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.   

 
 
 
 

TfL is offering you the chance to stop two proposed Bakerloo line stations from having stupid names

Bakerloo line trains at London Road depot, mournfully wishing they could continue their journey to the south. Image: Getty.

Ever wanted to name a tube station? Well boy is this your lucky week. The latest round of Transport for London's interminable consultation on the proposed extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham, hopefully due to arrive at some point in the early 2030s, is asking your input into names.

Necessary background blah blah blah. The most efficient way of running a metro line is to have it cross the city. The Central Line, for example, doesn't just allow west Londoners to get into the city centre: it allows east Londoners to do the same, and for everyone to get about within the city centre to boot. All that and it's only one line. Amazing really, isn't it?

But the Bakerloo line, unusually, isn't doing all this, because it gets to the south-eastern-most edge of the city centre and then gives up. That doesn't just mean that south east London remains the bit of the capital most poorly served by TfL's rail network, although it does mean that – there are no stations inside the yellow box here, look:

The tube/rail desert, with the rough location of the proposed new stations marked. Image: Google Maps.

It also means that the line through the centre isn't pulling its weight compared to every other line, because it's a lot more useful to commuters coming from the north west than from the south east. That's great if you want to get a seat for the six minutes it takes to get from Elephant to Embankment. It's not great if you're, say, in charge of London's transport network and want to sweat your assets.

Anyway, the plan for some time has been to extend the line under New and Old Kent Roads, down to New Cross Gate and Lewisham. A later phase may see it take over the Hayes branch of the South Eastern Rail network, but one thing at a time. The official map of the proposal looks like this:

Ooooh. Image: TfL.

Old Kent Road 1 and Old Kent Road 2 are obviously rubbish names for stations, so the latest round of consultation suggests some alternatives: Old Kent Road or Burgess Park for the northern one, Old Kent Road or Asylum for the southern.

CityMetric has long argued that naming stations after roads is stupid: either the road is long enough that it's not a useful name because who knows if you’re at the right end or not, or short enough that it's only useful to people who already know an area. The fact that two different stations might revel in the name Old Kent Road seems to me to prove this point pretty nicely – so if I had my way TfL would go with Burgess Park and Asylum. The latter, named for both Asylum Road and, well, what used to be an asylum, seems particularly cool to me.

Alternatively, buses terminating at the former have sometimes said "Old Kent Road Dun Cow" after a long dead pub, and naming a tube station after some livestock is amusing too, so, Dun Cow, why not?


Meanwhile the latter site, next to the junction between Asylum Road and the Old Kent Road, is sometimes known as Canal Bridge, because it used to be where the Old Kent Road crossed the Surrey Canal. The latter is long gone – although more bridges across it remain in Burgess Park, which is nicely surreal – but naming tube stations after two things that aren't there any more would be amusing too.

Anyway, the point is: please don't call either of these stations Old Kent Road, the world is confusing enough as it is. Now go vote.

Incidentally, one thing TfL has already decided is that there won't be a third Old Kent Road station, at its northernmost point, the Bricklayers Arms junction. This seems a shame to me, but I suppose they know what they're doing.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

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