TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Horizon22]

It's been widely reported this week [1] [2] that TfL has a BIG gap in their budget with approximately £2.2bn uncovered by 2024/2025, but not seen any discussion here yet.

The UK’s capital is on course to face massive cuts to its bus and Underground services, the end of investment in active travel schemes and the deterioration of roads, bridges, Tube trains and stations unless the government provides help with closing a £2 billion funding gap, according to a grim assessment of Transport for London’s current financial position.

A finance report prepared for next week’s meeting of TfL’s finance committee, compiled by Transport for London’s chief finance officer Simon Kilonback, concludes that even a combination of “the highest impact service level reductions” and a “significant reduction” in capital investment will not be sufficient to enable a balanced budget to set, as is required of TfL given its legal status as a local authority.

Evidently some of this is political positioning to prevent the most stark and most dramatic scene when in negotiation with central government regarding their next funding settlement. I've listed below some of the potential impacts on the London Underground which are also well summarised in this thread by the BBC London transport correspondent.

This is "Managed Decline":

• No Step Free Access schemes other than those which are currently in construction
• All fleets would need to be life extended as much as possible, as currently happening on some trains.
• Bakerloo and Central line fleet replacement pushed back to 2030s/2040s; Jubilee line replacement would not start until mid-2040s, at significant cost.
• No start to upgrading Piccadilly line signalling, meaning there would be a gap between completion of our current signalling projects and the next phase which will have wide impacts.
• Increase in future maintenance costs on Picacadilly line to keep the current asset in "operable condition"
• No further station capacity upgrades - Camden Town and Holborn do not take place.
• The new station box at Elephant & Castle would not be able to fitted into an operational station.
• Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo Line Extension remain suspended indefinitely
• The Piccadilly and DLR new rolling stock are both committed but may need to be reviewed
• All new "Growth Fund projects" not progressed; This includes Colindale, Walthamstow Central & Leyton station upgrades, Renwick Road Junction, Elephant and Castle station Bakerloo Line Extension safeguarding

Dropping below "Managed Decline"

• Fleet overhauls cannot fully take place, expected to lead to up 25 per cent reduction in peak service on some lines.
• Less track renewal requires more speed restrictions.
• "Risk of downward reliability spiral preventing passenger return, compounding financial challenge".
• Customer satisfaction decrease due to decline in lift, escalator and routine station works
• Life extensions and renewals to signalling to prolong their lifespan and deal with obsolescence

There are also concerns about wider modal shift, the environmental impact and the impact upon equality for a city where almost half of people do not have a car. The full report can be found here.

 

[JonathanH]

The politics of this are very difficult. The government point at the fares freeze and other profligate spending and claim that the mayor has caused the problem. There is a perception of a bit of 'cry wolf' about some of the claims of managed decline.

Not really sure where this will go. I get the impression that some of the manged decline wouldn't really be noticed in the light of lower passenger numbers.

I note that many of the news stories have been accompanied by pictures of the underground around 1990. A return to anything resembling those pictures is somewhat unlikely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is also of note that LU of the 1990s is far better than most towns and cities have, most notably Leeds.

 

[Horizon22]

The politics of this are very difficult. The government point at the fares freeze and other profligate spending and claim that the mayor has caused the problem. There is a perception of a bit of 'cry wolf' about some of the claims of managed decline.

Not really sure where this will go. I get the impression that some of the manged decline wouldn't really be noticed in the light of lower passenger numbers.

The fares freeze was a bit silly, but many parties had promised it. The very modest increase they've had now (£1.55 for buses) seems barely noticeable and a good move and that's basically 3%. That being said, TfL did very well to cut costs and move towards a solely income model with little to no subsidy (which no other major capital has had to do to such an extent). Obviously you can't then run that model and have a 90% decline in that income almost overnight and central government were pretty insistent on ensuring that a relatively high frequency on the Tube for example still ran during lockdown (many of which were empty from personal experience). So if your income disappears and you can't cut costs drastically, not sure how the outcome wouldn't be any different to what we've seen.

In some areas lower passenger numbers might mask it. But key leisure times are as busy as ever - I've having to stand in pretty cramped conditions on many times that I've travelled on the weekend in and around Zone 1&2. Yes fewer peak services perhaps, but not sure that will make a huge dent. And even then if you reduces frequencies and people travel, there wasn't good news for various road bridges & tunnels either (at the most stark warnings).

It is also of note that LU of the 1990s is far better than most towns and cities have, most notably Leeds.

Yes but it's also heavily used. Frequency gaps would lead to chronic overcrowding. Leeds is particularly poor for public transport (and has a mad road network) out of the Northern cities. Let's not forget Greater London's population is higher than the ENTIRETY of Yorkshire & Humber AND North East combined. Higher density obviously means higher public transport usage. Its something that's been built into the culture (46% of Londoners don't own a car).

This is an argument often used but you don't level up by dragging down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is an argument often used but you don't level up by dragging down.

Ideally not, but if a major pandemic has just gone a fair way towards bankrupting the country (and continues to do so at a lower level) then you do need to make economies. Increased taxation is a longer term solution, but if you whack taxes up fast that would have a very harmful effect, you need to creep them up to allow people time to adjust how they spend.

 

[Horizon22]

Ideally not, but if a major pandemic has just gone a fair way towards bankrupting the country (and continues to do so at a lower level) then you do need to make economies. Increased taxation is a longer term solution, but if you whack taxes up fast that would have a very harmful effect, you need to creep them up to allow people time to adjust how they spend.

I would agree but it does seem that should be applied equally - London would be (if this approach is taken) disproportionately affected - whether its from a higher position I don't think is necessarily relevant. That being said I do agree that some modest fare increases could assist. Council tax for London already increased quite significantly last April.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would agree but it does seem that should be applied equally - London would be (if this approach is taken) disproportionately affected - whether its from a higher position I don't think is necessarily relevant. That being said I do agree that some modest fare increases could assist. Council tax for London already increased quite significantly last April.

True, in particular bus fares which are massively below the level of those elsewhere in the country (rail and Tube are more similar). Creeping the bus single up to two quid or even slightly above that would not be at all unreasonable but would bring in considerably more money. I think most people would prefer that over swingeing bus cuts.

It is also rather questionable as to whether Tramlink should really be priced as a bus journey. I know this was originally because it took over some bus routes, but that was years ago, and it is difficult to argue that its fares should not be commensurate with the Tube and DLR, or other UK tram systems.

 

[Horizon22]

True, in particular bus fares which are massively below the level of those elsewhere in the country (rail and Tube are more similar). Creeping the bus single up to two quid or even slightly above that would not be at all unreasonable but would bring in considerably more money.

It's only just gone up by ~3% (£1.50 - £1.55), but in principle yes although this is obviously the mode of transport of choice for less well-off Londoners who would see a bigger impact.

 

[westv]

I saw Sadiq Khan talking about this on the local news when I was down in London.
I just seemed he was almost claiming it would lead to worldwide hunger and global war!

 

[deltic]

I dont think many people would notice the impact of managed decline for some years. We have already seen steady reductions in bus frequencies without it causing much stir. In most areas the tube could run at off-peak frequencies without impacting on passengers - the only crowded tubes I have seen have been on Saturdays.

 

[JonathanH]

I dont think many people would notice the impact of managed decline for some years. We have already seen steady reductions in bus frequencies without it causing much stir. In most areas the tube could run at off-peak frequencies without impacting on passengers - the only crowded tubes I have seen have been on Saturdays.

I agree that to an extent it may not be noticeable - running every four minutes instead of every three may not be noticeable at less busy times. What is less certain is whether a speeding up of this process - eg cutting out 100 bus routes, whatever that means, or going to the point of underground lines running every ten minutes, not currently on the agenda - would be much more visible.

 

[Djgr]

I would agree but it does seem that should be applied equally - London would be (if this approach is taken) disproportionately affected - whether its from a higher position I don't think is necessarily relevant. That being said I do agree that some modest fare increases could assist. Council tax for London already increased quite significantly last April.

I would be interested in the argument that London inherently deserves to be kept in a higher position.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

It's only just gone up by ~3% (£1.50 - £1.55), but in principle yes although this is obviously the mode of transport of choice for less well-off Londoners who would see a bigger impact.

I haven't looked for a good while but I assume Londoners can get it below that if they travel often enough to reach the daily/weekly cap?

In Stoke-on-Trent (no car households 30% in 2011, masking areas with a higher percentage), First offer single bus fares of: £1.50, £1.90, £2.30, £2.70, £3.00, £5.50, £6.00. For £1.50 you get to go a couple of stops (it might be up to a mile but they refuse to publish details of single fares to check the distance). Beyond that it ramps up very quickly. We don't get 24 hours buses, night tubes, or indeed any bus near me after 1835.

 

[Horizon22]

I haven't looked for a good while but I assume Londoners can get it below that if they travel often enough to reach the daily/weekly cap?

In Stoke-on-Trent (no car households 30% in 2011, masking areas with a higher percentage), First offer single bus fares of: £1.50, £1.90, £2.30, £2.70, £3.00, £5.50, £6.00. For £1.50 you get to go a couple of stops (it might be up to a mile but they refuse to publish details of single fares to check the distance). Beyond that it ramps up very quickly. We don't get 24 hours buses, night tubes, or indeed any bus near me after 1835.

Weekly cap is £21.90. As I've said before, because other places are sub par does not necessarily mean that other places that do have good transport should suffer. Obviously these things have a critical mass - a large urbanised area where roads are basically gridlocked (London) makes public transport a much more attractive option. There may indeed need to be a bit of scaling back and rationalisation but was interested in the forum's views.

 

[Hadders]

I understand why people compare London to other cities in the UK but this really isn't a helpful comparison simply because London is so much than any other city, even more so when you add in its hinterland.

London really needs to be compared to other similar places such as New York, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

 

[WAB]

Other areas need to become more like London in terms of public transport, rather than forcing London down. Everyone being in the same mire helps no-one.

 

[ChrisC]

I understand why people compare London to other cities in the UK but this really isn't a helpful comparison simply because London is so much than any other city, even more so when you add in its hinterland.

London really needs to be compared to other similar places such as New York, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo etc.

I completely agree that in so many ways London cannot easily be compared to other major cities in the UK. Even the population of large cities like Manchester and Birmingham are small compared to Greater London and the area it covers.

However, bus fares in London are unbelievably low in comparison to other UK cities and even more so to bus fares in the more rural shire counties. I accept that car ownership is far lower in London and that the bus is the mode of transport chosen by the less well off. Train and tube fares do seem a little more comparable with the rest of the country. Whenever I go to London I am amazed at the low £1.55 bus fare and the low daily and weekly caps. Where I live in Nottinghamshire the single fare into the nearby small town just over a mile away is £2.40, so costing me £4.80 for a return trip to the local shops. A day ticket, only available after 9am is £6.50 and valid only on the one bus company. Therefore a return journey of only a few miles using two different bus companies can easily mount up to well over £10.

Last week I was in London and was able to travel from Richmond in London right out to Box Hill, near Dorking in the Surrey Hills, for just £1.55. The fare system which allowed me to change buses in Kingston within an hour enabled this. The hop on and off fares system and the low £1.55 fare enables people to travel long distances for a very low price if traffic conditions allow! At the other extreme I do notice people in London hop on and off buses travelling very short distances, which in other parts of the country with high fares people would walk. Unless I have something very heavy to carry, or it is pouring down with rain, I never use the bus into my local town paying the £2.40 single fare but walk instead. Are the low fares actually encouraging people to use buses for short unnecessary journeys where walking is quite possible and the exercise healthy.

 

[Horizon22]

I completely agree that in so many ways London cannot easily be compared to other major cities in the UK. Even the population of large cities like Manchester and Birmingham are small compared to Greater London and the area it covers.

However, bus fares in London are unbelievably low in comparison to other UK cities and even more so to bus fares in the more rural shire counties. I accept that car ownership is far lower in London and that the bus is the mode of transport chosen by the less well off. Train and tube fares do seem a little more comparable with the rest of the country. Whenever I go to London I am amazed at the low £1.55 bus fare and the low daily and weekly caps. Where I live in Nottinghamshire the single fare into the nearby small town just over a mile away is £2.40, so costing me £4.80 for a return trip to the local shops. A day ticket, only available after 9am is £6.50 and valid only on the one bus company. Therefore a return journey of only a few miles using two different bus companies can easily mount up to well over £10.

Last week I was in London and was able to travel from Richmond in London right out to Box Hill, near Dorking in the Surrey Hills, for just £1.55. The fare system which allowed me to change buses in Kingston within an hour enabled this. The hop on and off fares system and the low £1.55 fare enables people to travel long distances for a very low price if traffic conditions allow! At the other extreme I do notice people in London hop on and off buses travelling very short distances, which in other parts of the country with high fares people would walk. Unless I have something very heavy to carry, or it is pouring down with rain, I never use the bus into my local town paying the £2.40 single fare but walk instead. Are the low fares actually encouraging people to use buses for short unnecessary journeys where walking is quite possible and the exercise healthy.

I would agree with you that bus fares are very good value and could probably go up in steady increments and not be disastrous for individuals. They only just went up by 3% to £1.55. I think steady 5p increases over the next few years would certainly assist with the gap in funding, but I can't imagine would be a big dent. And yes anecdotally I would say that the low fares do encourage passengers to make journeys they would otherwise walk but that is in some ways good for TfL funds if the alternative is £0.00!

 

[dannylongleg98]

As others have mentioned, TfL being funded entirely by fares is completely different to how other massive cities run their transport systems - it strikes me as the govt trying to bleed them dry which is obviously tricky given how important London is to the whole UK. Leaving them in such a “precarious“ situation as they are currently with finance is terrible management imo. Good transport isn’t cheap so from a broader perspective I wonder if the govt are throwing away pounds in the long term to save pennies (or however the phrase goes). Also interesting to note that there’s a new headline every day from Sadiq but am yet to see any headline replies from the government. Personally I think the government will probably roll over and mostly give TfL what they want as they are basically too big to fail.

To answer the actual question, I imagine it will come down to TfL running on what it currently has and avoiding any major upgrades that they might have planned. They plan these major projects/upgrades a few decades ahead so it will probably involve cancelling things most people aren’t aware of and we wouldn’t feel the effects of this for a long time (not that it excuses cancelling them). I think headlines about cancelling loads of services or leaving bridges to crumble are overblown and I can’t imagine that would be how they enter negotiations. Issues with existing assets becoming increasingly expensive to maintain probably will cause headaches but I doubt they’d be allowed to massively reduce contracts etc anyway as the services will always have to be safe for users/passengers. Services might be reduced but I think levels will stay static and then potentially become insufficient as London continues to expand/recover from Covid.

TLDR - TfL services and upgrades will probably freeze and maybe some of the bigger projects/less economical route offerings will be cancelled. Not ideal but I think the dire headlines are a reflection of TfL trying to amp things up so they can get as much money as possible (as they should, but they will likely have to settle for less).

 

[bramling]

As others have mentioned, TfL being funded entirely by fares is completely different to how other massive cities run their transport systems - it strikes me as the govt trying to bleed them dry which is obviously tricky given how important London is to the whole UK. Leaving them in such a “precarious“ situation as they are currently with finance is terrible management imo. Good transport isn’t cheap so from a broader perspective I wonder if the govt are throwing away pounds in the long term to save pennies (or however the phrase goes). Also interesting to note that there’s a new headline every day from Sadiq but am yet to see any headline replies from the government. Personally I think the government will probably roll over and mostly give TfL what they want as they are basically too big to fail.

To answer the actual question, I imagine it will come down to TfL running on what it currently has and avoiding any major upgrades that they might have planned. They plan these major projects/upgrades a few decades ahead so it will probably involve cancelling things most people aren’t aware of and we wouldn’t feel the effects of this for a long time (not that it excuses cancelling them). I think headlines about cancelling loads of services or leaving bridges to crumble are overblown and I can’t imagine that would be how they enter negotiations. Issues with existing assets becoming increasingly expensive to maintain probably will cause headaches but I doubt they’d be allowed to massively reduce contracts etc anyway as the services will always have to be safe for users/passengers. Services might be reduced but I think levels will stay static and then potentially become insufficient as London continues to expand/recover from Covid.

TLDR - TfL services and upgrades will probably freeze and maybe some of the bigger projects/less economical route offerings will be cancelled. Not ideal but I think the dire headlines are a reflection of TfL trying to amp things up so they can get as much money as possible (as they should, but they will likely have to settle for less).

What is happening is essentially the Johnson government punishing London for voting Labour and voting Khan, and also perhaps to a small extent a dislike of TfL by Johnson himself, perhaps again because it is a Labour creation and has tended to act as a mouthpiece for the left-leaning mayors Livingstone and Khan (for some reason this didn’t seem to happen in the same way during the Johnson mayoral years).

TfL has always come across as a very political organisation in a way that something like Network Rail doesn’t. Looking back over the last two decades I’m not sure this has served London particularly well. Things like the Victoria Line upgrade and S stock have been got right, but a lot has been got wrong too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that the elected mayor barely controls anything else, so it has become a massive political pawn. I would agree that this is not a good thing at all - the politicians should just be approving basic outputs and related funding packages and let the transport professionals in TfL get on with it.

 

[Mawkie]

Just for the avoidance of ambiguity, here is the original document from TfL titled, "Implications of reduced funding for TfL" from which most of the mainstream media took their details as discussed earlier up-thread.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s16939/fc-20211124-item11a-Impacts-of-Reduced-Funding.pdf

 

[tbtc]

Interesting thread - given that the rest of the UK may well have to accept some "managed decline" over the next generation (I think that some people are still in denial about it, and keep proposing some projects that would have been fairly "ambitious" even in a growing railway environment)

We've had it good for a long time, increased passenger numbers, reliable subsidy numbers, practically nothing has closed in the past generation - but the railway as a whole needs to be able to live within its means rather than assuming that Governments will be along to fund even more generous franchises and turn blind eyes to Network Rail's debt accumulation - so how do you cut your cloth in an environment where there's no "jam tomorrow" (he says, horribly mixing his metaphors)?

At least London is in a relatively good position, once you have Crossrail opened fully there's a pretty good network there, whilst there are obviously many things on the Shopping List, there's nothing glaringly big that needs prioritising in the short term

(although, there's an element of 'Mayor using scary prospect of Terminal Decline to try to scare Westminster into giving him more funds" - obviously people's reaction to this will be determined by their political preferences - is this KHAN THROWS TOYS OUT OF PRAM or MAYOR WORKS HARD TO SECURE BETTER DEAL FOR LONDONERS?)

 

[Busaholic]

What is happening is essentially the Johnson government punishing London for voting Labour and voting Khan, and also perhaps to a small extent a dislike of TfL by Johnson himself, perhaps again because it is a Labour creation and has tended to act as a mouthpiece for the left-leaning mayors Livingstone and Khan (for some reason this didn’t seem to happen in the same way during the Johnson mayoral years).

TfL has always come across as a very political organisation in a way that something like Network Rail doesn’t. Looking back over the last two decades I’m not sure this has served London particularly well. Things like the Victoria Line upgrade and S stock have been got right, but a lot has been got wrong too.

That's a highly partial view of the influence of London mayors on TfL operations. I'd like to highlight some (by no means all) of the things that Johnson did which impinged on TfL operations, NOT in any particular order:-

A) Getting rid of bendybuses (this, admittedly, was a feature of his manifesto, so could be said to be done with public approval)
B) Commissioning the building of the 'New Routemaster' bus and signing orders for hundreds of them (again using the manifesto, but this time as a smokescreen when it quickly became clear that hop on/hop off was NEVER going to be reintroduced except in the most limited way and, even then, for a very limited time)
C) Pushing for the extension of the Northern Line branch from Kennington to a derelict site in Battersea that wasn't on TfL's Top Ten list of new Underground projects, that quickly gained approval
D) Refusing to sanction the extra train services to Bellingham that had been agreed as part of the undertakings around the withdrawal of the South London Line
E) Jumping on the Joanna Lumley bandwagon, together with George Osborne, over the Garden Bridge fantasy, which has cost London Council Taxpayers dear
F) The Emirates skilift
G) Agreeing with the Treasury to phase out government subsidies for TfL's public transport operations almost as soon as he knew he'd be out of office

Even the so-called Borisbikes were a Ken Livingstone initiative that Johnson was happy to glory in, aided by his cheerleaders at the Evening Standard.

The elephant in the room which is conveniently (for him and his administration at the Shard) never mentioned is, of course, Crossrail and who knew what before Khan was handed that particular poisoned chalice immediately after his own election. I don't believe for one second that Johnson didn't know everything was not hunky dory.

 

[Horizon22]

Just for the avoidance of ambiguity, here is the original document from TfL titled, "Implications of reduced funding for TfL" from which most of the mainstream media took their details as discussed earlier up-thread.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s16939/fc-20211124-item11a-Impacts-of-Reduced-Funding.pdf

Yes I did link to this at the end of my post.

 

[JonathanH]

D) Refusing to sanction the extra train services to Bellingham that had been agreed as part of the undertakings around the withdrawal of the South London Line

That was essentially a DfT decision, not something that the mayor was directly a part of. TfL made the decision easier by bringing forward the East London Line extension to Clapham Junction. The absence of the Bellingham service isn't creating any particular hardship.

 

[Busaholic]

The absence of the Bellingham service isn't creating any particular hardship.

Maybe more due to covid than anything else.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe more due to covid than anything else.

Huh? Its absence wasn't causing any hardship prior to March 2020 either. It would have been limited to 4-car operation and was projected to lose money, hence why the DfT were happy to divert the funding for it to the East London Line. Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road have a connection to Clapham Junction for connections to Victoria if needed.

 

[philthetube]

I wonder how many people would have to be driven back onto the roads, causing massively longer travel times for MP's attending parliament for them to realise the issues.

 

[deltic]

I wonder how many people would have to be driven back onto the roads, causing massively longer travel times for MP's attending parliament for them to realise the issues.

Many MPs use TfL services on a regular basis - that's why it is easier for TfL to get approval for projects. If Parliament was based in Leeds it would have had a transit system years ago.

I don't mean that in a cycnical way but London's advantage is that 600MPs are familiar with the issues it faces while probably no more than 10 are familiar with the situation in Leeds.