2016 mayoral candidate caroline pidgeon's transport policy report

1

Alkhanizi, Bhatnagar, Mazlan, Zhao, Zhu

ENVS 3029 Transport Policy and Planning

Fare Reduction on TfL’s Tube and Rail Services

by Mayoral Candidate: Caroline Pidgeon

Consultancy Group 6: Jannat Al-Khanizi, Shivani Bhatnagar, Aishah Mazlan, Janey Lin Zhao, Weihan Zhu

2


Content

1. Introduction 1.1 Inequality of Transport Pricing on Lower-Income Workers 1.2 Overcrowding 2. Policy Context 2.1 Existing Conditions 2.2 Proposed Policy 2.2.1 Policy Objectives 2.2.2 Funding Scheme

3. Policy Assessment 3.1 Case Studies 3.1.1 Singapore 3.1.2 Melbourne 3.2 Critique- Social Purpose: Improve the Welfare of Lower-Income Workers 3.2.1 Unclear Implementation 3.2.2Benefitinggroups 3.3 Critique- Transport Purpose: Tackle overcrowding and spreading peak demand 3.3.1 Travel patterns of lower-income workers 3.3.2 Price elasticity 3.4 Funding Mechanisms

4. Conclusion (Improvements) 4.1 Social Purpose Improvement 4.1.1 Eligibility Requirements 4.2 Transport Purpose Improvements 4.2.1 Focused Implementation 4.2.2 Designated Transport Links for Implementation 4.2.3 Discount to Card Users Only 4.3 Funding Scheme Improvements 4.3.1 Long-Term Funding Mechanisms 4.3.2 Transferable Funding Mechanisms from Case Studies

5. References

3


1. Introduction

In May 2016, London is looking to elect its new mayor. In this crucial time, candidates have

strategically addressed the city’s daily and chronic challenges by devising transportation

policies. A prominent theme is to address the rising costs of public transport, and the inadequate

capacity of the transportation system following the growing demand (Mayor of London, 2013).

CarolinePidgeon,theLiberalDemocratcandidate’scampaignrhetoricpromisestotacklethese

challenges albeit from a social standing. Her campaign launched with a commitment to tackle

thebarriersthat‘’make London a city that serves the few, not the many” (Webber, 2016).

4


Challenges to be AddressedThisreportwillexaminethe‘HalfPricebyHalfSeven’.Thechallengesthatitattemptstosolveare: 1.1 Inequality in Transport Pricing for Lower-Income WorkersA critical problem with public transportation in London is the associated cost. A study by London Travel Watch (2015) showed the disproportionate expenditure of travel costs incurred by lower versus higher earners. Where higher earners spend 6.8% of their income on travel, low earners spend as high as 9.2% (p.3).Pidgeon’spolicyaddressesthisgapthroughafarereductionschemetargetingthelower-incomeworkers.

1.2 OvercrowdingOvercrowding in a successful and busy transport system does not only occur because of a shortage of infrastructure, but more importantly due to passenger behaviour (House of Commons, 2003). Figure 1visualises thecapacity forLondon’sbusiestOverground,UndergroundandDLR routes.Therefore,candidatePidgeon’spolicyalsoattempts to intervenewithpassengerbehaviour todistributedemandbeyond and across peak hours in order to ease congestion and minimise delays.

Figure 1: Tube and DLR Spare Capacity (Source: Mayor of London, 2013)

5


2. Policy Context2.1 Existing Conditions

London’speakperiodmainlyoccursbetween6:30am-9:30am,anddespitehavingmultiplepeakhours

for different stations; no detailed statistics have been released. The number of trips occurring before and

duringpeakhour,whichthepolicyislikelytoinfluenceareasfollows:

Figure 2: Peak hour for morning period is 8am for Underground/DLR services (Source: Source: TfL, 2011)

Figure 3: Peak and Off-Peak fares for Tube, DLR and Overground (Source: TfL, 2016.)

The pricing for peak/off-peak hours fare varies according to zones in London as shown in Figure 3:

Further details of the fares are provided in section 4.2.3.

6


2.2 Proposed Policy

The ‘early bird’ fare proposes half fares for TfL’s Overground, Underground, and DLR services, by

completing the journey before 7:30 am (Pidgeon, 2015).

2.2.1 Policy Objectives

Social purpose: Support low-income workers that travel in unsocial hours.

Transportation purpose: tackle overcrowding by encouraging people to begin their commute earlier in the

morning.

Whilethefirstobjectiveaspirestoachievefairnessintravel,thesecondaddressesdemanddistribution

by spreading modal usage over a wider time period. In addition, it would minimise travel delays occurring

from overcapacity.

2.3 Funding Scheme

The scheme will be funded in the first two years through a variety of methods. The main funding

mechanisms will be withdrawing funding from capital expenditure by supporting less costly infrastructural

projects. In addition to transfering funds from other operational expenditures.

Figure 4: Methods of Funding in 1st and 2nd Mayoral Years combined Source:

(Akt-uk, 2016, BBC News, 2016, Boff, 2015 and Coates, 2016)

Figure 5: Methods of Funding in annual subsequent years (Atk-uk, 2016, Boff, 2015

and Coates, 2016)

44

10

6

Methods of Funding (£ Millions) Year 1&2

End TFL Nominee Travel Card

Scrapping Garden Bridge

Silvertown Bridge instead of Silvertown Tunnel

22

10

Methods of Funding (£ Millions) Annual Funding from Year 3 onwards

End TFL Nominee Travel Card

Silvertown Bridge instead of Silvertown Tunnel (?)

?

7


Objective: Spread morning peak hour crowds to pre-peak hours and ease crowding (Singapore LTA, 2013).

Figure 6: Total number of commuters exiting the 16 city centre stations on weekdays (Souce: Singapore LTA, 2013)

3. Policy Assessment3.1.1 Case Studies- Singapore

Delivery: The scheme was funded by the Government and implemented by Land Transport Authority (LTA) of Singapore (IPS Commons, 2015) and more trains were injected into the system to provide additional capacity in ridership during off peak hours. More than 50 organisations partnered with the Travel Smart Programme to encourage people to shift to off-peak travel by creating flexibility for the employees to start work before 8 am (Singapore LTA, 2015).

Policy:It began as a one year trial to provide free travel on the MRT in the core city area (16 out of total 109 stations) before 7:45 am on Weekdays (excluding public holidays). Commuters exiting at these stations between 7:45 am and 8:00 am received a discount of up to 50 cents to act as a buffer measure (adult fares vary between $0.79 to $2.67). The scheme is not applicable to people beginning their journey at any one ofthespecified16stations,butattheexitstation (Singapore LTA, 2013).

Applicability to London:1. More trains were injected during the pre-peak hours to accommodate the shift which would have added to the costs.2. Trial scheme before full implementation.3. Implemented supplementary policies and work incentives to promote the early travel scheme and encourage participation (Singapore LTA, 2015).

Outcome:1. Sustained reduction of 7-8% in number of commuters during the peak morning hours.2. Ratio of travel from morning peak (8am- 9am) to pre-peak (7am- 8am) travel fell from 2.7 to 2.1- resulting in a more evenly spread ridership pattern (on the basis of commuters exiting at the designated 18 stations).3. Allowed other travel demand management schemes to be facilitated alongside it for example- Travel Smart Programme, Travel Smart Rewards and an Off-Peak Pass.4.TheschemewasextendeduntilJune2016duetoitssuccess.Afterthefirstyear,2additionalstationswere included in the free travel zone (Singapore LTA, 2015).

8


3.1.2 Case Studies- Melbourne

Objective: The policy aimed to shift demand from peak to pre-peak to relieve overcrowding effects.

Figure 7 (top) : Train overcrowding (source: Currie, 2009)Figure 8 (right): Ridership 133/94=100 (source: Currie, 2009)

Policy:An early bird ticket offers free travel to all passengers who complete their journey before 7:00 am. The discountwasonlyofferedfortherailelementsofpeople’sjourney.Furthermore,staffheldtheauthoritytopermit late exits due to late train services (Currie, 2010).

Delivery: 1. The scheme cost $6 million Australian dollars (approximately US$5.64 million). Most of this expense was the result of loss in fare revenues.2. The scheme was trialled on 2 out of the 15 lines on the MRT network for one year before being rolled out on all 15 in 2008.3.Theprogrampaysforitsrevenuedeficitbyrunning2.5-5lesspeaktrainloads.Furthermore,thelackofnew infrastructural requirements made this scheme a cheaper option than others to enable relatively quick change.

Applicability to London:1. Trial scheme before full implementation.2. Implemented supplementary policies and work incentives to promote the early travel scheme and encourage participation.3. Cost of running the scheme was recovered due to having to run less trains during the peak hours.

Outcomes:1. An estimated 23% of passengers have actively shifted their pattern of travel by around 42 minutes (2,000-2,600 passengers). 77% did not shift their time of travel: 67% travelled at this time originally and 10% were new commuters as the result of a growing market.2.Peaktimecrowdshavesubsidedby1.2-1.5%ofpreviouslevels.Thisequatestouptofiveaveragetrainloads being saved during the peak hours (3% of total peak trains). However, demand has grown to outweigh this effect and overloading has increased since the introduction of this scheme.3. Peak travel during 7:00-8:00 am has reduced however the results between the more critical time period of 8:00-9:00 am are low.

8

9


3.2 Critique - Social Purpose: Improve the Welfare of Lower-Income Workers

This section will assess the impacts of the policy objectives and the viability of each based on available

data.

3.2.1 Unclear Implementation

Whilethepolicyspecifiesatargetgroupofcommuters,itfailstoidentifythetransportlinksthatserve

the highest proportion of low-income workers during unsocial hours (objective 1). In addition, the links

predominantly serving low-income groups (objective 1) might not overlap with the most overcrowded links

(objective 2) thus making the designation of the links ineffective (Figure 9). Contrarily, if no designation

occurs, loss in revenueswouldnotbe justifiedbecause inessential linksor commutersmightbenefit

instead of the targeted group. This perpetuates unfairness in the system.

Figure9:AverageTubeDelayscausebyOvercrowdinginComparisonwithProfessions’Income (Source: TfL, 2015 and APSCo, 2016)

Figure 9 shows average tube delays that were caused by overcrowding (second column). The darkest

coloured lines namely- Jubilee, Central, Victoria and Northern lines show the most need for intervention

as they are the most crowded. On the other hand, third column shows the professions served by these

lines the most. These were colour coded to demonstrate professions with lowest average salaries

(darkest shades) (APSCo, 2016). These were the Hammersmith and City Line, Jubilee, Central and

Districtlines.Thisshowsthatbothobjectivesdon’talwayscorrelate.Inaddition,theseresultsarelimited

due to unavailability of data for overground and DLR for complete comparison.

*Darkest to Lightest: Least to Most In Need of Policy Designation

10


3.3 Critique- Transport Purpose: Tackle Overcrowding and Spread Peak Demand

3.3.1 Price Elasticity for Overcrowding

Rider sensitivity to fare changes appears to decrease with increasing city size. Since London’s

population exceeds a million, its estimated elasticity of -0.24 compares to small cities with population

of less than 500,000 with elasticity of -0.35 (McCollom, 2004).

Ridership responses are more inelastic in peak hours due to the trips typically being mostly non-

discretionary, therefore if any travel alternatives are unattractive, riders will still accept the fare changes

with few changes in the ridership frequency (Ibid, 2004). In reflection, Singapore and Melbourne have

both increased their peak time elasticity through implementing the policy along with a work scheme

programme. Off-peak trips are twice as elastic, as they are mostly discretionary and flexible as shown

in Figure 10. Therefore, if no other work programmes are being implemented along the policy, it would

be more effective to apply the lower fares in off-peak periods as it will more likely to further enhance

ridership and modal shift.

Figure 10: Fare Elasticities in London (Source: McCollom, 2004)

3.2.2 Benefiting Groups

TfL currently runs fare reduction programmes, to support vulnerable groups such as the unemployed or

disabled. However, these programmes are all operated through eligibility requirements such as special

travel cards or approved applications to access funds and levies (DfT, 2013). The early bird reduction

policy is therefore unique. Despite targeting low-income workers, it is accessible for all commuters

completing their journey before 7:30 am, something that no other reduction policy in London has tackled

before.Thisextends thebenefitofprice reduction togroupsbeyond the target,especially incaseof

unclear targeting of links.

Thecritiqueacknowledgesthebenefitpresentedforlow-incometravelersinunsocialhoursoccasionally,

however there are shortcomings attached to the simplistic nature of the goal assumption.

11


3.3.2 Travel Patterns of Lower Income Workers

Approximately 9% of London residents (a projected 70,000) take slower routes to work when commuting

from outer to inner London because of lower fare prices (TfL, 2014b). The time of the commute was also

found tohaveasignificant impacton travelchoices forvery lowearners(earning less than£600per

month) as income affects travel behaviour. The impact of the policy will be discussed below.

There is a difference in economic performance of inner and outer London boroughs and within different

household salary bands. Low income workers tend to favour cheap modes of transport and make less

frequent trips into London. Outer London residents, regardless of income make 15-25% more trips by

mechanisedmodesduelongerdistancebetweenlocations.Asseenbythegraphbelow(figure11),lower

income residents travel fewer times per day, with a majority of the reasons being congestion through

overcrowding and high ticket prices (TfL, 2014a). If the policy was to be implemented, this would be

addressing the two major hindrance for low ridership and increase travel demand and mobility for lower

incomeworkers.Howeverthehindranceidentifiedisonlyforpeakhoursandnotfullyapplicabletooff-

peakhoursthatPidgeonistargeting.Thesehindrancesarenotincomespecific,thereforelow-income

workers should not be the central target of the policy as the policy attempts to address a problem that

crosses more income groups.

Figure 11: Mechanised Trip rates by income, inner and outer London (Source: TfL, 2014a.)

12


3.5 Funding Mechanisms

London’stravelsystemisstillinrecoveryfromtheeconomicrecessionwhichhadasubstantialeffectona

reduction of travel as there were large changes in incomes and economic activity. Moreover, there was a

longer stagnation of income and productivity in outer London for the past 10 years, which further hinders

themobilityoflowerincomeworkerslivinginouterboroughs.Inreflectionwiththecasestudies,London

has a larger population and ridership statistics than both cities and therefore stands to lose more money

on lost fare revenues. Transit agencies cannot afford to offer large discounts such as the half price fare

without recouping the revenue loss elsewhere in the long term (Kockelmam et al., 2013), which was not

explicitlystatedinPidgeon’spolicy.

The review of the short-term funding scheme was necessary as it was one of the details the Candidate-

Caroline Pidgeon disclosed regarding the policy. Pidgeon has proposed the following methods (Figure

12)forfundingtheschemeforthefirsttwoyearsintothemayoralterm.However,itisunclearhowthe

scheme will be funded beyond the two years discussed in section 2.3. There is ambiguity on how much

funds will be allocated towards the policy beyond the second year if there were less freed funds from

projects such as SIlvertown bridge for example.

13


Figure 12: Funding Mechnism Critique

14


4. Conclusion (Improvements)ThispolicysubmittedbyCarolinePidgeondoesnotsuggestaspecific timeframe for implementation.With the proposed improvements, this policy has the potential to become a more viable option in the long term. Improvements provided in this section tackle the critiques that have been discussed earlier (section

3).

4.1 Social Purpose Improvement4.1.1 Eligibility Requirements

Targetingcritique3.2.2BenefitingGroups,the‘earlybird’farereductionpolicyshouldbedesignedinto

a similar scheme as the current TfL fare reduction programmes serving other groups. By operating the

program through eligibility requirements, it can be ensured that the discount will target lower paid workers

specificallyandpromotefairnessinthesystem(Newmark,2014).Currently,thepolicyonlytargetsthe

Tube,OvergroundandDLR-restrictingthesocialandmodalspreadingbenefitsfromthebusnetwork.

Introducinganeligibilitybasedprogrammewouldextendthebenefitsforthetargetedgroupofpeopleto

a wider network of transport services. Particularly, buses are the most commonly used transport mode

for lower income workers, which allows the policy to impact the intended social group directly with a lower

loss in revenue (TfL, 2012:4).

4.2 Transport Purpose Improvements

4.2.1 Focused Implementation

The case studies of Melbourne and Singapore both reinforce that this policy should be implemented

during weekdays only, excluding public holidays, to ensure less loss of gross revenue from fare reduction

(TfL, 2011). Following both case studies, London should also undergo a trial period on a smaller scale to

judge the viability and applicability of the proposal. The trial should allow for monitoring and improvement

of the scheme delivery before continuing with full implementation.

4.2.2 Designated Transport Links for Implementation

In order to tackle critique 3.2.1 Unclear Implementation, in Underground, DLR and Overground, the fare

reduction should only apply at strategic exit stations to maximise the impact of the policy-following the

example of Singapore (Singapore LTA, 2013). These stations should be selected on the basis of the most

overcrowded and wherever possible- most used by lower income professionals (previous Figure 9). This

will result in a smaller revenue loss compared to implementation in the whole of London.

15


In addition, different lines have different peak hours which should be taken into account when designating

the fare reduction timeperiod.Havinga flat timeperiodwill force somepeople to change the travel

behaviour more than others, therefore staggering the time period could make the policy more equitable.

4.2.3 Discount to Card Users Only

As a possible consideration the fare reduction should apply to card-users only. This includes Oyster and

contactlesspaymentcards.This improvementcouldensure that thediscountbenefitsconstrict to the

localworkersandresidents,asonlyoneoffivevisitorshaveanoyster/contactlesscards(TfL,2010).This

would save gross revenue by only targeting the local population that requires the discount.

The table below shows the price difference between single journey tickets and Oyster/contactless cards.

In the suggested improvement, the policy will mostly target single journey tickets for adult and Oyster/

contactless cards during off peak hours. Oyster and contactless card users during peak hours will also

benefitoccasionally.

4.3 Funding Scheme Improvements

4.3.1. Long Term Funding Mechanisms

Pidgeon’sfundingmechanismssuchaswithdrawingfundingfromcapitalGardenBridgeproduceone

offsavingsandonlysustainthefirsttwoyearsofimplementation.Therefore,othermayoralcandidates’

funding mechanisms were studied for transferable knowledge. Viable mechanisms included ‘deliver major

efficiency savings within TfL by cutting waste and duplication in back office operations and £383 million

on consultants and agency staff’ suggested by Sadiq Khan (Edwards, 2016). Other suggestions include

Figure 13: Detailed Fares for Tube and DLR affected by the Policy (in red) (TfL, 2016)

16


increasingthecostofanotherserviceinthesystemtocoverthedeficitcreatedbythispolicy.Examples

include an increased congestion charge or increased costs for peak users- the latter would actively deter

overcrowding and successfully fund the fare reduction scheme (Sullivan and Powley, 2016).

4.3.2 Learning from Case Studies

Additionally, as concluded from Melbourne, the government was able to make a return on their annual

expenditure by running fewer trains during the peak hours (Currie, 2009). TfL should determine whether

Melbourne’sexamplecouldbe replicatedon thebasisof twoobjectives.First,asufficientamountof

people must switch to earlier travel to run fewer trains during the peak hours. Secondly, the pre-peak

frequency of trains should accommodate the extra load from the modal spread without need for an extra

injection of trains into the system. If the pre-peak number of trains stays the same and the peak number

of trains decreases, TfL could recover money on the lost revenue through fare reduction. Additionally in

Melbourne, the fare reduction scheme induced demand, increasing the amount of fare paying customers

which also contributed to compensating for the implementation costs (Currie, 2009).

17


5. ReferencesAkt-uk.com, 2016. Silvertown Bridge, [online], Available at: http://akt-uk.com/projects/silvertown%20bridge, [Ac-cessed: 17 March 2016].

Apsco, (n.d.). Which London Underground tube line has the wealthiest commuters?, Available via: http://www.apsco.org/article/which-london-underground-tube-line-has-the-wealthiest-commuters-1569.aspx, [Accessed: 10 March 2016].

BBC News, 2016. Lib Dems pledge to halve London morning commuter fares. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35236209, [Accessed: 13 March 2016].

Boff,A.,2015.ScrappingFreeTravelForTheLodgersAndFlatmatesOfTflStaff.1sted.[ebook]London:GreaterLondon Authority. Available at: http://glaconservatives.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Free-Ride.pdf [Accessed: 18 March 2016].

Chieppo,C.,2015.What’saFairFare?.Governing.[online]Availableat:http://www.governing.com/blogs/bfc/col-public-transportation-income-based-fare-discounts.html, [Accessed: 23 March 2016].

Coates, N., 2016. Latest News - No to Silvertown Tunnel. [online] No to Silvertown Tunnel. Available at: http://www.silvertowntunnel.co.uk [Accessed: 13 March 2016].

Currie,G.,2009.ExploringtheImpactofthe‘FreeBefore7’CampaignonReducingOvercrowdingonMelbourneTrains, in Australian Transport Research Forum. Monash University: Auckland, New Zealand, Available via: http://www.cmnzl.co.nz/assets/sm/4653/61/1100B-CurrieG.pdf,[Accessed:17March2016].

Currie,G.,2010.QuickandEffectiveSolutiontoRailOvercrowdingFreeEarlyBirdTicketExperienceinMelbourne,Australia, Available via: http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2146-05, [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

Department for Transport DfT, 2013. Support to help with the Cost of Transport, Available via: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-to-help-with-the-cost-of-transport/support-to-help-with-the-cost-of-transport, [Ac-cessed: 10 March 2016].

Department for Transport DfT, 2014. Drivers of Demand for Travel in London: A review of trends in travel demand and their causes.1sted. [ebook]London:Transport forLondon.Availableat: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/drivers-of-demand-for-travel-in-london.pdf [Accessed: 19 March 2016].

Donovan,T.,2015.RiverThamesGardenBridge:MayoraccusedofmisleadingLondoners.BBCNews.[online]Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31741802 [Accessed: 13 March 2016].

Edwards,T.,2016.SadiqKhan’s fare freezewouldcost£1.9bn,saysTfL, [online],Availableat:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35443206, [Accessed: 22 March 2016].

Harris,S.,2015.FreetravelperkforfamilymembersandflatmatesofTfLstaff‘costsLondoners£22m.ITV.[on-line]Availableat:http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-05-26/free-travel-perk-for-families-and-flatmates-of-tfl-staff-costing-londoners-22million/, [Accessed: 23 March 2016].

Hoscik,M.,2013.Boris:AxingTfLnomineepasseswon’tmakemoneyand isn’tworth theaggro. [online]May-orWatch. Available at: http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/boris-axing-tfl-nominee-passes-wont-make-money-and-isnt-worth-the-aggro/, [Accessed: 23 March 2016].

18


Hoscik, M., 2015. Tories renew calls to axe free travel for TfL staff spouses. [online] MayorWatch. Available at: http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tories-renew-calls-to-axe-free-travel-for-tfl-staff-spouses/,[Accessed:23March2016].

House of Commons, 2003. Overcrowding on Public Transport, Available via: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/201/201.pdf, [Accessed: 15 March 2016].

IPS Commons, 2015. Shifting Travel Demand, Available via: http://www.ipscommons.sg/shifting-travel-demand/, [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

Kockelman, K., Chen, D., Larsen, K., Nichols, B., 2013. The Economics of Transportation Systems: A Reference for Practitioners. Available via: http://www.utexas.edu/research/ctr/pdf_reports/0_6628_P1.pdf [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

London Travel Watch, 2015. Living on the edge: The impact of travel costs on low paid workers living in outer Lon-don,Pp.3,Availablevia:http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4100&field=file, [Accessed:10 March 2016].

McCollom, B. 2004. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Transit Pricing and Fares. [online] Transit Development Corporation. Available via: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c12.pdf, [Ac-cessed: 21 March 2016].

Mayor of London, 2013. London Infrastructure Plan 2050: Transport Supporting Paper, Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Transport%20Supporting%20Paper_3.pdf,[Accessed:10March2016].

Newmark,G.L.,2014.ReducedFareProgramsforOlderAdultsandPersonswithDisabilities:APeerReviewofPolicies. Center for Neighbourhood Technology: Chicago.Pidgeon, C., 2015. Caroline Pidgeon to halve TfL fares for all journeys before 7.30am, Available via: http://www.carolinepidgeon.org/node/1285, [Accessed: 9 March 2016].

RMT, 2012. Threat to Withdraw Staff Nominee Travel Facilities, Available at: http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/content/threat-withdraw-staff-nominee-travel-facilities, [Accessed: 20 March 2016].

Singapore LTA, 2013. Travel Early Travel Free on the MRT, Available via: http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=c3983784-2949-4f8d-9be7-d095e6663632, [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

Singapore LTA, 2015. Free Pre-Peak Travel Extended until 30 June 2016, Available at: http://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=02518312-ad79-43d6-948d-05729743a222, [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

Sullivan, C., and Powley, T., 2015. London Transport Funding Faces Squeeze, Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05d0f084-e524-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39.html#axzz43oVjEllT, [Accessed: 16 March 2016].

Transport for London TfL, 2010. Understanding Visitor Ticketing, [PDF].

TfL, 2011. Travel in London, Supplementary Report: London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS), Available via: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-travel-demand-survey.pdf,[Accessed:19March2016].

TfL,2012.UnderstandingthetravelneedsofLondon’sdiversecommunities:PeopleonLowIncomes,Availablevia:http://content.tfl.gov.uk/people-on-low-incomes.pdf,[Accessed:10March2016].

TfL, 2014a. Drivers of Demand for Travel in London: A review of trends in travel demand and their causes. 1st ed. [ebook]London,pp.3-4.Availableat:http://content.tfl.gov.uk/drivers-of-demand-for-travel-in-london.pdf,[Accessed:23 March 2016].

19


TfL,2014b.Understanding the travelneedsofLondon’sdiversecommunities.1sted. [ebook]London,pp.246-279.Availableat:http://content.tfl.gov.uk/understanding-the-travel-needs-of-london-diverse-communities.pdf, [Ac-cessed 23 March 2016].

TfL,2015.LondonUndergroundPerformanceReport,[pdf],Availablevia:http://contenax.tfl.gov.uk/lu-performance-report-period-9-2015-16.pdf, [Accessed: 15 March 2016].

Tfl,2016.WhichLondonTravelPassisRightforMe?,[online],Availablevia:https://visitorshop.tfl.gov.uk/help/ticket-comparison/, [Accessed: 17 March 2016].

Wainwright,O.,2015.London’sgardenbridge: theendof the road?.TheGuardian. [online]Availableat:http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/oct/01/london-garden-bridge-lambeth-council-tfl-funding-end-of-road[Accessed:19March2016].

Walker,P.,2016.London’sgardenbridge:will ‘tiaraon theheadof fabulouscity’everbebuilt?.TheGuardian.[online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/03/london-garden-bridge-will-tiara-on-head-fabulous-city-ever-be-built, [Accessed: 19 March 2016].

Webber, E., 2016. London Mayoral Elections: The Contenders, Available via: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-eng-land-london-33675875, [Accessed: 15 March 2016].

2016 mayoral candidate caroline pidgeon's transport policy report

News & Politics