Thread by @garius, So now that TfL's potential need to Section 114 is being discussed, [...]

So now that TfL's potential need to Section 114 is being discussed, I should probably give y'all a bit more context on what this means, before big papers start tweeting scary words like

BREAKING: and EXCLUSIVE: at you.

Here we go #thread

First, if you've not read my proper piece on how TfL doing the right thing (running as many services as possible, as the government asked) has UTTERLY destroyed their finances, you can find that here.

Yes it's long. But I use friendly words. Honest. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/tfl-the-impossible-finances-of-fighting-a-pandemic/

TfL: THE IMPOSSIBLE FINANCES OF FIGHTING A PANDEMIC - London Reconnections

Required to provide as frequent a timetable as possible during the Coronavirus outbreak to allow social distancing, TfL and their staff have stepped up to the challenge. But with barely 10% of their...

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/tfl-the-impossible-finances-of-fighting-a-pandemic/

Or, here's my far more informal thread on here yesterday where I talked a bit about the Section 114 problem.

That is, that TfL HAS to issue one. By law. Very shortly. And that's not good because their minimum statutory obligations can be a bit... vague. https://twitter.com/garius/status/1260289242586103808

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1260289242586103808

Let's put two more big fat warnings out here at this point:

THIS

NOT

KHAN'S

FAULT.

THE

FARE

FREEZE

ISN'T

RELEVANT

And:

TUBES

AND

BUSES

WILL

NOT

STOP

OVERNIGHT

But £3.5bn is an ENORMOUS hit to their annual budget. Like, two thirds of their operating budget. They can't balance that (which they have to BY LAW HERE) by simply trimming the edges.

They'll HAVE to start cutting things that we really, really need right now.

And the minimum statutory obligations don't help them here, as some of the stuff that it would be REALLY, REALLY useful to have written down in REALLY PRECISE statutory blood that they MUST do... well... isn't.

Whereas some of the stuff they'd probably RATHER not do, or isn't as useful in this extreme situation, is actually annoyingly specific.

There's also a fun bit about running hovercrafts if required.

I like that bit a lot. Hovercrafts are cool.

Now I am not your lawyer. I'm not TfL's lawyer. But even I can see that, with some creativity and brainpower the MSOs can be navigated to deliver SOME KIND of service that maps to a much, much-reduced version of what we really need right now.

But it will involve lots of the clever people at TfL who aren't already furloughed, sick, or in isolation to start having lots of Teams brainstorms about how they can interpret the 1845 Railways Act.

Or the phrase "facilitate the discharge by it of any of its functions"

And, I think we can all agree right now that as Londoners - would MUCH RATHER see TfL focus on now is continuing to do one HELL of a job trying to keep our city moving in the middle of an unprecedented global crisis. Which they are doing at enormous economic and human cost.

Now I seem to remember the government, and it's ministers, demanding repeatedly, on TV that TfL run these services, and more.

So it seems 'common sense', to use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase, to provide the money to allow that to continue to happen.

But what do i know?

Summary:

1. The Section 114 thing is VERY weird.
2. TfL need money from the government. They are justified in asking for it
3. It needs an immediate resolution. Because of the weird
4. No money = less services
5. Go read our piece. It explains everything https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/tfl-the-impossible-finances-of-fighting-a-pandemic/

TfL: THE IMPOSSIBLE FINANCES OF FIGHTING A PANDEMIC - London Reconnections

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2020/tfl-the-impossible-finances-of-fighting-a-pandemic/

You can follow @garius.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: