Interesting there's been no announcement about January's fare increase yet (unless I've missed it). Decisions must have been made by now.
It's inevitable the 60-66 concession will end at some point - nowhere else in England enjoys it (except Liverpool.
Be interesting to see if the planned new route 456 (Crews Hill to North Middlesex Hospital) ever goes ahead (at one point it was due for introduction today).
Roger French | Homepage | 12.12.20 - 7:37 a.m. | #
It's not been announced externally, but the fare increase has been delayed until late January at the earliest (because decisions on local and national increases need to be implemented simultaneously, and because the contractors implementing the software update need sufficient advance warning).
The funding model is interesting and hard to compare to here in Australia where the State government underwrites public transport and decides on capital expenditure for all transport services including roads, with some very selective expenditure by the Federal government and - a key point - both fund from general revenue. So our funding for transport is totally political, whereas TfL is not quite as much.
Having written that with faint praise of TfL funding, your public transport is terribly expensive and I'm not sure why. Your public transport is as well used as many other much cheaper fare first world European countries. Perhaps privatisation has made it more expensive.
I live in Hertfordshire and have two cars, and as I know from a previous DG blog both are registered in "London". Would the suggested "charge for non-residents which would apply only to vehicles registered outside London which are driven into the capital" apply?.
(As an aside, one vehicle is subject to the ULEZ charge of £12.50 per day and also the Congestion Charge of £15 per day, total £27,50 per day. Consequently it will never "go to London" again - not that it ever did.)
We live 200m or so from the 'border' sorry boundary with Surrey proper, and my wife has the temerity to cross it every morning on her way to work, a four mile commute.
I am glad that you make it clear that this charge would not apply to Londoners although only at the end of your post, however, it would also be equally unfair to apply it in reverse, an arbitrary employment tax.
Her journey by public transport would take the better part of an hour with a change (two buses), and be constrained by the half hourly service pattern of both services. not ideal. She is a teacher with a laptop and books to carry so her bag is also very heavy.
Revenue lost concession is based on the old normal. Now old people think public transport will kill them, there's much less use of the concession and therefore little revenue lost.
This particular old person is not using public transport at present. Not because he thinks it will kill him, but because he knows that it has a slight chance of indirectly killing someone else.
The simplest solution to funding TfL would be to arrange that the mayor and the England Prime Minister belong to the same political tribe.
As someone who grew up in the north where half price fares for under 16s always seemed affordable and well-used, I've always thought the free travel for kids scheme was exceptionally generous. The 60-66 free Oyster even more so.
60+ Oyster card is terrible. Was always so galling that directors where I used to work would get free travel while younger graduates short of money we’re paying full price.
I also think completely free travel incentives u16 to walk/uncle less contributing to increased levels of inactivity.
If every petrol station inside the M25 charged 5p per litre extra all of which went to TFL, I wonder how much that would raise? I know there would be anomalies near the boundary, but nothing is perfect. If successful, it is an approach that could be used to fund other cities too. PS I am a car driver.
I see this as the TRUMPisation of politics in the UK. The privatised railways have been virtually underwritten by the Tory Government. TFL have in the last few months done all that is required of it, continuing to provide a service vital to London in getting hospital cleaning staff and the lower paid and others to their workplaces. It has maintained what must have been a very expensive night bus network for the same reason. For doing this, and being, of course, an administration of a different colour to the government it is being punished. We should remind ourselves of previous expensive vanity projects, cycle lanes, the removal of perfectly good articulated buses, the New Routemaster, that wire thing over the Thames and the garden bridge. Seldom moved to comment but this punishment is unfair and unjust. Lastly, I note with some irony the carping of residents of Epsom and Ewell not being included in the Oyster area, recalling how hard they fought against being included in the GLC area in the '60s. Having cake and eating it springs to mind. I should add that I have not lived in London for 33 years but often travel there. John
Road pricing could result in an outcome that is greener (fewer car journeys) but also generate less revenue and create localised adverse economic impact (less GDP within the road pricing zone). At the extreme it could trigger a technology enabled depopulation of London to the country. Smaller businesses more likely to feel the impact. Therefore needs careful consideration.
Also any scheme that has boundaries can create residential parking impacts as people drive up to the boundary, park for free/cheap if they can, then complete journey by other modes. So parking permit schemes need to be part of a holistic scheme.
"I suspect the cablecar doesn't get a mention because operationally it's peanuts."
The last I'd heard, with the construction costs being sunk, the dangleway turns a profit. It may not make much money, but it also costs next-to-nothing to run.
Re vehicles "registered in London", maybe what they mean is vehicles whose registered keepers' addresses are in London. But then any company car belonging to a company in London would be exempt.
Unless I'm missing something, hardly any of these financial propositions to manage the deficit take passenger need into account. I thought transport ran for our benefit, not the accountants'.
dg writes: do read the report.
Transport is an enabling mechanism - it enables Society as a whole to operate better and more advantageously. So why is it required to make a surplus? It generates wealth, through employment, consumption of resource which creates jobs, and enables employment at its destinations, as well as retail / leisure activities. We need to change our view on what transport is and what it does.
I wholeheartedly welcome an access charge for Greater London, as long as it is easy to pay.
Realistically from where I used to work which was just inside Greater London I know of dozens of folks who got in their car to make a mile long journey, despite living on ridiculously frequent bus services, or in some cases almost direct train services (5-10min walking door to door, if that).
I would go further though, and introduce a standing charge in zone 1 and 2 for car ownership. Not a lot, 50p a day maybe.
Also, I would bring in parity with the rest of the UK on OAP bus passes. 60+ is insane, frankly. And everywhere else in the UK you can't board at peak times. I know that technically this will disadvantage me in the future, but realistically I will be working into my 70s anyway.
When I was a kid you could only get a free bus pass if school was more than 3 miles away. Anything else & you were considered fit enough to get there under your own steam.
To reduce costs some of the 7 freedoms of public transport embedded in current bus system will have to give..time and money.
If I were in charge the current situation would be the trigger for a radical restructure of London bus routes preserving as many origin destination pairs as possible but using fewer vehicles (more changes and slightly reduced frequency, and greater promotion of real time arrival information) and a 50p fare increase (offset by hopper time validity increased to 90 minutes) and same capping on a rides basis (4th and subsequent in the day are free).
Roger French according to Enfield Council the new 456 bus route will start running in February. Two new bus gates have already been installed one in Carterhatch Lane and one in Firs Lane. No actual gate but unauthorised use will be picked up by CCTV enforcement cameras.
MPs don't have official cars, Ministers have access to the Government Car Service, as someone who has sat in those cars with a Minister we took an awful lot of stuff with us, including Red Boxes which have to travel securely. There is never just an MP in a car paid for by the taxpayer. Often we would take trains and be met at our destination, but public transport throughout would not be an option - if you saw the demands on Ministers time (from private sector businesses) there is no way they could get all the visits done in one day by public transport.
Can't see why anyone should receive free travel regardless of financial situation. So if you're 60+ *and* can't afford public transport -> travel for free
When I was just starting out as public sector auidtor there was a report on funding shortfall in the NHS (when wasn't there eh?). My head boss, a grizzled old District Auditor, said quite bluntly that 75% of the cost of running the NHS was labour. It's how accountants would look at it. Private sector achieve their break-even by squeezing labour costs. If you want to keep the 60+ travel card in London (not available elsewhere) then it's an inconvenient truth that you need to squeeze the cost of labour, not employing as many drivers, not having as many contracts, squeezing any bonus or unsocial hours payments. But I would start with a study of how economic, effective and efficent TfL is.
It bears repeating that the 60+ Oyster card was first introduced by Mayor Boris Johnson in November 2012, a few months after reelection. At the time it covered those aged 60-62. It's now 60-66.
A shame that the report - and subsequently DG - do not make the distinction between the over 65s' Freedom Pass and the disabled persons' Freedom Pass. Holders of the latter are not subject to the morning peak restrictions.
Dude - in Zones 1 and 2 that is the case. But in outer London, some car owners will get the bus into Romford / Uxbridge / Bromley town centre if it's well-priced and convenient. If the bus is too expensive or infrequent those people will drive instead.
Agree with most of the commenters that the free pass for over-60s should go. We should also get a view of how much savings the removal of almost all station personnel has yielded since April. I trust this staff is furloughed/on its way to termination. That s where the big savings are.
Most of these "Revenue Lost" calculations (from Freedom Pass / students) use the assumption that all/majority of the travel would happen if the individuals were required to pay. But that is often not the case - the travel just doesn't happen, so older people don't go out to socialise, and don't spend money in shops/restaurants.
A discounted travel scheme (both for old and young) would seem a better option to encourage activity but reduce costs.
