Let's start at the beginning, in , when TfL was created. Over the past 20 years, TfL has been run by three mayors with differing ideas about how best to repair London's Tube network and to build for the future.
Both of those things cost money. Over the past two decades, TfL has received a mixture of government grants, fare income, sponsorship and huge investment loans from banks in order to keep the Underground on the move. Mr Johnson enjoyed two consecutive stints as mayor of London, between and What factors help to explain TfL's current financial state? TfL is dealing with financial pressures on several fronts - before coronavirus, arguably the biggest issue was the Crossrail project, which is overspent and late.
Fast-forward to and there still is no Crossrail running through central London. In fact, in August it was announced that the central section of Crossrail, between Paddington and Abbey Wood, is not expected to open until the first half of - a further delay to the line since the previous planned summer delivery date and well beyond the initial intended opening date of The escalating costs of Crossrail are huge for TfL and the DfT and, at the same time, TfL has been denied a source of income from fares, commercial advertising and retail units at stations.
Add another four years of lost income and it is easy to see the drain Crossrail continues to have on the accounts.
Crossrail CEO Mark Wild also said in August : "Work is ongoing to finalise the cost estimates" - effectively the actual final construction cost of Crossrail is not known.
Even as Mr Johnson and Mr Khan were exchanging harsh words last week, investment service Moody downgraded TfL's long-term ratings to A1 from Aa3 and "changed the outlook to negative". Essentially, the lower the rating the tougher it is to borrow money cheaply in the future.
Moody's said in a statement: "The downgrade to A1 from Aa3 reflects TfL's vulnerability to a weaker economic climate and the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which will continue to depress fare revenues and other income over the medium term.
This all changed in when Mr Johnson, as London mayor in the final full year of his term , and then- Chancellor George Osborne agreed to phase out this government operating grant. It said: "The loss of the government operating grant within just a few years has been the single largest change to TfL's income streams. Since then TfL has been heavily reliant on fares as a source of income. In order for fare income to flourish, TfL needs passengers; over the years, the number of people using the Tube has always been expected to rise.
One of the infrastructure companies is Metronet. From the 18 th July to the 26 th May , the company was in administration and on 27 th May , the company responsibilities were transferred back into public ownership under the authority of Transport for London.
Tube Lines Ltd is a 2 nd infrastructure company established under a Public-Private Partnership scheme in but brought by TFL in following a funding shortfall. Combined with the takeover of Metronet, this means that all maintenance is now managed in-house by TFL. The company is responsible for the infrastructure for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines.
Thankfully, the services of the London Underground are under public ownership. But in my previous article , I quoted TfL from their new fares article which said:.
As well as meeting the needs of the modern London workforce this fares package will ensure that the unprecedented investment in London's transport network will continue. The reality is that TFL tendered out the services to private companies in order for them to make revenue by operating a service for TFL.
But a fraction of your fares go to profits for the private operating company, but the majority of the fares go back to running the services. Private company owned by Netherlands Government. German Government by single shareholder. Hopefully this article has shown you how the operations of TFL are provided by private companies. But Boardman says the biggest hurdles are not financial or logistical but sociopolitical.
There will need to be a strong communication strategy to demonstrate the long-term positive impacts of the new system to the Greater Manchester community, says Boardman, from money saved on fuel that can go towards holidays to the health benefits for children of walking and cycling. It runs alongside other operators and sets its own fares, but council ownership means there are standards around emission ratings and vehicles.
The deregulated system means there is competition between operators to serve popular routes, but he says this can be positive as it encourages them to learn from each other and improve their customer service.
For less commercially viable routes, the council operates a link bus service to fill network gaps. A Greater Nottingham Bus Partnership meets regularly with the council to discuss issues of concern. So which is the best option? There is no doubt that a joined-up transport network made possible through public ownership encourages people to get out of their cars. Government regulation is also a powerful tool that can be used for societal inclusion and environmental standards.
Equally, the public sector has its financial difficulties and challenges around innovating outside of budgets. Southern owner Govia loses West Midlands rail franchise. Log In. Contact us Sign up for newsletters. Log In Register now My account. By Sarah Newey.
0コメント