|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 24, 2020 15:23:08 GMT
TfL have now issued revised budget and are pausing a number of schemes TfL Media LinkFull details for TfL Board meeting Bus stuff includes section 3.6 full service 100% by start of September Page 29 shows how capital projects cut from £1.8bn to £1.4bn this year (including cutting renewals 22%) Page 36 says aiming to accelerate zero emission buses from 2037 to 2030 Page 40 on how getting more zero emission buses will help bus factories |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 15, 2020 7:11:45 GMT
It seems that TfL are only 2 days away from having to issue a section 114 notice (the public sector equivalent of going bankrupt) This is a repeat of what happened in May when they got their £1.6bn bailout Not so clear that The Government will be fully onboard this time (negociations are ongoing), and may demand cuts to fringe services, or frequencies late in evening etc There is a TfL Board meeting next week (item 8 is funding, papers to follow), and presumably this depends on the negociations with DfT content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20201021-agenda-and-papers.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 15, 2020 18:24:57 GMT
It seems that TfL are only 2 days away from having to issue a section 114 notice (the public sector equivalent of going bankrupt) This is a repeat of what happened in May when they got their £1.6bn bailout Not so clear that The Government will be fully onboard this time (negociations are ongoing), and may demand cuts to fringe services, or frequencies late in evening etc There is a TfL Board meeting next week (item 8 is funding, papers to follow), and presumably this depends on the negociations with DfT content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20201021-agenda-and-papers.pdfI am not going to hide my incredible disappointment here. There seems to be an absolutely toxic relationship between the Mayor and Government which is harming London and the whole country. There has been bailout after bailout across the economy, including transport such as buses outside London and national train operating companies all without the conditions and politics we have here with TfL In London we can't all drive around in cars even if we wanted and it was desirable (which it isn't), never mind that the only thing the government and Mayor seem to be to agree upon is that we should all walk and cycle. In order to have a modern civilised society people need to get around and travel - and in London that means buses, tubes and trains (not walking and cycling, although they have a part to play). Add to that the limited capacity on public transport due to social distancing and we need to provide all the buses, trains and tubes we can. Sure TfL's farebox is down, to be expected given Covid-19 and the fear that has been put into many not to use public transport. It is therefore up to the government to step up to the plate in such circumstances, TfL cannot be allowed to fail, and proper services must be provided. This is non-negotiable if we are to help London's and the country's economy. It is essential to get the London economy going to help power the rest of the country back and get out of our economic mess. I understand a collection of well-known businesses have written to the Government saying much the same. I also (maybe naively) think that if you go into politics, you are going into Public Service and therefore your actions should be for the greater good and need to be seen as such. That means our government and Mayor have to stop squabbling and think of how best to serve the people who elected them (and those who voted for someone else, or even didn't vote) - that is what Public Service is about. If our politicians wish to retain our trust, be re-elected and actually perform Public Service, then they need to put their differences aside, and keep TfL going for the sake of London, the country and those that voted for them. Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said! |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Oct 15, 2020 23:59:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 1:29:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 15:30:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 16, 2020 19:27:36 GMT
I don't think they will agree with the North and South Circular road charging zones, and Boris will take TfL in house. TfL and their spending record hasn't been brilliant. TfL has got too much to look after, managing roads, rail, buses, trains, tube, boats, cable car to nowhere, Woolwich Ferry, plus advice on traffic and speeding. London house prices will crash in the zone, and be out of control in Edmonton and areas immediately outside the charging zone. Perhaps no more TfL will mean a return to more varied bus liveries?  |
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 16, 2020 19:39:53 GMT
I don't think they will agree with the North and South Circular road charging zones, and Boris will take TfL in house. TfL and their spending record hasn't been brilliant. TfL has got too much to look after, managing roads, rail, buses, trains, tube, boats, cable car to nowhere, Woolwich Ferry, plus advice on traffic and speeding. London house prices will crash in the zone, and be out of control in Edmonton and areas immediately outside the charging zone. Perhaps no more TfL will mean a return to more varied bus liveries? While I WANT varied bus liveries, even a little skirt or cowhorns like Go-Ahead, Metroline and Arriva used to do, that would mean that fare prices would be crazy, with almost every bus being a different fare. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 18, 2020 9:28:50 GMT
I couldn't quite make sense of Tom Edward's tweet, saying that there's still "2 weeks to go" - TfL's coronavirus emergency H1 funding arrangement was always due to expire on 17 October (yesterday!), so I guessed that he must either have been referring to a different deadline of some kind, or was perhaps mistaken. Now, it all makes sense. The Government agreed to extend the H1 funding period by a further two weeks, to 31 October, so that negotiations over the H2 arrangement can continue. It seems that this extension isn't costing the Treasury any more money, though. In a press release, TfL said that its "actual funding shortfall to 17 October was less than £1.6bn, largely due to higher than anticipated ridership", so the additional two weeks of operations can be financed under the existing H1 Funding Package. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 20, 2020 14:58:39 GMT
TfL Travelwatch seem to have conducted an investigation into the effects of removing free travel for teenagers. The reason TfL gave initially for the removal of free bus travel was to help with social distancing, it's now been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times. However this has also been helped by increased car usage where parents are now increasingly dropping children off at school in a car. Zip demand stands at 70% with a lot of these children now being ferried in private road vehicles. Satisfaction surveys that have been carried out on general members of the public are showing no decline in satisfaction levels of the general public either. The big bombshell here is that should the removal of free travel be pressed ahead, we are looking at least at a 33% increase in road traffic with parents now opting to use this over paying for bus services. Parents are much more likely to drive to other places too as a result as opposed to non-parents, meaning that the increase in cars is unlikely to just be for the school run. The investigation has also shown that the benefits provided by free travel far out-weigh the costs as since 2009 it has been found that zip travel has caused 1. Increased use of the bus by young people and fare paying adults 2. Car journeys in adults and children show reduction 3. Bus use was normalised, so car dependance is reduced in later life 4. Risks of assault were mitigated, especially for girls* 5. Increased uptake of education and training Travelwatch suggest that it is now no longer in the interests of the public to implement this, the benefits once again outweigh the cons of the system. Should it still be implemented it will almost certainly lead to a car led recovery of London's economy. A report by the London councils also throws in further data on the matter. £27M extra will need to be funded by councils £85M extra will fall upon parents This also doesn't include the extra admin costs of getting all the systems set up and in place to deal with it all, and the wages of staff that will either need to be hired or given a raise as a result of the increased workload. The two reports can be found here: Letter by Travelwatch
Analysis by London Councils*This matter is one I've wanted to assess, the safety of children is paramount, and the free travel available is extremely important in the safety of the younger generation who do not have access to their own money at will. Levels of crime in London are as high as ever, especially sexual assaults on girls of school age of which a lot doesn't get reported. In my opinion this alone is enough to justify the retention of free travel. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 20, 2020 17:55:05 GMT
TfL Travelwatch seem to have conducted an investigation into the effects of removing free travel for teenagers. The reason TfL gave initially for the removal of free bus travel was to help with social distancing, it's now been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times. However this has also been helped by increased car usage where parents are now increasingly dropping children off at school in a car. Zip demand stands at 70% with a lot of these children now being ferried in private road vehicles. Satisfaction surveys that have been carried out on general members of the public are showing no decline in satisfaction levels of the general public either. The big bombshell here is that should the removal of free travel be pressed ahead, we are looking at least at a 33% increase in road traffic with parents now opting to use this over paying for bus services. Parents are much more likely to drive to other places too as a result as opposed to non-parents, meaning that the increase in cars is unlikely to just be for the school run. The investigation has also shown that the benefits provided by free travel far out-weigh the costs as since 2009 it has been found that zip travel has caused 1. Increased use of the bus by young people and fare paying adults 2. Car journeys in adults and children show reduction 3. Bus use was normalised, so car dependance is reduced in later life 4. Risks of assault were mitigated, especially for girls* 5. Increased uptake of education and training Travelwatch suggest that it is now no longer in the interests of the public to implement this, the benefits once again outweigh the cons of the system. Should it still be implemented it will almost certainly lead to a car led recovery of London's economy. A report by the London councils also throws in further data on the matter. £27M extra will need to be funded by councils £85M extra will fall upon parents This also doesn't include the extra admin costs of getting all the systems set up and in place to deal with it all, and the wages of staff that will either need to be hired or given a raise as a result of the increased workload. The two reports can be found here: Letter by Travelwatch
Analysis by London Councils*This matter is one I've wanted to assess, the safety of children is paramount, and the free travel available is extremely important in the safety of the younger generation who do not have access to their own money at will. Levels of crime in London are as high as ever, especially sexual assaults on girls of school age of which a lot doesn't get reported. In my opinion this alone is enough to justify the retention of free travel. If this "big bombshell" prediction is correct then surely that's a good thing? Yes more traffic congestion but more kids going to and from school in the safety of their parents car because yes....... the safety of children is paramount. And how has it "been been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times?" Reality is packed buses and people left behind including children. If this is the best Travelwatch can come up with......... |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 20, 2020 18:58:41 GMT
TfL Travelwatch seem to have conducted an investigation into the effects of removing free travel for teenagers. The reason TfL gave initially for the removal of free bus travel was to help with social distancing, it's now been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times. However this has also been helped by increased car usage where parents are now increasingly dropping children off at school in a car. Zip demand stands at 70% with a lot of these children now being ferried in private road vehicles. Satisfaction surveys that have been carried out on general members of the public are showing no decline in satisfaction levels of the general public either. The big bombshell here is that should the removal of free travel be pressed ahead, we are looking at least at a 33% increase in road traffic with parents now opting to use this over paying for bus services. Parents are much more likely to drive to other places too as a result as opposed to non-parents, meaning that the increase in cars is unlikely to just be for the school run. The investigation has also shown that the benefits provided by free travel far out-weigh the costs as since 2009 it has been found that zip travel has caused 1. Increased use of the bus by young people and fare paying adults 2. Car journeys in adults and children show reduction 3. Bus use was normalised, so car dependance is reduced in later life 4. Risks of assault were mitigated, especially for girls* 5. Increased uptake of education and training Travelwatch suggest that it is now no longer in the interests of the public to implement this, the benefits once again outweigh the cons of the system. Should it still be implemented it will almost certainly lead to a car led recovery of London's economy. A report by the London councils also throws in further data on the matter. £27M extra will need to be funded by councils £85M extra will fall upon parents This also doesn't include the extra admin costs of getting all the systems set up and in place to deal with it all, and the wages of staff that will either need to be hired or given a raise as a result of the increased workload. The two reports can be found here: Letter by Travelwatch
Analysis by London Councils*This matter is one I've wanted to assess, the safety of children is paramount, and the free travel available is extremely important in the safety of the younger generation who do not have access to their own money at will. Levels of crime in London are as high as ever, especially sexual assaults on girls of school age of which a lot doesn't get reported. In my opinion this alone is enough to justify the retention of free travel. If this "big bombshell" prediction is correct then surely that's a good thing? Yes more traffic congestion but more kids going to and from school in the safety of their parents car because yes....... the safety of children is paramount. And how has it "been been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times?" Reality is packed buses and people left behind including children. If this is the best Travelwatch can come up with......... A 33% increase in traffic is a good thing? I'm a car driver myself but I don't think we should be advocating mass car travel just because it means kids have to pay for buses. What do you mean this is the best Travelwatch can come up with? Isn't safety, statistic and car led recoveries all decent points? What more do you want? |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 20, 2020 19:53:29 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 20:27:05 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." Frankly I think it would be better for the DfT to assume control of TfL on an emergency basis to keep it going, work out what it has and where it can make sensible cutbacks to things other than services and then turn in back to Kahn in a few months. It’s been obvious for years even before Kahn that TfL needs a major overhaul in its procedures to be a cost effective operation but I think COVID has exacerbated a problem that has been rooted in TfL for years. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again if TfL was a private business it would have an annual audit of its finances and be accountable to its spending. |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Oct 20, 2020 21:21:40 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." All of the government’s plans just screams greed for me. |
|
