Is it time to defund TFL

[titbumwillypoo]

Inspired by recent threads that proclaim "I don't use it, so why should I have to pay for it?" Isn't it time Transport For London was privatised. The majority of people in this country may never use the Tube or London buses so why are hardworking tax payers having to prop up a service that only serves a small percentage of the UK population? I see no reason why the profit motive cannot be introduced to TFL and as we have seen from other industries such as rail, mail, water, power and telecoms privatization brings in investment and improves customer satisfaction.
AIBU - Don't be daft, it would punish the poor and decimate much of London.
AINBU People shouldn't have to pay towards services they don't use.

TfL is a PTE - an organisation that runs, co ordinates and oversees transport in London - that includes some roads and licensing taxis. Manchester also has a PTE - should that be privatised?

A lot of the services TfL "run" are actually delivered by private companies - the DLR, buses, The Overgound - delivering the, for TfL via a contract.

Well they did build roads ...

The PPP contract with metronet went really well.

Aside from that. TFL is funded by a mixture of local and central government grants as well as fare and charging revenue.

I think (but feel free to correct me) but I don't think central government funding is the largest source of income.

Well they did build roads ...

I wonder how many I could get:

Roads, safe to walk the streets, viniculture, aqueducts, racking my brain.

1.2 billion for the coming year from central government. Not the largest funding stream but not a drop in the ocean either.

In that case London should stop funding the rest of the UK

It's already far less subsidised than any other comparable transport network internationally - 72% of its income is from fares. www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/tfl-fares-income-other-cities.jpg

I don't know how this compares to the rest of the UK transport network in terms of the split between fares and grant. I know that around 15% of bus routes are not commercially viable, so only exist because of Local Authority funding. And 70% of Network Rail funding is from Central Government.

TFL is primarily funded by fares ie the people who use it

It is also funded by London based driver charges (ulez, congestion charge), commercial activities across the network (advertising, property letting/sales), local government grants (from London based business rates, London based council tax), and central government grants

Central government eventually agreed an ‘extraordinary funding’ settlement to cover some of the lost fare revenue from during the (government implemented) covid restrictions.

You should probably have checked how tfl is funded and where the revenue goes before posting this

But London pays more INTO central government. It's still funded by the users.

Which isn't to say the rUK shouldn't get well-funded and run transport systems. But London certainly should.

TFL has only been around for 22 years, they were gifted something that ALL taxpayers have paid for, because you can bet that since 1890 when it was started it hasn't just been paid for by London revenues.

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Privatisation has made things less reliable and more expensive. E.g water, mail, rail services. Some rail services have had to be propped up by the government anyway. Privatised services mean they are run for a profit, which means for the shareholders and the CEO only, everyone else gets a shit service.

"Defund"?!

I wish people would stop appropriating a campaigning position from another country and another policy area altogether without actually understanding what it means

I'm interested if any of the 29% that agree that i'm not being unreasonable could chip in to why you feel that way?

Exactly this. Can we get rid of this mantra of private=good and state=bad. It’s clearly nonsense in so many ways.

Sanitation?

What was started in 1890? The London Underground was 160 years old in January, and the buses started long before that.

I don't think you have to bet, guess, or speculate as much as you seem to have in your posts. You can look up most if the figures that you've mentioned here rather than just going by your gut. I imagine it would probably change your mind to do so.

A lot of the early lines were privately funded or funded by the main train companies to connect their London terminals.

That's part of the reason why the tube is so unplanned compared to other major city networks. It wasn't planned as a whole system.

The management of the tube and how it has been funded has evolved and changed as it has developed.

Education

I live in the City of London, so I'm surrounded by a lot of this 'historical investment' that the OP is so butthurt about.

Government support for TFL is around 10% of the annual budget.

I don't know the breakdown for all of the other transport regions, but I know that for Manchester the transport budget it is made up of around 13% in government grants.

I wouldn't say London seems to be getting a disproportionate amount.

How much of it is part of the 'fuck London' race to the bottom sparked by decades (centuries?) of under-investment in the rUK? Because the mantra seems to be 'if you can't join them, beat them'.

Rather than trying to make sure the rUK gets more investment and more public service, let's bugger London. Those bastards.

Privatisation of the trains has been a disaster, privatisation of the tube would be even more stupid.

Glad you aren’t a policymaker!

This is just not true I'm afraid. Energy prices are much higher in Europe even then they are subsidised

Are you a tory political strategist jealous that your colleagues are doing such a great job of gutting the NHS that you want your time in the spotlight and scoping out what's left for the taking?