TFL crisis: Sadiq Khan proposes council tax hikes and Heathrow premium

[Roland Perry]

"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.

...

Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

I was actually expecting a larger council tax increase.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

I was actually expecting a larger council tax increase.

It's not clear if the £20pa increase is just a subset of his precept
that's for TfL, or whether it's to cover other additional City Hall
expenditure as well.

(Police/Fire and presumably social care are already separate
categories).

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).

As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

[Recliner]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise

Ironically, it was a Boris Johnson election pledge, and was brought in by him in November 2012.

Post by Robin
that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).
As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

Are you suggesting all TfL staff should have a pay freeze?

[Robin]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise

Ironically, it was a Boris Johnson election pledge, and was brought in by him in November 2012.

yes - at a time when the central government scheme had just moved to age
61 - a change Boris could lay at Labour's door. And to pre-empt the
charge that Conservatives would abolish free travel.

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin
that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).
As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

Are you suggesting all TfL staff should have a pay freeze?

no, I'm suggesting that taxpayers might wonder why they should subsidise
TfL when TfL staff secured 4 years of inflation-beating pay rises (and
RPI inflation at that) last year - something many taxpayers can only
dream of

[Recliner]

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise

Ironically, it was a Boris Johnson election pledge, and was brought in
by him in November 2012.

yes - at a time when the central government scheme had just moved to age
61 - a change Boris could lay at Labour's door. And to pre-empt the
charge that Conservatives would abolish free travel.

So it was OK for Boris to introduce the scheme, but not for his successor
to continue it?

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin
that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).
As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

Are you suggesting all TfL staff should have a pay freeze?

no, I'm suggesting that taxpayers might wonder why they should subsidise
TfL when TfL staff secured 4 years of inflation-beating pay rises (and
RPI inflation at that) last year - something many taxpayers can only
dream of

Was it out of line with other rail staff?

[Robin]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise

Ironically, it was a Boris Johnson election pledge, and was brought in
by him in November 2012.

yes - at a time when the central government scheme had just moved to age
61 - a change Boris could lay at Labour's door. And to pre-empt the
charge that Conservatives would abolish free travel.

So it was OK for Boris to introduce the scheme, but not for his successor
to continue it?

Yes - when his successor is facing a massive shortfall created in part
by his own policies.

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin
that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).
As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

Are you suggesting all TfL staff should have a pay freeze?

no, I'm suggesting that taxpayers might wonder why they should subsidise
TfL when TfL staff secured 4 years of inflation-beating pay rises (and
RPI inflation at that) last year - something many taxpayers can only
dream of

Was it out of line with other rail staff?

Why do you seek a comparison with other rail staff rather than other
employees generally (or with other public sector employees) whose taxes
would go to subsidise TfL? Do you think TfL employees start off
underpaid for what they do compared with them?

[Robin]

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
"Years of council tax hikes, inflation-busting fare rises and premium
fares for Heathrow passengers were announced on Wednesday evening by
Sadiq Khan.
...
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-financial-crisis-sadiq-
khan-council-tax-rise-tube-bus-fares-heathrow-premium-b972232.html>

giving the Older Person's Freedom Pass at age 60 was a blatant
electioneering promise

Ironically, it was a Boris Johnson election pledge, and was brought in
by him in November 2012.

yes - at a time when the central government scheme had just moved to age
61 - a change Boris could lay at Labour's door. And to pre-empt the
charge that Conservatives would abolish free travel.

So it was OK for Boris to introduce the scheme, but not for his successor
to continue it?

Yes - when his successor is facing a massive shortfall created in part
by his own policies.

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin
that has long cried out for that change (and
which Khan could phase in more rapidly).
As for the fares increase, I'd like someone to ask Khan why he thinks
everyone else should pay for TfL's pay rises.

Are you suggesting all TfL staff should have a pay freeze?

no, I'm suggesting that taxpayers might wonder why they should subsidise
TfL when TfL staff secured 4 years of inflation-beating pay rises (and
RPI inflation at that) last year - something many taxpayers can only
dream of

Was it out of line with other rail staff?

Why do you seek a comparison with other rail staff rather than other
employees generally (or with other public sector employees) whose taxes
would go to subsidise TfL?

Because most TfL employees work on the railways. The bus staff don't work
for TfL.

Post by Robin
Do you think TfL employees start off
underpaid for what they do compared with them?

I have no idea — do you? Do other similar staff working in London get paid
less?

My dinner is almost ready so I shall have to leave you with brief points
on which you can have the last word:

a. I've never seen from TfL benchmarks, job weights etc against anyone
other than TOCs and Network Rail; and of course no one can produce them
without TfL's cooperation

b. TfL's pension scheme is expensive when judged against comparators -
e.g. the Civil Service. See e.g. the independent review in 2020

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside London
who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so people
like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains while I
have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses we have
after 09:30?"

[Roland Perry]

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.

At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.

Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.

But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include

"Freedom Pass

Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.

£24m

60+ London Oyster photocard

Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.

£100m"



[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

[Robin]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

[Recliner]

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

[Robin]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

And from where did TfL meet the costs of 60+ Oysters if not from fares
and other income (given I assume you do now accept the cost is not met
by the boroughs)?

Or can you point us to where the government said the money they were
providing was to make up only for fares that /wouldn't/ have gone to pay
for free travel for 60+ Oyster holders?

[Recliner]

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

And from where did TfL meet the costs of 60+ Oysters if not from fares
and other income (given I assume you do now accept the cost is not met
by the boroughs)?
Or can you point us to where the government said the money they were
providing was to make up only for fares that /wouldn't/ have gone to pay
for free travel for 60+ Oyster holders?

The bail-out doesn't come close to covering the lost fares, let alone
anything else.

[Robin]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

And from where did TfL meet the costs of 60+ Oysters if not from fares
and other income (given I assume you do now accept the cost is not met
by the boroughs)?
Or can you point us to where the government said the money they were
providing was to make up only for fares that /wouldn't/ have gone to pay
for free travel for 60+ Oyster holders?

The bail-out doesn't come close to covering the lost fares, let alone
anything else.

Agreed. Which is why TfL needs to (a) find additional savings such as
from 60+ Oysters or (b) go back to central government and ask for even
more from the general body of taxpayers so it can continue to give the
same free travel to Londoners it has in the past.

But if (b), what's the answer to taxpayers outside London who ask "why
the fuck should we pay for Londoners to get what we don't?".

[Recliner]

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

And from where did TfL meet the costs of 60+ Oysters if not from fares
and other income (given I assume you do now accept the cost is not met
by the boroughs)?
Or can you point us to where the government said the money they were
providing was to make up only for fares that /wouldn't/ have gone to pay
for free travel for 60+ Oyster holders?

The bail-out doesn't come close to covering the lost fares, let alone
anything else.

Agreed. Which is why TfL needs to (a) find additional savings such as
from 60+ Oysters or (b) go back to central government and ask for even
more from the general body of taxpayers so it can continue to give the
same free travel to Londoners it has in the past.
But if (b), what's the answer to taxpayers outside London who ask "why
the fuck should we pay for Londoners to get what we don't?".

They don't and won't.


As you know, TfL is curtailing the 60+ pass, raising council tax, increased
the congestion charge hours, cutting spending, cutting services, and
raising fares, because the DfT bail-out doesn't come close to replacing the
lost fare revenue.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

c. I have yet to see an answer to those aged 60-65 year outside
London who ask "why should I have to pay more tax to subsidise TfL so
people like me in London can get free travel on buses, tube and trains
while I have to wait until I'm 66 to get free travel on the few buses
we have after 09:30?"

As someone whose Twirly card was postponed under my feet just as it was
looming on the horizon, I felt particularly strongly about this.
At the time I was living somewhere with lots of buses, and it would have
even further encouraged me to use them (rather than driving). By the
time I'd caught up with the tapering issue-date, I'd moved somewhere it
was essentially useless.
Like one bus a year that made any sense to catch, useless.
But I'd still been paying, for years, for people (in the provinces) a
handful of years older than me to get their cards at 60.

I believe the 60+ Oyster is self-funded within London, by London Councils
(ie, their council tax-payers). So nobody outside London is contributing to
it.

The 60+ is separate and distinct from the Freedom Pass. The Boroughs
fund only (most of) the Freedom Pass. See e.g. TfL's Business Plan[1]
which sets out on page 38 the estimates of revenue foregone in 2018/19.
They include
"Freedom Pass
Free travel at all times on all TfL services for people aged 66 or those
with a disability. We fund travel in the morning peak, the boroughs
compensate us at other times.
£24m
60+ London Oyster photocard
Free travel on TfL services 24/7, and on National Rail services after
09:30 on weekdays, for Londoners aged over 60 but below the Freedom Pass
eligibility age.
£100m"
[1] can be downloaded from
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/business-plan

I think it's still self-funded within London, by TfL, and hence by
London council taxpayers.

I cannot see any way to reconcile "it's still self-funded within London"
with the fact that TfL has needed £4 billion in bail-outs from central
government and wants more.

Sorry, I meant pre-Covid. In any case, the Covid bail-outs aren't to fund
60+ Oysters. They're to partially replace the fare revenues lost thanks to
reduced commuting and the disappearance of foreign tourists.

And from where did TfL meet the costs of 60+ Oysters if not from fares
and other income (given I assume you do now accept the cost is not met
by the boroughs)?
Or can you point us to where the government said the money they were
providing was to make up only for fares that /wouldn't/ have gone to pay
for free travel for 60+ Oyster holders?

The bail-out doesn't come close to covering the lost fares, let alone
anything else.

Agreed. Which is why TfL needs to (a) find additional savings such as
from 60+ Oysters or (b) go back to central government and ask for even
more from the general body of taxpayers so it can continue to give the
same free travel to Londoners it has in the past.
But if (b), what's the answer to taxpayers outside London who ask "why
the fuck should we pay for Londoners to get what we don't?".

They don't and won't.
As you know, TfL is curtailing the 60+ pass, raising council tax, increased
the congestion charge hours, cutting spending, cutting services, and
raising fares, because the DfT bail-out doesn't come close to replacing the
lost fare revenue.

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft been
held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that reporter's
chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter of the
expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft been
held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that reporter's
chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter of the
expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

That would lead to very big cuts. British governments have favoured a model
where fares and commercial income more or less cover operating costs, with
the government subsidy mainly focused on capital investment. I don't think
there's a willingness (post-Covid) to greatly increase the subsidy.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18
b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft been
held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that reporter's
chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter of the
expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

That would lead to very big cuts. British governments have favoured a model
where fares and commercial income more or less cover operating costs, with
the government subsidy mainly focused on capital investment. I don't think
there's a willingness (post-Covid) to greatly increase the subsidy.

Yes, I know. But it doesn't stop people banging on about "they can have
affordable fares in Switzerland, so why can't we".

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft been
held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that reporter's
chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter of the
expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit of an
issue for voters outside London. TfL gets a smaller tranche from
dedicated/local taxes than e.g. Paris and New York. Singapore gets lots
of central government grants but then as a "city state" ...

[Robin]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to extra time
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft been
held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that reporter's
chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter of the
expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit of an
issue for voters outside London.

It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of the local funding pre-Covid.

I was responding to Roland's comment about the chart with international
comparisons.

[unknown]

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit of
an issue for voters outside London.

It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount that
has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit of
an issue for voters outside London.

It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount that
has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most things
are more expensive in central London, in part because of higher business
rates.

[David Jones]

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Most online businesses are based in much cheaper locations than central
London. Do you think Tesco's head office and warehouses are in London?

It's London's taxes that subsidise the rest of the country. Perhaps you'd
like that to stop? That would leave loads of money for TfL.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by David Jones

Post by Recliner
Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Most online businesses are based in much cheaper locations than central
London. Do you think Tesco's head office and warehouses are in London?

The most obvious things that cost significantly more in London, compared
to the provinces, are hotel/restaurant/pub/theatre prices, taxi fares
and for residents, rents.

Post by Recliner
It's London's taxes that subsidise the rest of the country.

No just the taxes. Rail fares (pre-covid anyway) from London commuters
subsidised the whole of the rest of the country. Vastly so in the cases
of Wales, Scotland and 'Northern'.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan’s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

[Optimist]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan?s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to Khan's congestion and ULEZ
charges?

[Recliner]

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan?s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to
Khan's congestion and ULEZ
charges?

The congestion charge, averaged over a day's deliveries, will be a very
small amount per delivery, and the zone is very small, with relatively few
residents. The ULEZ charge isn't payable by modern vans. So, no, the
delivery cost will be less in London than in lower density areas.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan?s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to Khan's congestion and ULEZ
charges?

Congestion charge long predates both Khan and Boris.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.

In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not. On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.
In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not.

The CC is only suspended on Christmas day this year.

Better tell TfL, their website says:

"Congestion Charge (CC): 07:00-22:00, every day except Christmas Day
(25 December) and the period up to and including New Year's Day Bank
Holiday."

Post by Roland Perry
On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

I think there's quite a bit of public transport running on Boxing Day.

Nope: <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:CBG/2021-1
2-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt>

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.
In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not.

The CC is only suspended on Christmas day this year.

"Congestion Charge (CC): 07:00-22:00, every day except Christmas Day
(25 December) and the period up to and including New Year's Day Bank
Holiday."

Yes, it looks like it's changed again.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

I think there's quite a bit of public transport running on Boxing Day.

Nope: <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:CBG/2021-1
2-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt>

What's that got to do with public transport in London?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:40:48 +0000, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far
away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.
In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not.

The CC is only suspended on Christmas day this year.

"Congestion Charge (CC): 07:00-22:00, every day except Christmas Day
(25 December) and the period up to and including New Year's Day Bank
Holiday."

Yes, it looks like it's changed again.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

I think there's quite a bit of public transport running on
Boxing Day.

<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:CBG/2021-1
2-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt>

What's that got to do with public transport in London?

Public Transport in London is not going to help me avoid driving down
from Cambridge on Boxing Day. I have vaguely considered driving down to
somewhere like Redbridge, and catching the tube, but even if the Central
Line is running (I haven't looked) it's not worth the extra bother,
unless I was wanting to avoid paying the charge on principle.

It's hardly TfL's fault that there are gaps in public transport in
other parts of the country on Boxing Day. It will be providing clean
electric trains, but if you (or I) want to drive a polluting diesel
car into central London, it will levy the usual toxic tax.

One car, over the quiet holiday period, is not going to make any
difference.
But you've not answered the question: why suspend the congestion
charge, which has the same motivation?

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The clue is in
the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:40:48 +0000, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far
away  places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.
In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not.

The CC is only suspended on Christmas day this year.

"Congestion Charge (CC): 07:00-22:00, every day except Christmas Day
(25 December) and the period up to and including New Year's Day Bank
Holiday."

Yes, it looks like it's changed again.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

I think there's quite a bit of public transport running on
Boxing  Day.

<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:CBG/2021-1
2-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt>

What's that got to do with public transport in London?

Public Transport in London is not going to help me avoid driving down
from Cambridge on Boxing Day. I have vaguely considered driving down to
somewhere like Redbridge, and catching the tube, but even if the Central
Line is running (I haven't looked) it's not worth the extra bother,
unless I was wanting to avoid paying the charge on principle.

It's hardly TfL's fault that there are gaps in public transport in
other  parts of the country on Boxing Day. It will be providing
clean electric  trains, but if you (or I) want to drive a polluting
diesel car into  central  London, it will levy the usual toxic tax.

 One car, over the quiet holiday period, is not going to make any
difference.
 But you've not answered the question: why suspend the congestion
charge,  which has the same motivation?

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The clue is in
the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Nope.

[Roland Perry]

<snip>

Post by Roland Perry
Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Evidence? You are after all accusing TfL of misleading the public when
they stated in documents about the proposed changes to the CC that the
primary aim of the CC scheme is still to reduce traffic and congestion.

Because traffic and congestion increases emissions. See other recent
threads about turning off your car when stuck in traffic jams (at level
crossings, or otherwise).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

<snip>

Post by Roland Perry
Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to
reduce the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Evidence?  You are after all accusing TfL of misleading the public
when they stated in documents about the proposed changes to the CC
that the primary aim of the CC scheme is still to reduce traffic and
congestion.

Because traffic and congestion increases emissions. See other recent
threads about turning off your car when stuck in traffic jams (at
level crossings, or otherwise).

That's not evidence of purpose.
a. shown no evidence at all that TfL, the Mayor or others have
changed its purpose
b. (as I said and you ignored) called TfL liars

I recognise that there's often a disconnect between true purpose and
what organisations say when trying to sell a scheme to the public. It's
more to do with spin, than lying.

Cyclists and pedestrians, in particular, benefit from fewer cars being
on the roads (and hence less fumes), and yet are relatively unaffected
by traffic jams as such.

since they explicitly confirmed the CC's primary purpose this year.
You can, if you wish, argue that reduced emissions are now the main
/effect/ of the CC but if you wish to do so please explain how you
compare the chalk of emissions with the cheese of congestion to decide
which matters more.

You'll need to explain what the Cleaner Vehicle Discount is for, in
order to drive a wedge between the CC and emissions.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

<snip>

Post by Roland Perry
Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to
reduce  the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Evidence?  You are after all accusing TfL of misleading the public
when they stated in documents about the proposed changes to the CC
that the primary aim of the CC scheme is still to reduce traffic and
congestion.

 Because traffic and congestion increases emissions. See other recent
threads about turning off your car when stuck in traffic jams (at
level  crossings, or otherwise).

That's not evidence of purpose.
a.     shown no evidence at all that TfL, the Mayor or others have
changed its purpose
b.     (as I said and you ignored) called TfL liars

I recognise that there's often a disconnect between true purpose and
what organisations say when trying to sell a scheme to the public. It's
more to do with spin, than lying.
Cyclists and pedestrians, in particular, benefit from fewer cars being
on the roads (and hence less fumes), and yet are relatively unaffected
by traffic jams as such.

since they explicitly confirmed the CC's primary purpose this year.
You can, if you wish, argue that reduced emissions are now the main
/effect/ of the CC but if you wish to do so please explain how you
compare the chalk of emissions with the cheese of congestion to decide
which matters more.

You'll need to explain what the Cleaner Vehicle Discount is for, in
order to drive a wedge between the CC and emissions.

I'll gladly do so - after you answer my question.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The clue is in
the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Its objective is to reduce congestion, by reducing the number of cars
coming into central London. There used to be an exemption for low emission
cars, but that's now gone. There's still an exemption for zero emissions
vehicles, but that's likely to go as well.

Thanks for confirming it's still mainly about emissions.

No it's not. That role has been taken over by the ULEZ charge.

Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to public
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The clue is in
the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Its objective is to reduce congestion, by reducing the number of cars
coming into central London. There used to be an exemption for low emission
cars, but that's now gone. There's still an exemption for zero emissions
vehicles, but that's likely to go as well.

Thanks for confirming it's still mainly about emissions.

No it's not. That role has been taken over by the ULEZ charge.

Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to public
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

And to make London buses more efficient, something Ken was particularly
keen on. Even though they benefit from bus lanes, traffic jams still block
their progress, making buses slower and less reliable.

Subsequently, as an encouragement to low emission vehicles, they also got
CC exemptions, but that's being phased out, with the ULEZ taking over the
clean air role.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The clue is in
the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to reduce
the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Its objective is to reduce congestion, by reducing the number of cars
coming into central London. There used to be an exemption for low emission
cars, but that's now gone. There's still an exemption for zero emissions
vehicles, but that's likely to go as well.

Thanks for confirming it's still mainly about emissions.

No it's not. That role has been taken over by the ULEZ charge.

Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a
low-particulates diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from
private car to public transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Yes, but now the main reason for wanting modal shift is carbon
neutrality. And was the safety of pedestrians and cyclists mainly about
breathing fumes (although subsequently some of the roadspace was also
used for new cycle lanes, now that modal shifting to cycling is higher
up the agenda).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

The congestion charge doesn't have the same motivation. The
clue is in the title.

Whether by design, or mission creep, it's main objective is to
reduce the polluting effect of cars in Central London.

Its objective is to reduce congestion, by reducing the number of
cars coming into central London. There used to be an exemption
for low emission cars, but that's now gone. There's still an
exemption for zero emissions vehicles, but that's likely to go as well.

Thanks for confirming it's still mainly about emissions.

No it's not. That role has been taken over by the ULEZ charge.

 Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a
low-particulates  diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift
from private car to public  transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which
was barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was
literally to reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make
walking and cycling safer.

Yes, but now the main reason for wanting modal shift is carbon
neutrality. And was the safety of pedestrians and cyclists mainly
about breathing fumes (although subsequently some of the roadspace
was also used for new cycle lanes, now that modal shifting to cycling
is higher up the agenda).

Yes.but… the classic Perry response.

Sorry if my tracking of the mission-creep offends you.

In other news I see that some "essential" staff might also be
entitled to a congestion charge exemption, but perhaps unwieldy
to apply for that for just one trip on one Boxing Day for one
frontline NHS worker to get to their workplace.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to public
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:43:46 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to public
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

They do when they are pedestrianised. Also some people have the strange

Curiously, when somewhere has been pedestrianised you don't tend to find
much traffic there. Strange I know.

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various reasons.

If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it after
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

[Graeme Wall]

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:43:46 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to public
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

They do when they are pedestrianised. Also some people have the strange

Curiously, when somewhere has been pedestrianised you don't tend to find
much traffic there. Strange I know.

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various reasons.

If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it after
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

Belisha is a bird?

[Graeme Wall]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:25:39 +0000

Post by Robin

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:24:04 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:43:46 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to

public

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by Roland Perry
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

They do when they are pedestrianised. Also some people have the strange

Curiously, when somewhere has been pedestrianised you don't tend to find
much traffic there. Strange I know.

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various

reasons.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it after
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

Belisha is a bird?

A pelican was last time I checked.

Woosh!

Thats right, pretend you being sarcastic instead of admitting you were too
thick to know what I was refering to. Whatever.

So you don't know what the reference to Belisha means. The youth of today…

[Ian Jackson]

Post by Graeme Wall

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:25:39 +0000

Post by Robin

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:24:04 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:43:46 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a low-particulates
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to

public

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by Roland Perry
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and cycling
safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

They do when they are pedestrianised. Also some people have the strange

Curiously, when somewhere has been pedestrianised you don't tend to find
much traffic there. Strange I know.

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various

reasons.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it after
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

Belisha is a bird?

A pelican was last time I checked.

Woosh!

Thats right, pretend you being sarcastic instead of admitting you were too
thick to know what I was refering to. Whatever.

So you don't know what the reference to Belisha means. The youth of today…

Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added beacons to
pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in the road surface.
These crossings were later painted in black and white stripes, and thus
are known as zebra crossings.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added beacons to
pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in the road surface.
These crossings were later painted in black and white stripes, and thus
are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't know
about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest in this
road furniture.

[unknown]

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface. >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by unknown

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface. >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

Can't remember the last time I saw any, I thought they'd all gone years ago.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by unknown

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface. >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

Can't remember the last time I saw any, I thought they'd all gone years ago.

They are making a comeback, the "Dutch style" roundabout recently
installed in Cambridge has them within the extraordinarily cluttered
streetscape: https://goo.gl/maps/HCLUw2LGH8su6FjCA

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by unknown

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface.  >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

Can't remember the last time I saw any, I thought they'd all gone years ago.

There are many new ones in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Not been that side of London north of the river for many years.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by unknown

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface.  >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

Can't remember the last time I saw any, I thought they'd all gone years ago.

There are many new ones in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Not been that side of London north of the river for many years.

I was there a fortnight ago (including a ride in a Hackney in Hackney),
but didn't go inside the park, so can't comment on what they've deployed
recently. Also got my first ride on an HS1 Southeastern train, but it
wasn't the first time I've been on the International station landside
concourse. The whole area (and outside) was a bit desolate and
windswept.

Overheard people complaining about a one-way system inside Westfield so
used the DLR to get from one side to the other.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 20:30:29 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by unknown

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 09:39:18 +0000

Post by Ian Jackson
Originally, the crossings were not named after any animal or bird.
Wikiedia says, "The beacons were named after Leslie Hore-Belisha
(1893–1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added

beacons to >> pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in
the road surface.  >> These crossings were later painted in black and
white stripes, and thus >> are known as zebra crossings.

Exactly my point, I'm (not particularly) surprised that Neil didn't
know about them.

Obviously I'm not old enough plus I don't have the slightest interest
in this road furniture.

It is still the case that, if you are a pedestrian looking for a
crossing point or a driver driving carefully, you can look out for a
pair of Belisha Beacons which are lit to be seen at night.

Can't remember the last time I saw any, I thought they'd all gone years ago.

There are many new ones in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

Not been that side of London north of the river for many years.

You're not missing anything.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 11:35:53 +0000

Post by Roland Perry

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:25:39 +0000

Post by Robin

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 10:24:04 +0000

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 16:43:46 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 11:04:24 +0000

Post by Roland Perry
Where does carbon neutrality fit into all this (even a

low-particulates

Post by Robin

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by Roland Perry
diesel creates CO2) when creating modal shift from private car to

public

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by Roland Perry
transport was Livingstone's original motive.

The original motive had nothing to do with carbon neutrality which was
barely a thing in the public consciousness then. It was literally to
reduce the amount of traffic on the streets to make walking and

cycling

Post by Robin

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

safer.

Do many people walk in the road?

They do when they are pedestrianised. Also some people have the strange

Curiously, when somewhere has been pedestrianised you don't tend to find
much traffic there. Strange I know.

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various

reasons.

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it

after

Post by Robin

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

Belisha is a bird?

A pelican was last time I checked.

Woosh!

Thats right, pretend you being sarcastic instead of admitting you were too
thick to know what I was refering to. Whatever.

So you don't know what the reference to Belisha means. The youth of today


It was the name of the guy who invented them.

[Marland]

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
much traffic there. Strange I know.

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com

habit of wanting to cross to the other side of the road for various reasons.

If only they could invent something to help with that, maybe name it after
a bird or an african animal perhaps....

Belisha is a bird?

Sounds like she could be, an outcast from the Addams family perhaps. Oh
bugger , I think I have given myself an earworm.

GH

[Recliner]

Post by Recliner

Post by Roland Perry

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 12:40:48 +0000, Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Optimist

Post by Graeme Wall
Stuff sold on-line has to take into account the increased cost of
delivering to non-metropolitan areas. Those living in far away places
get subsidised by those living in towns and cities.

Surely deliveries to London addresses must be more expensive owing to
Khan's congestion and ULEZ charges?

Even assuming their white vans trigger their ULEZ charge it's only per
day, not per delivery.
In other news, why is the congestion charge suspended between Xmas and
New Year, and the ULEZ not.

The CC is only suspended on Christmas day this year.

"Congestion Charge (CC): 07:00-22:00, every day except Christmas Day
(25 December) and the period up to and including New Year's Day Bank
Holiday."

Yes, it looks like it's changed again.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roland Perry
On Boxing Day in particular, it's not as if
there's going to much public transport running as an alternative.

I think there's quite a bit of public transport running on Boxing Day.

Nope: <https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:CBG/2021-1
2-26/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt>

What's that got to do with public transport in London?

Public Transport in London is not going to help me avoid driving down
from Cambridge on Boxing Day. I have vaguely considered driving down to
somewhere like Redbridge, and catching the tube, but even if the Central
Line is running (I haven't looked) it's not worth the extra bother,
unless I was wanting to avoid paying the charge on principle.

It's hardly TfL's fault that there are gaps in public transport in other
parts of the country on Boxing Day. It will be providing clean electric
trains, but if you (or I) want to drive a polluting diesel car into central
London, it will levy the usual toxic tax.

One car, over the quiet holiday period, is not going to make any
difference.

So, as each single car makes little difference, why charge any of them?

But you've not answered the question: why suspend the congestion charge,
which has the same motivation?

Because there's no congestion on those days.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:34:47 +0000

Post by Recliner
Because there's no congestion on those days.

And by extension very little pollution from cars in the ULEZ zone either.

You seem to have no idea what (absent pandemics and lockdowns) traffic
is like in parts of London when the shops re-open after Christmas Day.

Do many people drive into london to do sales shopping? They must be masochists
if they do.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:49:59 +0000

Post by M***@dastardlyhq.com
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:34:47 +0000

Post by Recliner
Because there's no congestion on those days.

And by extension very little pollution from cars in the ULEZ zone either.

You seem to have no idea what (absent pandemics and lockdowns) traffic
is like in parts of London when the shops re-open after Christmas Day.

Do many people drive into london to do sales shopping? They must be masochists
if they do.

Presumably they do if they're buying bulky stuff, or simply a lot?

Wouldn't you just order large items to be delivered? But I suppose for the
ultra rich they'd just get Jeeves to go and pick it up in the roller.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Recliner
Because there's no congestion on those days.

And by extension very little pollution from cars in the ULEZ zone
either.

You seem to have no idea what (absent pandemics and lockdowns) traffic
is like in parts of London when the shops re-open after Christmas Day.

I'm not sure what Oxford St shops are actually open Boxing Day -
although back in the day I did have to give my sister, who worked in
one, a lift into Central London because they were required to attend to
strip out [in the closed store] the Xmas stuff in favour of "New Year
Sale" stuff.

In any event my trip will be in the evening, when those shops which are
open to the public, will probably have shut. Not least because it's a
Sunday, and as far as I know those trading laws haven't been relaxed
just because it's Xmas.

[Robin]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Because there's no congestion on those days.

 And by extension very little pollution from cars in the ULEZ zone
either.

You seem to have no idea what (absent pandemics and lockdowns) traffic
is like in parts of London when the shops re-open after Christmas Day.

I'm not sure what Oxford St shops are actually open Boxing Day -
although back in the day I did have to give my sister, who worked in
one, a lift into Central London because they were required to attend to
strip out [in the closed store] the Xmas stuff in favour of "New Year
Sale" stuff.

And I'm not sure why you focus on Oxford St and Central London when the
ULEZ is now bounded by the North and South Circulars.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Recliner
Because there's no congestion on those days.

 And by extension very little pollution from cars in the ULEZ zone
either.

You seem to have no idea what (absent pandemics and lockdowns)
traffic is like in parts of London when the shops re-open after
Christmas Day.

I'm not sure what Oxford St shops are actually open Boxing Day -
although back in the day I did have to give my sister, who worked in
one, a lift into Central London because they were required to attend
to strip out [in the closed store] the Xmas stuff in favour of "New
Year Sale" stuff.

And I'm not sure why you focus on Oxford St and Central London when the
ULEZ is now bounded by the North and South Circulars.

Because that's where the Congestion Zone is. Meanwhile do the Sunday
Trading laws only apply in the centre?

[Ken]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:48:30 -0000 (UTC), "David Jones"

Post by Recliner

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry

TfL loses its lustre as Sadiq Khan?s battle for cash goes to

extra time

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8be0cc74-5f7d-11ec-8ca2-4e56f587e18b?shareToken=2bd425ea9f0589ec54f074da76d42968

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner

Post by Robin

Post by Roland Perry
It appears to heading firmly for the Swiss model (which has oft

been >> held out here as the gold standard, but missing from that
reporter's >> chart) that passenger revenue covers around a quarter
of the >> expenditure, and the magic money tree pays for the rest.

Post by Robin
The chart also fails to distinguish between funding from local
government/taxes as opposed to national government/taxes - a bit

of >>> an issue for voters outside London.

Post by unknown

Post by Recliner
It does show the Business rates contribution, which was the bulk of
the local funding pre-Covid.

"local"? Businesses charge the same price nationwide at an amount
that has to cover these contributions. Hence the whole country is
participating in these so-called "local" contributions to Tfl costs

Businesses don't charge the same nationwide! As we all know, most
things are more expensive in central London, in part because of
higher business rates.

I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

It may have changed now that supermarkets have nationally-available
websites, but they certainly charged different prices at different
locations at one time. It was a surprise to me, too.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ken

Post by David Jones
I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

It may have changed now that supermarkets have nationally-available
websites, but they certainly charged different prices at different
locations at one time. It was a surprise to me, too.

The most obvious is the way prices in big Tesco and Tesco Metro/Local
can differ.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ken

Post by David Jones
I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

It may have changed now that supermarkets have nationally-available
websites, but they certainly charged different prices at different
locations at one time. It was a surprise to me, too.

The most obvious is the way prices in big Tesco and Tesco Metro/Local
can differ.

Similarly with Sainsburys

[Recliner]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Ken

Post by David Jones
I wasn't aware that Tesco charged higher prices in London than
elsewhere. Or that those who purvey unit trusts etc., imposed higher
*management" charges on those who live in London. You could make that
suggestion to them. But anything sold online has a uniform price across
the country, except perhaps on delivery charges for the extreme cases.

It may have changed now that supermarkets have nationally-available
websites, but they certainly charged different prices at different
locations at one time. It was a surprise to me, too.

The most obvious is the way prices in big Tesco and Tesco Metro/Local
can differ.

Yes, and people in central London are more likely to have to use a small Metro/Local type expensive store than a cheaper
Extra store, as the big stores are more likely to be in the outer suburbs, where land is cheaper and rates are lower.

[M***@dastardlyhq.com]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 16:40:35 +0000

Post by Robin

Post by Recliner
The bail-out doesn't come close to covering the lost fares, let alone
anything else.

Agreed. Which is why TfL needs to (a) find additional savings such as
from 60+ Oysters or (b) go back to central government and ask for even
more from the general body of taxpayers so it can continue to give the
same free travel to Londoners it has in the past.
But if (b), what's the answer to taxpayers outside London who ask "why
the fuck should we pay for Londoners to get what we don't?".

Why the fuck should the scottish toytown parliament get handed 15 billion
quid on a plate, most of it from english taxpayers? Answer - thats just the way
general taxation works.

[Arthur Figgis]

Post by Roland Perry
Free travel for Londoners aged 60 and older will be restricted, with age
eligibility for the 60+ Oyster card increasing by six months each year,
for the next 12 years, under the proposals."

That bit of blatant generational unfairness could be quite popular with
younger people, although there is the whole issue of them not voting.