interim rolling finance package under which government agrees to continue funding operations on a day-by-day basis while discussions continue, but with restrictions on any new or 'non-essential' expenditure. From what I can make out they are operating on higher than expected fare income recently .... how long will that last, hours, days?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 29, 2021 11:09:44 GMT
It seems there's no agreement yet on a new funding package. A press release has just been published by TfL: It's not clear under what terms TfL is continuing to operate without a funding agreement in place, but I would assume there's some form of interim rolling finance package under which government agrees to continue funding operations on a day-by-day basis while discussions continue, but with restrictions on any new or 'non-essential' expenditure. Short term any organisation can carry on, by delaying paying suppliers etc. Of course they won’t tolerate it for long, as would the staff if their pay stopped. Contractors have hard choice, either stop until paid or carry on not knowing if and when they will be paid. They have to balance how much they want further work with TfL vs pulling the plug. As long as TfL don’t exceed their borrowing authority, they can muddle on for a while, although eventually someone who is unpaid will have enough. Most people would take the view that TfL will be bailed out in next few days so not worth risking future business by stopping now, but if there is nothing by next weekend they will start to question if they should continue until any arrears are settled. I suspect many bills due end of May were paid as would have been set up days ago.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jun 1, 2021 11:28:58 GMT
TfL has just announced that it has reached an agreement with the Government for an extension to its financial support, running through to 11 December 2021. Under the conditions of the latest agreement, TfL has said that it needs "to find a further £900m of savings or new income this year compared to our approved Budget and on top of the £730m of savings already assumed in our Business Plan." It added: TfL also says that with support from the Department for Transport, it will be "implementing a programme of work that would allow TfL to reach a financially sustainable position as soon as possible, with a target of no later than April 2023 and a declining trajectory in the meantime of temporary Government grant support." So it looks like TfL is anticipating a further two years of financial assistance from central Government, although the amount it will need will naturally reduce over each period as passenger numbers (currently back up to 60% of pre-coronavirus levels) and other sources of revenue increase. Slightly ominously, TfL also refers to a Government requirement "to make progress on longer term reforms which are likely to be implemented beyond 2023." This will include, among other things, "a DfT led joint programme on the implementation of Driverless Trains on the London Underground". I can only imagine what the unions will have to say about that... The full press release is available here.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 1, 2021 11:45:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 1, 2021 12:16:02 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jun 1, 2021 12:23:52 GMT
It's hard to take seriously any admonition from Grant Shapps that includes the line: ...given that Shapps himself publicly promised that the Government had agreed to fund the entire bridge project, twice. In both instances, the commitments were made as part of campaigns for Conservative candidates (Zac Goldsmith for MP of Richmond Park; and Shaun Bailey for Mayor of London); and in both instances, those commitments were quietly and conveniently forgotten when the Conservative candidates lost their respective elections. It's equally difficult not to laugh out loud at Shapps expressing "disappointment" over the details of the TfL support package appearing in the Financial Times before its official announcement. The affronted implication that TfL must have been responsible, and the indignant criticism of such an act having been committed, are truly hilarious coming from a Government that has made it routine practice to unofficially leak key details of every significant announcement to a select few journalists, before Parliament or the public are formally informed. Frankly, Shapps can be as stern as he likes in his letter. A rebuke from someone so lacking in credibility and moral authority is hardly worth the paper it's printed on - and I imagine many at City Hall enjoyed watching his letter slowly slide through the shredder.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jun 1, 2021 12:31:14 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly Correct. Two reviews "to reconsider required service levels" on buses "subject to the result of the Government’s social distancing review" (similar reviews are also being conducted for Underground and Rail services). For buses, the first review will be delivered by 19 July. The second review will be delivered by 17 September (which is also when the Underground and Rail reviews will be delivered). For each transport mode, "the review must consider VfM [value for money], implementation timescales, economic impact, equalities impact and relevant powers."
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 1, 2021 12:33:53 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly Correct. Two reviews "to reconsider required service levels" on buses "subject to the result of the Government’s social distancing review" (similar reviews are also being conducted for Underground and Rail services). For buses, the first review will be delivered by 19 July. The second review will be delivered by 17 September (which is also when the Underground and Rail reviews will be delivered). For each transport mode, "the review must consider VfM [value for money], implementation timescales, economic impact, equalities impact and relevant powers." Cue all the blame for the already TfL planned Central London changes to be firmly blamed on Central Government. Firmly states it is the opinion of the government that the responsibility for Hammersmith Bridge lies with H&F. About time they accepted that and got on with repairing it ... properly, not so it is closed again a few years after reopening, as repeation of the failed previous repairs and wasted money.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 1, 2021 12:34:53 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly The second review will be delivered by 17 September (which is also when the Underground and Rail reviews will be delivered). I take it this timed review's in relation with the opening of the Battersea extension.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 1, 2021 12:44:14 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly I wonder if this suggests implementation by July or whether at consultation period by July. I'd imagine consultation would be part of the review period, and assuming a 6 week window any consultation would need to be out in the next two weeks. Although if July is only the start of the consultation period then they have a lot more time to play with.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jun 1, 2021 13:31:12 GMT
An initial review into bus service levels by July with a full one by September, if I read that correctly I wonder if this suggests implementation by July or whether at consultation period by July. I'd imagine consultation would be part of the review period, and assuming a 6 week window any consultation would need to be out in the next two weeks. Although if July is only the start of the consultation period then they have a lot more time to play with. I think there may be a bit of confusion about the purpose of these reviews. Significantly, I don't think consultations will play any part in them. As I understand it, the reviews are intended to gauge passenger demand for services versus the provision of vehicles on each route, specifically in relation to how social distancing guidelines are limiting capacity on each vehicle. To put it another way, in July and September, TfL will assess how well the capacity-constrained London-wide bus network is coping with rising levels of passenger journeys, and will combine those assessments with any potential changes in guidance on social distancing from central Government, so it can decide how best to respond. For example, if social distancing guidelines remain unchanged through to the end of 2021, while passenger numbers continue to rise, TfL will need to respond in such a way that the network can continue to operate effectively (e.g. potentially seeking to provide more buses wherever possible, since in that scenario the number of passengers per bus cannot increase, while the number of passengers wishing to travel continues to rise). Conversely, if Government guidelines are adjusted in such a way that more passengers can be carried on each bus over the next few months, as a result of the successful vaccination programme, TfL may wish to respond by reducing the number of buses currently being provided on some routes. On certain routes at certain times of day, where passenger demand is increasing faster than on others, buses could be redeployed from less busy routes to satisfy the change in demand. As far as I can tell, that's the general purpose of these reviews - it's simply to equip TfL with the knowledge it needs to respond to changes in passenger demand across the network. From my understanding, these reviews are not intended to look into the withdrawal or revision of any specific services, and therefore, there would be no need for any consultations; it's just a similar response to how services were boosted after social distancing was introduced last year (which also did not involve any consultations). I would imagine that any more substantial review of bus services that might involve the proposed withdrawal of, or changes to, existing routes will come much later, in the medium-to-long term. Such decisions are not best made in the short term while passenger numbers continue to gradually recover. TfL needs time to see how far that recovery actually goes, and how quickly; if passenger levels miraculously return to near 100% of pre-COVID levels by the end of 2021, deeper changes to the bus network may not be deemed necessary. If the recovery slows down to a crawl by the end of the year and shows few signs of reaching, say, 85% of pre-COVID levels over the following 12 months, then clearly supply of bus services will need to be adjusted to meet the reduction in passenger demand. However, I would be very surprised if any review of that kind is planned until late 2022 at the earliest. There will certainly be proposed changes to a route or two, here and there, but I wouldn't expect any major large-scale consultations or deeper reviews into the wider bus network for at least the next twelve months. That said, TfL is going to have to start identifying potential opportunities to save those hundreds of millions of pounds somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2021 13:44:00 GMT
Some of the key points according to the Evening Standard are:
Fare rises of RPI plus 1% from next January (at a time when National Express cut their fares meaning a day ticket up there is now cheaper than the Oyster cap, just for comparison sake)
Pay freeze of TfL staff earning above £240,000 a year
Cost sharing deal to get Hammersmith Bridge reopened to pedestrians and cyclists this summer
Requirement to spend £100m by mid December on walking and cycling
A refusal to hand the Mayor £500m a year paid by the capital's motorists in vehicle exercise duty
The requirements for TfL to generate an extra £500m to £1b of income a year
An order to cut the cost of TfL's generous staff pension scheme
NB: The above are conditions that Grant Shapps set out as part of the bailout
Khan's reduction of the congestion charge and boundary tax proposals have been dropped but finding the income of 500m to 1b a year by April 2023 may force him into tourist tax, additional levies on new developments or even revisiting the boundary tax idea.
One thing is for sure, I do not like the sound of the Government reviewing bus services in London - we'll almost certainly see a good number of routes completely vanish based on the VfM criteria alone. Hopefully, they'll prove me wrong!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2021 13:52:44 GMT
Some of the key points according to the Evening Standard are: Fare rises of RPI plus 1% from next January (at a time when National Express cut their fares meaning a day ticket up there is now cheaper than the Oyster cap, just for comparison sake) Pay freeze of TfL staff earning above £240,000 a year Cost sharing deal to get Hammersmith Bridge reopened to pedestrians and cyclists this summer Requirement to spend £100m by mid December on walking and cycling A refusal to hand the Mayor £500m a year paid by the capital's motorists in vehicle exercise duty The requirements for TfL to generate an extra £500m to £1b of income a year An order to cut the cost of TfL's generous staff pension scheme NB: The above are conditions that Grant Shapps set out as part of the bailout Khan's reduction of the congestion charge and boundary tax proposals have been dropped but finding the income of 500m to 1b a year by April 2023 may force him into tourist tax, additional levies on new developments or even revisiting the boundary tax idea. One thing is for sure, I do not like the sound of the Government reviewing bus services in London - we'll almost certainly see a good number of routes completely vanish based on the VfM criteria alone. Hopefully, they'll prove me wrong! A tourist tax isn’t the worst idea, the UK as a whole doesn’t have cities with tourist tax whereas it is fairly common on the continent to pay between 3 to 5 euros per night in cities like Paris, Hamburg, Amsterdam etc. I honestly don’t know why City Hall has resisted it for so long when it is a minimal cost and could generate millions annually. The only way around it is to declare yourself as a business traveller but it’s more trouble than it’s worth to do. I pay tourist tax when I travel for work and it really isn’t that bad.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2021 14:48:34 GMT
Some of the key points according to the Evening Standard are: Fare rises of RPI plus 1% from next January (at a time when National Express cut their fares meaning a day ticket up there is now cheaper than the Oyster cap, just for comparison sake) Pay freeze of TfL staff earning above £240,000 a year Cost sharing deal to get Hammersmith Bridge reopened to pedestrians and cyclists this summer Requirement to spend £100m by mid December on walking and cycling A refusal to hand the Mayor £500m a year paid by the capital's motorists in vehicle exercise duty The requirements for TfL to generate an extra £500m to £1b of income a year An order to cut the cost of TfL's generous staff pension scheme NB: The above are conditions that Grant Shapps set out as part of the bailout Khan's reduction of the congestion charge and boundary tax proposals have been dropped but finding the income of 500m to 1b a year by April 2023 may force him into tourist tax, additional levies on new developments or even revisiting the boundary tax idea. One thing is for sure, I do not like the sound of the Government reviewing bus services in London - we'll almost certainly see a good number of routes completely vanish based on the VfM criteria alone. Hopefully, they'll prove me wrong! A tourist tax isn’t the worst idea, the UK as a whole doesn’t have cities with tourist tax whereas it is fairly common on the continent to pay between 3 to 5 euros per night in cities like Paris, Hamburg, Amsterdam etc. I honestly don’t know why City Hall has resisted it for so long when it is a minimal cost and could generate millions annually. The only way around it is to declare yourself as a business traveller but it’s more trouble than it’s worth to do. I pay tourist tax when I travel for work and it really isn’t that bad. I've no view on a tourist tax but the best thing would of been to give the mayor the £500m in vehicle exercise duty raised from London motorists. It smacks of hypocrisy that London is constantly told it needs to pay it's way yet it's vehicle exercise duty actually funds stuff elsewhere in the UK - maybe both sides should stop shoving north/south nonsense to each other and actually work to have a fairer solution to all instead. The other thing I'd like to see is to those against the hiking of the congestion charge to send their criticism to the correct place - amazing how people can criticise the correct person for the boundary tax but then blame the same person for the congestion charge hike who actually didn't want to do it and still wants to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 1, 2021 18:42:16 GMT
I'm slightly confused. Is the 4% PVR cut part of the July and September reviews or is that something confirmed as happening now? It seemed it was leaked that the 7, 30, 43, 113 were dropping to every 12 and 10 mins respectively with the 49, 148 and 344 tendered with lower PVRs.
|
|