If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
costs money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt subsidy from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need efficient and affordable public transport to work properly. Nowhere else in the world has the policy framework we have. It is pushing TfL to make all sorts of poor decisions about priorities and it places the network's finances under a great deal of potential stress.

If the economy declines in the next 4-5 years and Central London employment falls then TfL are going to take a big hit as are the TOCs and there's no great flexibility in the system other than cutting investment spend and reducing services. Once you start doing that in any meaningful or material way you run the risk of getting into severe problems. You also invite government to say "oh well you don't need to build Crossrail 2 / Bakerloo line extension / upgrade track and signals" because you're carrying fewer people.

--
Paul C
via Google

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt subsidy
from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need
efficient and affordable public transport to work properly.

And completely misses the fact that a comprehensive transit system
influences the decision of companies to place their offices/factories there,
which creates economic activity on which other taxes are collected.

Not using some of those other taxes to fund the infrastructure upon by which
that economic activity is created is short sighted.

tim

I certainly agree that current plans to increase capacity
on Network Rail are predicated on the extremely
questionable assumption that passenger numbers will at
least remain at present levels and will probably continue
to rise.

Any Government suggesting that a fairly small drop in
passenger numbers in London removes any need for more
capacity will have to fend off counter-suggestions that HS2
is now redundant. The case for HS2 is far, far weaker than
the case for more capacity in London.

tim... wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt subsidy
from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need
efficient and affordable public transport to work properly.

And completely misses the fact that a comprehensive transit system
influences the decision of companies to place their offices/factories there,
which creates economic activity on which other taxes are collected.

Not using some of those other taxes to fund the infrastructure upon by which
that economic activity is created is short sighted.

The government, local and national, does subsidise TfL's infrastructure,
and will continue to do so. That's why government support is required for
all TfL's major capital investments, like Crossrail 1 and 2, the Met
Watford extension, etc. But the government wants to reduce or stop
subsidising TfL's operating costs, just as it has done with many of the
mainline TOCs.

Note that for every pound of fares income collected in the current
financial year, TfL receives £0.575 in local and central government grants.
So the government appears not to be quite as short sighted as you suggest:

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-t...-we-are-funded

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for
the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt
subsidy
from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need
efficient and affordable public transport to work properly.

And completely misses the fact that a comprehensive transit system
influences the decision of companies to place their offices/factories
there,
which creates economic activity on which other taxes are collected.

Not using some of those other taxes to fund the infrastructure upon by
which
that economic activity is created is short sighted.

The government, local and national, does subsidise TfL's infrastructure,
and will continue to do so. That's why government support is required for
all TfL's major capital investments, like Crossrail 1 and 2, the Met
Watford extension, etc. But the government wants to reduce or stop
subsidising TfL's operating costs, just as it has done with many of the
mainline TOCs.

Note that for every pound of fares income collected in the current
financial year, TfL receives £0.575 in local and central government
grants.
So the government appears not to be quite as short sighted as you suggest:

I'm not suggesting that current funding is short sighted

I'm suggesting that aims for zero funding (to both TfL and NR) are
shortsighted

tim

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:43:40 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for
the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt
subsidy
from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need
efficient and affordable public transport to work properly.

And completely misses the fact that a comprehensive transit system
influences the decision of companies to place their offices/factories
there,
which creates economic activity on which other taxes are collected.

Not using some of those other taxes to fund the infrastructure upon by
which
that economic activity is created is short sighted.

The government, local and national, does subsidise TfL's infrastructure,
and will continue to do so. That's why government support is required for
all TfL's major capital investments, like Crossrail 1 and 2, the Met
Watford extension, etc. But the government wants to reduce or stop
subsidising TfL's operating costs, just as it has done with many of the
mainline TOCs.

Note that for every pound of fares income collected in the current
financial year, TfL receives £0.575 in local and central government
grants.
So the government appears not to be quite as short sighted as you suggest:

I'm not suggesting that current funding is short sighted

I'm suggesting that aims for zero funding (to both TfL and NR) are
shortsighted

They're not aiming for zero funding. They just want to reduce the
*operating* costs subsidy in general, and to zero where possible.
Money will continue to be poured into infrastructure, in London and
the rest of the country.

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 09:29:30 UTC, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 16:10:40 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Robin9 wrote:

If the strikers' argument is that LU need to employ
more staff than at present, then certainly the previous
Mayor and TfL have questions to answer. But more staff
cost money, and this raises still further doubt about the
wisdom of freezing fares. LU claimed they could finance
the new Mayor's reckless pledge by economy savings, but
if in practice those savings mean under-staffing the system,
the whole package needs to be reviewed.

The strikers are demanding more central government subsidy to pay for the
extra staff. I can't see that happening.

Well that is really a different argument. The removal of all govt subsidy
from the transport network in London is ludicrous. Capital cities need
efficient and affordable public transport to work properly.

And completely misses the fact that a comprehensive transit system
influences the decision of companies to place their offices/factories there,
which creates economic activity on which other taxes are collected.

Not using some of those other taxes to fund the infrastructure upon by which
that economic activity is created is short sighted.

The government, local and national, does subsidise TfL's infrastructure,
and will continue to do so. That's why government support is required for
all TfL's major capital investments, like Crossrail 1 and 2, the Met
Watford extension, etc. But the government wants to reduce or stop
subsidising TfL's operating costs, just as it has done with many of the
mainline TOCs.

Note that for every pound of fares income collected in the current
financial year, TfL receives £0.575 in local and central government grants.
So the government appears not to be quite as short sighted as you suggest:

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-t...-we-are-funded

Yes capital investment is supported by grants and will continue to be. The alternative is that the system breaks and people can no longer get to work. That becomes untenable for companies *and* their employees resulting in a nice political mess landing at the government's feet. Let us hope that the lessons of the 80s and early 90s in London have actually been learnt by govt.

However the other side of the debate is that removing operational subsidy is also damaging if fares are so high that people can't travel efficiently or at all to reach their jobs. There is also a tipping point, for part of the travel market, where ludicrous fares just tip people into cars. I accept that's unlikely for most trips into Central London but London is not exactly devoid of congestion in the suburbs, on cross boundary journeys or on orbital journeys. We can already see with TOC fares that some people can no longer afford them thus forcing them to leave their jobs and possibly move location. Crossrail, DLR and Overground all have to cover their costs by around 2019 along with LU's longstanding surplusses. Quite how TfL are going to do that with a fares freeze is beyond me. I don't actually believe the fares freeze will last 4 years anyway. It will collapse under pressure being placed on the Mayor - most likely from the DfT in terms of commitments on future revenues on big projects that require govt support (CR2, Bloo extension). If the London economy tanks that will be another factor that undermines the policy.

We also have very silly decisions being taken about modal choices. Even with the removal of operational grant from TfL the bus network subsidy will be over £600m in a few years. Some of that is paid for by surplusses on other modes plus user charges / penalties. It is unclear as to where revenues from future air quality initiatives will be spent (after charging opex has been covered). Even then we are seeing cuts to cross boundary bus services and yet more sneaky frequency reductions and a multi phase programme of huge cuts to Zone 1 buses. You have to wonder quite what is going on with costs and revenues on the buses.

--
Paul C
via Google