LONDON UNDERGROUND
He added: “We’ve stayed away from putting any kind of hard-and-fast fi gure on it because we don’t want to limit TfL’s ambition; we think the amount could be massive. We do think they need to embrace the idea and at the moment, sadly, I don’t think they are going to. TfL have held fast to their line that they don’t think it is something that should be done.”
The report shows 74% of 531 Londoners either agreed or strongly agreed that TfL “should expand their use of sponsorship across public transport in London and use the money generated to freeze or cut fares.” Only 6% disagreed with the statement.
This statement is heavily biased towards a positive answer – many passengers would be happy for signifi cant changes to the network in exchange for cheaper fares, but perhaps it indicates less resistance to sponsorship than TfL believes.
This is evident in the Barclays cycle hire scheme, with the cycles almost universally referred to as ‘Boris Bikes’. “I think the sky is the limit”, Bacon added, pointing out that the report was intended to give TfL “a bit of a kick and nudge in the right direction”.
“ We think everything should be up for grabs really. Seriously, why not?”
The proposals would depend on a select number of approved companies able to provide the necessary funds. “Let’s be honest about this,” Bacon said, “we’re probably talking about major organisations – not ‘Joe’s Caff’. We’re talking about Harrods, or Burberry; multinational brands that are recognised everywhere because they are the only ones that are going to have the money to do it.”
This could be around eight or nine central stations, he said, and pointed
out that mock-ups of a Tube map including sponsorship were not as cluttered as critics suggest.
Potential consequences of such a scheme can be seen in practice in New York, Madrid and Dubai. Bacon said: “It wouldn’t be entirely groundbreaking because it has been done in Madrid and Dubai. But on this scale, in a major world city, it would be almost pioneering.
“But why not? London is one of the leading cities in the world, we’re in fi nancial dire straits and actually this is potentially a massive source of revenue that wouldn’t hurt the taxpayer at all, and wouldn’t harm upgrades.”
Up for grabs
When asked how far is too far, Bacon replied: “We think everything should be up for grabs really. Seriously, why not?
“Why on earth shouldn’t we be looking at things like the District Line sponsored by Coca-Cola? The commercial benefi t could be absolutely gigantic, and people would still just call it the District Line.”
The map itself is less constant than many realise, with new stations and line extensions added as the structure of the Underground changes.
Reputational risks
In 2012, the London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee produced a report looking into TfL’s approach to sponsorship deals.
Committee chairman John Biggs, speaking to RTM following the publication of the GLA Conservatives report, told us: “In our scrutiny report into sponsorship, whose recommendations were accepted by the Mayor, we recognised that sponsorship is a growing reality but that the approach to it was rather a muddle and not suffi ciently guided by agreed standards and approaches. Such guidelines would recognise the reputational risks associated with sponsorship plus other reasonable questions about appropriateness. At the time of our inquiry TfL were fairly clear that, other than in exceptional circumstances, which I recall would include clarity that the fundamental purpose of names is in wayfi nding, the renaming of stations by sponsors was unlikely to be supported. I would be interested to hear what has changed.
Frozen fares?
One note of caution might be the lack of transparency around how much of the revenue generated through sponsorship could actually go towards fares, rather than subsidising other parts of TfL’s business.
As Mick Whelan, general secretary of the train drivers’ union Aslef, pointed out: “Who says that such extra revenue would be put to holding fares down anyway?”
Bacon said: “In the unlikely event that they decided to run with it, or if the Mayor told them to run with this, whether or not they then would transfer that money into limiting fare rises is something we would have to keep a very sharp eye on.
“Our view is that they could and should use any money raised from this towards limiting the burden on the farepayer.”
“In my view the fundamental purpose of public transport is to provide a service, funded by a combination of fares and grants whose origins lies in taxation. While sponsorship by private companies may in exceptional circumstances be appropriate, the fundamental public duty of private companies is to pay their taxes and, through these, public transport can be subsidised. Taken to extremes, it would be ironic, to put it mildly, if a company that spent zillions of pounds to lawyers in minimising its tax liabilities was then granted publicity, with a positive glow, from the sponsorship of a public service which, through their avoidance, has been starved of funds.”
However, he acknowledged that other public realm improvements, including station improvements or the Access for All scheme, could be funded through revenue generated by sponsorship.
“It need not necessarily be fares, but fares is obviously the one to go for because that’s what people feel the pain of most,” he said.
Although endorsement of the scheme may be thin on the ground at the moment, Bacon believes it is an idea that “could have its day”.
“I’d like it to be now. I think the case is pressing, and the moment is right to do it. Provided it’s done right there could be a considerable amount of money raised, with no harm at all to Londoners.”
http://tinyurl.com/GLAConservatives FOR MORE INFORMATION
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 13 | 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100