The issue would be tube capacity - free buses would make a lot more sense - simplistically more people on buses means less cars ( In lots of the country )
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
The issue would be tube capacity - free buses would make a lot more sense - simplistically more people on buses means less cars ( In lots of the country )
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
Nonsense, why would it be funded through council tax when it's used by millions of commuters and international tourists?
In other more civilised countries there are much higher government subsidies for public transport in major cities.
Big business and big property developers can and should help pay as well.
nick
Pleomorphic Adenomas R us
Not sure if relevant but.... I'm pretty sure I remember we Londoners all helped fund the 2012 Olympics via our council tax, whether or not we attended. Which feels kind of parallel
felonius monk
Well-Known Member
From the Independent last month
"In France, urban public transport is funded by a system called the "versement transport" or VT. Under this system, cities can levy an employer payroll tax (think employers’ national insurance) of up to 2 per cent on companies with more than 11 employees. The result is that businesses that benefit from public transport end up contributing to it.
It turns out you can do a lot with this cash: in the Ile-de-France...around 40 per cent of transport funding is provided by the VT – with the cash used to keep fares low and invest in new lines. As a result a monthly pass giving unlimited travel on all public transport in the wider Paris region costs just €75 (£62), under half that of London. The VT also gives not just Paris, but other cities around France huge independence to fund their own public transport improvements. French cities have built 21 tram systems since the year 2000, largely funded by introducing their own VTs, from Bordeaux to Besançon. If Leeds could levy a VT, it could have funded and built its own trams, or even a proper metro, decades ago, without waiting for Westminster to make up its mind....
None of this is possible in the UK, where the Treasury jealously guards any and all public subsidy. There are already UK precedents to imposing such levies – a temporary business rate supplement was imposed in London to fund Crossrail work..."
www.independent.co.uk
"In France, urban public transport is funded by a system called the "versement transport" or VT. Under this system, cities can levy an employer payroll tax (think employers’ national insurance) of up to 2 per cent on companies with more than 11 employees. The result is that businesses that benefit from public transport end up contributing to it.
It turns out you can do a lot with this cash: in the Ile-de-France...around 40 per cent of transport funding is provided by the VT – with the cash used to keep fares low and invest in new lines. As a result a monthly pass giving unlimited travel on all public transport in the wider Paris region costs just €75 (£62), under half that of London. The VT also gives not just Paris, but other cities around France huge independence to fund their own public transport improvements. French cities have built 21 tram systems since the year 2000, largely funded by introducing their own VTs, from Bordeaux to Besançon. If Leeds could levy a VT, it could have funded and built its own trams, or even a proper metro, decades ago, without waiting for Westminster to make up its mind....
None of this is possible in the UK, where the Treasury jealously guards any and all public subsidy. There are already UK precedents to imposing such levies – a temporary business rate supplement was imposed in London to fund Crossrail work..."
Opinion: To fix public transport in Britain, we should copy France
In Paris’s equivalent of the Greater London area, around 40 per cent of transport funding is provided by the ‘versement transport’ or VT levy – with the cash used to keep fares low
www.independent.co.uk
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Equally, why would we make public transport free when it's used by millions of international tourists?
Someone was arguing that (locally funded) LTNs are the wrong answer and we should get people out of their cars by making public transport cheap/free (which it's not at all clear is the reason people are driving in London now in any case).
Because we don't have a national government that's going to make public transport free nationwide, so for London to have free PT it would be a mayoral policy which would mean raising funds from council tax.
'big business can pay' - so you're suggesting a big increase in business rates?
Property developers - how would this work to get the ongoing income needed? we don't even effectively tax property developers to build 'affordable' housing and already have 'section 106' and 'community infrastructure levy' to fund capital - ie one off - improvements to transport and facilities. It doesn't seem very effective, and developer seem to have clever accountants who 'prove' their developments aren't profitable and so avoid making large payments
teuchter
je suis teuchter
TfL is actually already part funded via business rates and council tax, via the GLA. This arrangement replaced the previous one, where it got a grant from central government instead, just a year or two before Covid hit.
As i understand it, TfL is quite unusual for a big-city public transport system in being quite heavily reliant on ticket revenue for its funding (about 50% I think). In other countries, a much lower proportion of funding tends to come from farebox revenue.
This is why it was so badly hit by the drop in usership during Covid, and has had to rely on emergency bailouts from central government to compensate.
Also, because it's responsible for London's trunk roads network, it means that their upkeep is funded via business rates / council tax / public transport fares, and not "road tax". So, drivers' claims that VED pays for the upkeep of roads that pedestrians, cyclists and buses dare to use have even less validity in London - effectively none of their VED now comes back to TfL because it goes to central goverment. If they pay congestion charge, some of that does come back to TfL but otherwise their private motoring around London is subsidised by business rates and council tax paid by a population many of who don't own a car - and by public transport users.
On the question of whether public transport should be free - in London it would mean a need to at least double the amount of "subsidy". I don't see why it should be all or nothing - you could have a discount for low income Londoners and still extract revenue from tourists and well-off commuters. And because London does have capacity problems, there's probably a good argument against making it completely free, where the risk is not that people transfer from car to public transport, but from walking/cycling, on journeys or journey legs where it's perfectly feasible to do that.
I think they found that this switch from walking to public transport was one of the effects of making it free in Tallinn. I'm not any expert on what they did there but you might find some significant differences from London - like the extent to which fares were already subsidised, or the sheer number of people that need to be moved, compared to the system's capacity. One of the features of London is that it needs to shift an enormous number of daily commuters from outside London, on top of the resident population.
Also, I don't think Tallinn just made public transport free without doing anything else - they changed parking fees, re-allocated road space and so on. In other words they did a lot of the stuff that some people like to think free transport could be instead of rather than as well as.
If you were to make public transport free in London, then it probably would be inevitable that you would increase bus capacity, because there's little space to increase it on tube/rail. And to do that you'd probably need to increase the allocation of road space for buses, whether the new bus users were switching from car or from walking, or just making journeys they wouldn't have made otherwise.
As i understand it, TfL is quite unusual for a big-city public transport system in being quite heavily reliant on ticket revenue for its funding (about 50% I think). In other countries, a much lower proportion of funding tends to come from farebox revenue.
This is why it was so badly hit by the drop in usership during Covid, and has had to rely on emergency bailouts from central government to compensate.
Also, because it's responsible for London's trunk roads network, it means that their upkeep is funded via business rates / council tax / public transport fares, and not "road tax". So, drivers' claims that VED pays for the upkeep of roads that pedestrians, cyclists and buses dare to use have even less validity in London - effectively none of their VED now comes back to TfL because it goes to central goverment. If they pay congestion charge, some of that does come back to TfL but otherwise their private motoring around London is subsidised by business rates and council tax paid by a population many of who don't own a car - and by public transport users.
On the question of whether public transport should be free - in London it would mean a need to at least double the amount of "subsidy". I don't see why it should be all or nothing - you could have a discount for low income Londoners and still extract revenue from tourists and well-off commuters. And because London does have capacity problems, there's probably a good argument against making it completely free, where the risk is not that people transfer from car to public transport, but from walking/cycling, on journeys or journey legs where it's perfectly feasible to do that.
I think they found that this switch from walking to public transport was one of the effects of making it free in Tallinn. I'm not any expert on what they did there but you might find some significant differences from London - like the extent to which fares were already subsidised, or the sheer number of people that need to be moved, compared to the system's capacity. One of the features of London is that it needs to shift an enormous number of daily commuters from outside London, on top of the resident population.
Also, I don't think Tallinn just made public transport free without doing anything else - they changed parking fees, re-allocated road space and so on. In other words they did a lot of the stuff that some people like to think free transport could be instead of rather than as well as.
If you were to make public transport free in London, then it probably would be inevitable that you would increase bus capacity, because there's little space to increase it on tube/rail. And to do that you'd probably need to increase the allocation of road space for buses, whether the new bus users were switching from car or from walking, or just making journeys they wouldn't have made otherwise.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Completely agree - subsidy for public transport across the UK should be increased. But the most socially just way to fund it it to significantly increase the cost of private motoring to pay for it - we've had decades where the effective cost of PT has increased while the total cost of motoring has decreased (if in no other way the freezing of fuel duty for the last decade while there have been annual above inflation fare increases).
nick
Pleomorphic Adenomas R us
Maybe they could call it "Fares Fair" ?
editor
hiraethified
Then make them pay dearly for the privilege if it's just one person in a big car going to the shops.
Yep - unfortunately we’ve got a government that continuously cuts the cost of fuel/driving though and people just take the loss by getting stupidly big cars.
As said before - the continued backlash to even the frankly modest LTN changes is really depressing.
nick
Pleomorphic Adenomas R us
Dunno if this sits better in the Local Election thread, but suspect this ask from the London Cycle Campaign may not be universally popular with the "Ones"
|
|
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I sent that to the parties via LCC. The Greens have signed up to it. Tories and Labour didn’t reply. Lib Dems gave ‘fence sitting’ response.
Love how Briggs has started referring to the ‘discredited LCC’ 
. Very chowce5382
Also, how people keep using #defundtheLCC. Do they get any govt funding?
. Very chowce5382 Also, how people keep using #defundtheLCC. Do they get any govt funding?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
They have 10,000+ members. At £55 for an adult, £80 family and £27.50 concessions.Love how Briggs has started referring to the ‘discredited LCC’
Also, how people keep using #defundtheLCC. Do they get any govt funding?
They also have advertising revenue and large donors.
I'm pretty sure that gives them enough revenue to fund the size of organisation we see. They don't appear to do anything like cycle training or group rides like British cycling or cycling UK do which might get funding.
I'm saying no, they don't. I'm not in a position to actually know.
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
It's a really good idea to have some designated safe crossings between LTNs because that's the main thing stopping me from cycling to work at the moment (+laziness).
Greens are really way out in front for me in this election.
Labour still haven't organised the council tax rebates yet and our local playground is falling to bits despite council promises to repair it. I'm not sure they could organise their way out of a paper bag.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
They’re a charity - accounts are public
LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
Charity details for LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
So how is anyone planning on defunding them?! Or is it just that it sounds like ‘defund the BBC’ which these people probably also want to do?They’re a charity - accounts are public
LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
Charity details for LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
I thought they were against cancel culture ?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
They’re a charity - accounts are public
LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
Charity details for LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
Total income includes £90,173 from 4 government contract(s)
a little under £1m in total income so it's not insignificant but it's not like LCC would collapse without it.
They probably think it's wholly or mostly funded because of the way the anti LTN brigade portray active travel charities as being essentially part of the council, like the councils funded LCC in order that they could have a pressure group to get them to build cycling infrastructure.
And surely contracts is v different from grants which they don’t receive any.
That bollard could easily have been a pedestrian - the car is 50cm onto the pavement.
Good news is this will totally fuck their insurance.
It’s actually got a hole in it from all the previous crashes… I think that pole at the rear wheel had been stuck in it to make it more obvious! People actually try and defend this by saying it’s not obvious enough as it’s too low. It’s on the fucking pavement!!
Toddler height
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
just saw this posted by BrixtonHatter on the twitters. No surprise on the Tory line and I’m not sure what votes the libdems are trying to attract with that sort of vagueness. They don’t even seem to have a manifesto and few of the candidate profiles go beyond a summary of their employment history - gives no idea of where they stand on any of the issues facing the borough.
lambethcyclists.org.uk
Party positions on Climate Safe Streets – get out and vote on Thursday!
The local elections are now just a few days away. We’ve asked all of the parties to sign up to our Climate Safe Streets asks (which you can read here). Our view is that these are the minimum …
lambethcyclists.org.uk
Torpid Scorpion
Basket case
just saw this posted by BrixtonHatter on the twitters. No surprise on the Tory line and I’m not sure what votes the libdems are trying to attract with that sort of vagueness. They don’t even seem to have a manifesto and few of the candidate profiles go beyond a summary of their employment history - gives no idea of where they stand on any of the issues facing the borough.
Party positions on Climate Safe Streets – get out and vote on Thursday!
The local elections are now just a few days away. We’ve asked all of the parties to sign up to our Climate Safe Streets asks (which you can read here). Our view is that these are the minimum …
Lib Dems in we-stand-for-nothing shocker!
Similar threads
