|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 23, 2022 11:27:13 GMT
For the DfT to take over there would need to be an amendment to the Greater London Act of 1999. The Act legally makes Transport for London a devolved responsibility. Furthermore, given that the package involving the creation of the position of London Mayor with responsibilities including TfL had a clear Yes vote in the 1998 referendum, it would be undemocratic for the DfT to take over control of TfL. (For good measure, even the Conservatives came round to supporting the proposals). If the devolved body is in danger of going bust, would it really be undemocratic to take control again? The alternative is leaving London with no public transport authority.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 23, 2022 11:31:04 GMT
Another remoaner by any chance? LTs are likely to continue in service until they are no longer economically viable, much the same as any other type of bus. In the meantime I suspect most Londoners are far more concerned about knife crime than they are about LTs. This digression onto remoaner is pointless but yes, as regards the buses, they are fit for purpose as current hybrid buses and can remain in service until their life expiry or need for full electrification. I reckon passengers on routes 88 & 91 quickly took their new bus types for granted and never gave any subsequent thought to the LTs previously on those routes. Yes remoaner related stuff is for another thread but yes the LTs are perfectly fit for purpose and to most passengers they're just another bus and they're not interested in political arguments about them.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 25, 2022 19:47:19 GMT
Latest TfL Board papers now issued, and it appears that a draft financial agreement exists for period from 4th February, subject to various agreements by the mayor 6.4 The DfT’s proposed extension to the current funding agreement also includes a number of conditions, some of which are amendments to conditions in the current agreement and some of which are new. The key conditions proposed are: (a) by 14 January 2022, the Mayor will provide DfT with a working draft of a paper in relation to road user charging. The Mayor will also be required to provide a final draft by the 19 January 2022; (b) a requirement for the Mayor to cover with new income any Mayoral decisions related to service changes, operating cost increases or policies that result in a loss of net revenue without recourse to borrowing, service changes, savings and deferrals. This is a widening of the condition in the current agreement which applies this to changes to congestion charging, the Ultra Low Emission Zone and concessionary fares; (c) confirmation that the existing condition in relation to the Hammersmith ferry is no longer required; and (d) confirmation that, should the Mayor align headline fares increases with National Rail fares increases from March 2022, and this be a lower fares increase than assumed in TfL’s plans, then this shortfall will not be met by Government after April 2023 which means any shortfall will, therefore, be met by Government beforehand. DfT has informed us separately that they will write to clarify this will be covered by the revenue True Up mechanism in future funding agreements. 6.5 As in previous funding agreements, in this draft extension, DfT confirms that the comfort concerning TfL’s future financial position and balanced budget obligations will continue. This has also been supplemented with additional comfort that financial commitments made by TfL during the funding period will be taken into account in future funding agreements, as was the case in the extension to 17 December. Government also affirm their commitment now, and in the future, to mitigating TfL’s loss of fare revenue as a result of the pandemic. This is considered sufficient to enable TfL to continue to enter into contracts that extend beyond 4 February 2022. 6.6 DfT’s intention, as set out in the draft terms, is that further settlement will be possible from 4 February 2022, and, subject to the delivery of the conditions set out above, is when the Government will be ready to work with TfL to consider a longer-term capital settlement to support TfL to achieve, and subsequently maintain, financial sustainability by April 2023. TfL Board, Finance paper link
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 25, 2022 23:08:27 GMT
Latest TfL Board papers now issued, and it appears that a draft financial agreement exists for period from 4th February, subject to various agreements by the mayor 6.4 The DfT’s proposed extension to the current funding agreement also includes a number of conditions, some of which are amendments to conditions in the current agreement and some of which are new. The key conditions proposed are: (a) by 14 January 2022, the Mayor will provide DfT with a working draft of a paper in relation to road user charging. The Mayor will also be required to provide a final draft by the 19 January 2022; (b) a requirement for the Mayor to cover with new income any Mayoral decisions related to service changes, operating cost increases or policies that result in a loss of net revenue without recourse to borrowing, service changes, savings and deferrals. This is a widening of the condition in the current agreement which applies this to changes to congestion charging, the Ultra Low Emission Zone and concessionary fares; (c) confirmation that the existing condition in relation to the Hammersmith ferry is no longer required; and (d) confirmation that, should the Mayor align headline fares increases with National Rail fares increases from March 2022, and this be a lower fares increase than assumed in TfL’s plans, then this shortfall will not be met by Government after April 2023 which means any shortfall will, therefore, be met by Government beforehand. DfT has informed us separately that they will write to clarify this will be covered by the revenue True Up mechanism in future funding agreements. 6.5 As in previous funding agreements, in this draft extension, DfT confirms that the comfort concerning TfL’s future financial position and balanced budget obligations will continue. This has also been supplemented with additional comfort that financial commitments made by TfL during the funding period will be taken into account in future funding agreements, as was the case in the extension to 17 December. Government also affirm their commitment now, and in the future, to mitigating TfL’s loss of fare revenue as a result of the pandemic. This is considered sufficient to enable TfL to continue to enter into contracts that extend beyond 4 February 2022. 6.6 DfT’s intention, as set out in the draft terms, is that further settlement will be possible from 4 February 2022, and, subject to the delivery of the conditions set out above, is when the Government will be ready to work with TfL to consider a longer-term capital settlement to support TfL to achieve, and subsequently maintain, financial sustainability by April 2023. TfL Board, Finance paper linkSection 6.4 b. I'm a bit confused with but would interpret that to mean any large changes that cost mroe have to have real justification of how extra revenue will be generated to be allowed to happen under the current terms. For me I'm thinking that would mean something like the Sutton/Croydon changed where I think we know withdrawing the 455 doesn't make up cost wise for 2 extra bph to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, a Sunday service on the S2 and S4 plus the 164 7 days a week to Sutton Hospital. The 80 is arguably cost neutral with existing DD v. New electric SDs so has gone ahead. Consession fares have to be funded not through TFLs budget at all now and I guess again cant have a negative effect on TFLs income. That I do agree with tbh.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 26, 2022 8:47:32 GMT
Latest TfL Board papers now issued, and it appears that a draft financial agreement exists for period from 4th February, subject to various agreements by the mayor 6.4 The DfT’s proposed extension to the current funding agreement also includes a number of conditions, some of which are amendments to conditions in the current agreement and some of which are new. The key conditions proposed are: (a) by 14 January 2022, the Mayor will provide DfT with a working draft of a paper in relation to road user charging. The Mayor will also be required to provide a final draft by the 19 January 2022; (b) a requirement for the Mayor to cover with new income any Mayoral decisions related to service changes, operating cost increases or policies that result in a loss of net revenue without recourse to borrowing, service changes, savings and deferrals. This is a widening of the condition in the current agreement which applies this to changes to congestion charging, the Ultra Low Emission Zone and concessionary fares; (c) confirmation that the existing condition in relation to the Hammersmith ferry is no longer required; and (d) confirmation that, should the Mayor align headline fares increases with National Rail fares increases from March 2022, and this be a lower fares increase than assumed in TfL’s plans, then this shortfall will not be met by Government after April 2023 which means any shortfall will, therefore, be met by Government beforehand. DfT has informed us separately that they will write to clarify this will be covered by the revenue True Up mechanism in future funding agreements. 6.5 As in previous funding agreements, in this draft extension, DfT confirms that the comfort concerning TfL’s future financial position and balanced budget obligations will continue. This has also been supplemented with additional comfort that financial commitments made by TfL during the funding period will be taken into account in future funding agreements, as was the case in the extension to 17 December. Government also affirm their commitment now, and in the future, to mitigating TfL’s loss of fare revenue as a result of the pandemic. This is considered sufficient to enable TfL to continue to enter into contracts that extend beyond 4 February 2022. 6.6 DfT’s intention, as set out in the draft terms, is that further settlement will be possible from 4 February 2022, and, subject to the delivery of the conditions set out above, is when the Government will be ready to work with TfL to consider a longer-term capital settlement to support TfL to achieve, and subsequently maintain, financial sustainability by April 2023. TfL Board, Finance paper linkSection 6.4 b. I'm a bit confused with but would interpret that to mean any large changes that cost mroe have to have real justification of how extra revenue will be generated to be allowed to happen under the current terms. For me I'm thinking that would mean something like the Sutton/Croydon changed where I think we know withdrawing the 455 doesn't make up cost wise for 2 extra bph to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, a Sunday service on the S2 and S4 plus the 164 7 days a week to Sutton Hospital. The 80 is arguably cost neutral with existing DD v. New electric SDs so has gone ahead. Consession fares have to be funded not through TFLs budget at all now and I guess again cant have a negative effect on TFLs income. That I do agree with tbh. If the extra 2bph to Old Lodge Lane were deemed unnecessary the 312 could still terminate at TC with the 412 extended back to OLL although that would obviously restrict the route to single decker, double deckers are only needed at school times, and would mean a longer journey between Croydon and OLL.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 26, 2022 9:21:42 GMT
Section 6.4 b. I'm a bit confused with but would interpret that to mean any large changes that cost mroe have to have real justification of how extra revenue will be generated to be allowed to happen under the current terms. For me I'm thinking that would mean something like the Sutton/Croydon changed where I think we know withdrawing the 455 doesn't make up cost wise for 2 extra bph to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, a Sunday service on the S2 and S4 plus the 164 7 days a week to Sutton Hospital. The 80 is arguably cost neutral with existing DD v. New electric SDs so has gone ahead. Consession fares have to be funded not through TFLs budget at all now and I guess again cant have a negative effect on TFLs income. That I do agree with tbh. If the extra 2bph to Old Lodge Lane were deemed unnecessary the 312 could still terminate at TC with the 412 extended back to OLL although that would obviously restrict the route to single decker, double deckers are only needed at school times, and would mean a longer journey between Croydon and OLL. Either way I think TFL will find it difficult to justify any large increases in costs at a time when usage isn't expected to massively increase. Be interesting if any major increases happen around Meridian Water now either.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 26, 2022 11:17:20 GMT
If the extra 2bph to Old Lodge Lane were deemed unnecessary the 312 could still terminate at TC with the 412 extended back to OLL although that would obviously restrict the route to single decker, double deckers are only needed at school times, and would mean a longer journey between Croydon and OLL. Either way I think TFL will find it difficult to justify any large increases in costs at a time when usage isn't expected to massively increase. Be interesting if any major increases happen around Meridian Water now either. I suspect the large increases is to stop general expansion, but clearly there will be a few local development areas where thousands of new properties are being built, and a small local expansion is still planned. On the other hand some areas with excess provision will be thinned out, and I suspect overall will be a net reduction. Off top of my head big developments include : Meridian Water, Barking riverside, Royal Marsden (Sutton), Brent, Southall, Brentford North, Wembley, Olympic Park north, Woolwich, Battersea etc
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 26, 2022 11:46:55 GMT
Either way I think TFL will find it difficult to justify any large increases in costs at a time when usage isn't expected to massively increase. Be interesting if any major increases happen around Meridian Water now either. I suspect the large increases is to stop general expansion, but clearly there will be a few local development areas where thousands of new properties are being built, and a small local expansion is still planned. On the other hand some areas with excess provision will be thinned out, and I suspect overall will be a net reduction. Off top of my head big developments include : Meridian Water, Barking riverside, Royal Marsden (Sutton), Brent, Southall, Brentford North, Wembley, Olympic Park north, Woolwich, Battersea etc I think there will be a case for TfL to say to prospective builders, “provide the cash or we can’t reroute or extend buses to serve your developments” which of course would negatively affect buyers through increased service charges, rental or purchase prices. However in the case of hospital based developments like in Sutton there is a need to extend buses to ensure they are adequately connected. Particularly as Sutton is the least invested in borough by TfL and the GLA.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 26, 2022 12:45:39 GMT
I suspect the large increases is to stop general expansion, but clearly there will be a few local development areas where thousands of new properties are being built, and a small local expansion is still planned. On the other hand some areas with excess provision will be thinned out, and I suspect overall will be a net reduction. Off top of my head big developments include : Meridian Water, Barking riverside, Royal Marsden (Sutton), Brent, Southall, Brentford North, Wembley, Olympic Park north, Woolwich, Battersea etc I think there will be a case for TfL to say to prospective builders, “provide the cash or we can’t reroute or extend buses to serve your developments” which of course would negatively affect buyers through increased service charges, rental or purchase prices. However in the case of hospital based developments like in Sutton there is a need to extend buses to ensure they are adequately connected. Particularly as Sutton is the least invested in borough by TfL and the GLA. There is already a mechanism for this: Section 106 agreements. These are private agreements that can be made between developers and local authorities and attached as conditions to planning permission. These can include enhancements to public transport, limiting car parking and putting in safe walking and cycling routes.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 26, 2022 13:06:44 GMT
I think there will be a case for TfL to say to prospective builders, “provide the cash or we can’t reroute or extend buses to serve your developments” which of course would negatively affect buyers through increased service charges, rental or purchase prices. However in the case of hospital based developments like in Sutton there is a need to extend buses to ensure they are adequately connected. Particularly as Sutton is the least invested in borough by TfL and the GLA. There is already a mechanism for this: Section 106 agreements. These are private agreements that can be made between developers and local authorities and attached as conditions to planning permission. These can include enhancements to public transport, limiting car parking and putting in safe walking and cycling routes. I would suggest in addition to section 106 funding. It only goes so far after all.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 26, 2022 13:21:16 GMT
There is already a mechanism for this: Section 106 agreements. These are private agreements that can be made between developers and local authorities and attached as conditions to planning permission. These can include enhancements to public transport, limiting car parking and putting in safe walking and cycling routes. I would suggest in addition to section 106 funding. It only goes so far after all. But then the GLA has house building targets. If a development for 150 homes is shelved because if this, what to you say to those complaining about housing shortages, and about the GLA when it yet again fails to hit it's house building targets. Myself think London is over populated as it is, so will not have a problem with this
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 31, 2022 21:38:50 GMT
TfL have published a budget update supplement ahead of the TfL Board meeting which is due to be held on Wednesday Link to TfL budget update
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Feb 3, 2022 22:51:52 GMT
There's just over an hour to go until TfL's current funding deal expires (I assume so anyway), but nothing has been announced. I wouldn't be surprised if it's another eleventh hour deal again, but if negotiations have been ongoing for a while, which reports suggest that they have been since December, then I don't quite understand why everything is being finalised at the last minute. I'm sure Johnson of all people, being the former mayor would be the last person to force TfL to go into managed decline, but then again, the current and previous mayor do like to play party politics with each other which is completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 3, 2022 23:23:55 GMT
There's just over an hour to go until TfL's current funding deal expires (I assume so anyway), but nothing has been announced. I wouldn't be surprised if it's another eleventh hour deal again, but if negotiations have been ongoing for a while, which reports suggest that they have been since December, then I don't quite understand why everything is being finalised at the last minute. I'm sure Johnson of all people, being the former mayor would be the last person to force TfL to go into managed decline, but then again, the current and previous mayor do like to play party politics with each other which is completely unnecessary. I believe it's tommorow evening it expires not tonight, but I might be wrong. Negotiation could have gone on for a year and it'd still be 11th hour, that's the name of the game. Unfortunately the whole "playing politics" stems from two very different visions for TfL - one of cuts (or efficiencies, whatever you call them) or one of a system run more akin to the last few years with steady capital investment. Sadiq was after all elected by a majority of the London voters so is right to stand up for what is believed to be the right thing. He wouldn't be doing his job otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Feb 4, 2022 18:34:48 GMT
The funding and financing agreement between DFT and TFL has been extended by an additional two weeks, so will now end on 18th February. Talks are still ongoing.
|
|