TfL says London’s roads are being subsidised by public transport users. Is it true?

Traffic in London in 2005. Image: Getty.

Are public transport users subsidising London’s roads?

The idea sounds faintly ridiculous, because it goes against all received wisdom. Everyone knows that it’s public transport that gets all the subsidies, right? Poor old drivers are taxed through the nose. Right? Right?

Nonetheless: “passengers subsidise motorists” is now the official line over at Transport for London (TfL). From its latest business plan:

From next year we have to, for the first time, address the critical issues of London’s road network, including congestion, road danger, maintenance and air quality, without any Government operating grant. Furthermore, from 2021, the £500m raised every year from Londoners paying Vehicle Excise Duty will be collected by central Government and only invested in roads outside the Capital.

This means the net operating costs of London’s roads, currently almost £200m each year, and the cost of renewing these roads, between £100m to £150m each year, are effectively being cross subsidised from fare-paying public transport users.

The next paragraph gets a bit “go ahead punk, make my day”. Emphasis mine:

This is neither sustainable nor equitable. As a result, in the short to medium term we will have to significantly reduce our programme of proactive capital renewals on the road network, although we will ensure safety of the network is maintained

There’s a certain amount to unpick here. It’s true that TfL has historically had a grant from central government: that comes from the Department of Transport, and is paid via the Greater London Authority.

And, yes, that grant is indeed tapering off. That’s been happening since April 2013, and will conclude in 2019-20, making 2021 the first year that TfL will operate without a penny of cash from central government. TfL’s responsibilities, what’s more, do include a certain amount of maintenance of London’s road network, and the budget puts their cost at £350m per year.

Since the tax road users pay – Vehicle Excise Duty – is going to central government, and by 2021, central government won’t be giving TfL a penny – and since it’s true that TfL does get most of its money from public transport fares – then, yes, TfL is maintaining London’s roads using cash provided by public transport users rather than drivers.

But there are three things which slightly complicate this argument. One is that TfL isn’t the only body investing in London’s roads: the boroughs and Highways England are also involved. So central government money may still arrive by other means.

Another is that fares aren’t the only source of revenue for TfL. Okay, they’re a big one (see below). But as TfL itself admits, that central government grant has been replaced by Business Rates – a form of property taxes – retained by the GLA. “Businesses subsidising London’s road” doesn’t make for quite as sexy a headline.

TfL’s sources of income, as shown in its 2017-18 budget.

Another complicating factor is that Vehicle Excise Duty is, despite what shouty drivers like to yell at cyclists, not actually a road tax. The money was briefly hypothecated for road maintenance – in the 1920s and 30s. Since 1937, though, it’s just been a form of general taxation: maintenance is also funded from income tax, VAT, and so on.

And so, it’s a bit silly to argue that the money London’s drivers pay to maintain London’s roads is not going to London’s roads because they don’t really pay to maintain London’s roads, and that’s been true for 80 years.

But all this feels like nit-picking. It is true that TfL gets a lot of money from public transport users, and remarkably little – central London congestion charge aside – from drivers. That, given that cars cause pollution and congestion while trains, trams and bikes don’t, feels like the wrong way round.


And, for what it’s worth, the claim that public transport users are subsidising roads is one I first heard from a TfL staffer a couple of weeks back. Even if TfL doesn’t believe it’s true, it’s clearly decided to convince us that it’s true.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.   

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Copenhagen puts cyclists at the top of the social hierarchy

A cyclist in Copenhagen, obviously. Image: Red Bull/Getty.

Have you ever wondered why Britain is not a nation of cyclists? Why we prefer to sit in traffic as our Dutch and Danish neighbours speed through the city on bikes?

Forget about hills, rain, and urban sprawl: the real reason we aren’t cycling is much closer to home. It is not just lack of infrastructure, or lack of fitness, the reason that 66 per cent of Brits cycle less than once a year, is because of status.

An obsession with social status is hard-wired into our brains. As we have built a society that relies on cars, the bicycle has slipped to the periphery, and gone from being regarded as a sensible mode of transport, to a deviant fringe-dwellers choice.

Even though cycling to work has been shown to be one of the most effective things an individual can do to improve health and longevity, researcher David Horton thinks that there are a set of collective anxieties that are stopping us getting in the saddle. These include not just an unwillingness to be made vulnerable, but fear of being thought of as poor.

A quick look over the North Sea shows that there is an alternative. Danish culture has elevated cycling to the point of reverence, and the social status of cyclists has followed. As we have busied ourselves building infrastructure that testifies to the dominance of the car, Denmark has been creating magnificent architectural features, aimed specifically at bike users. The Cycle Snake, or Cykelslangen, literally suspends the cyclist above the city, metaphorically elevating the cyclist and creating a sense of ceremony.

In doing so, they are subtly persuading people of all backgrounds to see past their prejudices or fears and take it up as the clearly better choice. This means there are more women cycling, more older people cycling, and more ethnic minorities cycling. The activity is less dominated by comfortably middle class white males: there are cyclists from every side of the community.  

The Cykelslangen, under construction in 2014. Image: Ursula Bach and Dissing+Weitling architecture.

Despite abstract motivations like getting ripped and conquering global warming, it is only when the bike path becomes the obviously better choice that people will start to cycle. It can take years of traffic jams before people try an alternative, but if you make motorists jealous of cyclists, then the tables can quickly turn.

Another way that Copenhagen has done this is by taking privileges normally afforded only to the motorcar, and given them to the bike. The city has ensured that cycle routes do not include blind corners or dark tunnels, and that they form a complete, coherent network, and a steadily flowing system – one that allows cyclists to maintain a reasonable pace, and minimises the amount of times you have to put your foot down.

The ‘Green Wave’, for example, is a co-ordinated traffic light system on some of the main thoroughfares of the capital that helps minimise the amount of cycle congestion during peak times. It maintains a steady flow of cycle traffic, so that there is no need to stop at any point.


Small measures of prioritisation like this one increase the sense of safety and consideration that cyclists experience, making it natural for the citizens of a city to act in their own self-interest and get on their bike.

As well as redefining the streets around the bicycle, the Copenhagen Cycle Chic blog positively fetishises cyclists. The tagline “dress for your destination, not your journey” depicts the social fashion life of the cycle lane as a “never ending flow of happy people heading from A to B”. Its writers are  literally making cycling sexy, dispelling the idea that going anywhere by bike is odd, and helping the world to see that the bicycle is actually the ultimate fashion accessory.

So unlike in London, where cycling is still a predominantly male pursuit, Copenhagen sees a more even split between men and women. Not just because they feel safer on the roads, but because culturally they are comfortable with their appearance as part of a highly visible group.

So while our low level of cycling is partly due to our physical infrastructure, it is also due to our cultural attitudes. The mental roadblocks people have towards cycling can be overcome by infrastructure that is not only safe, but also brings old-fashioned notions of dignity and grace into the daily commute.

Of course, office shower facilities might stop cyclists being ostracised, too.