The Budget and Performance Committee of the Greater London Authority Council convened on Wednesday 16 September 2026 to discuss Transport for London's (TfL) capital renewals programme. Key discussions focused on the deteriorating condition of TfL's assets, the impact of underinvestment, and the challenges in securing adequate funding for necessary renewals. The Committee heard that TfL has been under-investing in its assets for a decade, leading to a £6.5 billion backlog. While safety is paramount and not compromised, the lack of investment is impacting service quality, leading to longer journey times, speed restrictions, and weight limits on critical infrastructure. The Committee also examined the financial health of TfL, noting a forecast operating deficit of £128 million for 2026/27, primarily due to lower-than-expected passenger income and increased investment in renewals. Discussions also touched upon the condition of roads, bridges, and tunnels, with particular concern raised about the aging infrastructure and the need for a national funding model.

Transport for London Capital Renewals

The meeting began with an overview of TfL's capital renewals programme, presented by Patrick Doig, Chief Finance Officer; Claire Mann, Chief Operating Officer; and Richard Jones, Director of Asset Performance Delivery, all from TfL, alongside Edward Richardson, Transport Programme Director from Business London. Patrick Doig outlined that TfL has been under-investing in its assets for a decade, leading to a £6.5 billion backlog. He explained that while safety is not compromised, the underinvestment has resulted in assets degrading from being at the top end of their target range to below it in some cases. This necessitates additional maintenance activities, inspections, monitoring, and operational mitigations to protect safety and performance. Where this is not possible, restrictions such as speed or weight limits, or taking assets out of service, are implemented.

Claire Mann elaborated on the operational impact, stating that the network continues to operate safely and reliably, but critical assets require investment. Decisions are prioritised based on a risk matrix considering safety, customer impact, and reliability. Temporary speed restrictions and weight limits, such as on Vauxhall Bridge, are examples of measures taken to manage asset degradation. Richard Jones detailed the rigorous inspection regimes and the dynamic monitoring of assets, explaining that while assets have design lives, their actual service life is determined by condition assessments and interventions. He noted that while some older assets are simpler to maintain, newer, more sophisticated assets can be more sensitive to failure.

Edward Richardson, representing Business London, highlighted that for businesses, an ageing asset base translates to service gaps, slower journeys, inaccessible stations, and congestion. He stressed that investment must be sufficient to keep the network safe, reliable, and accessible, and directed towards assets with the greatest economic impact. He noted that the current funding settlement, while welcome, still leaves a gap compared to the £1.1 to £1.2 billion needed for steady-state maintenance.

Road, Tunnels, and Structures

The Committee then turned its attention to the condition and performance of TfL's roads, bridges, and tunnels. Richard Jones reported that TfL manages approximately 1,500 structures, with 40 locations currently subject to interim measures such as weight restrictions. Vauxhall Bridge, for example, has a weight restriction. While the network is deemed safe, TfL is closely monitoring these 40 locations.

Assembly Member Alex Wilson raised concerns about bridges like Broadmead Bridge, which has been closed for nearly three years, questioning TfL's ability to maintain and reopen closed structures. It was clarified that Broadmead Bridge is a London Borough structure, not a TfL one, but the issue of funding for highway structures was highlighted as a national problem. The Department for Transport (DfT) Structures Fund was mentioned as a funding route, with TfL having made two submissions.

Concerns were also raised about Hammersmith Bridge, with activist groups advocating for its preservation as an active travel bridge. TfL confirmed support for active travel but stressed the need for full restoration, acknowledging the significant funding challenges. The previous bus connections previously provided by Hammersmith Bridge were also highlighted as a priority.

Regarding Vauxhall Bridge, Richard Jones confirmed that TfL has a strong technical and economic case for its inclusion in the Structures Fund bid, estimating remediation costs between £60 million and £80 million. He noted that earlier intervention would be less costly. Claire Mann clarified that TfL's commitment to Hammersmith Bridge was conditional on agreed scope and business cases with the Treasury, and that TfL had met its commitment for the stabilisation works.

The discussion also covered the impact of climate change on assets, with TfL reviewing its hot weather preparedness for rails and identifying at-risk earthwork structures. Ironically, the most significant failures experienced over the summer were due to intense thunderstorms, potentially lightning strikes, affecting signalling equipment.

Assembly Member Léonie Cooper questioned the financial implications of the Mayor's £100 million investment in Silvertown Partnership, with David Bellamy explaining it was GLA Housing Investments funding routed through a separate company for legal and taxation reasons. The investment is expected to be repaid with a surplus, but the exact timeframe is not publicly available due to commercial sensitivity.

Investment Gap and Delivery

The Committee explored the significant investment gap in TfL's capital programme. Patrick Doig reiterated that TfL's current investment in asset renewals is £800 million annually, falling short of the £1.1 to £1.2 billion steady-state investment needed. He stated that additional government funding could accelerate the return to steady-state levels and bring significant benefits. The Mayor, as Chairman of TfL, is making a compelling case to the government for increased investment.

Edward Richardson of Business London emphasized that renewing London's existing transport network is an investment in economic growth, not just maintenance. He agreed that safety must be the top priority but highlighted the £6.5 billion capital renewals backlog. He noted that the current funding settlement, while welcome, still leaves a gap to the £1.1 to £1.2 billion required for steady-state investment.

The Committee also discussed the potential for integrated road pricing systems to fund strategic investments in road infrastructure, with Business London supporting this concept. However, they also noted the need to consider national proposals for pay-per-mile schemes for electric vehicles.

Assembly Member Léonie Cooper questioned the reliance on land receipts for GLAP's funding model, and David Bellamy explained that while GLAP's business plan is currently viable, the model is sensitive to market conditions. He also clarified that the GLA's direct investment in schemes like Silvertown represents a shift from GLAP's traditional land-disposal model.

The Committee expressed concerns about the lack of transparency in reporting on GLAP's performance, particularly regarding affordable housing starts and accessible homes. They recommended that GLAP reporting should be more consistent, include scheme-level milestones, and separately identify accessible homes.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the Mayor's £100 million investment in Silvertown Partnership, with questions raised about its structure and expected returns. The Committee also heard about the challenges faced by GLAP in delivering housing targets due to market conditions and historical development agreements.

The Committee noted the reports and delegated authority to the Chairman to agree any output arising from the meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for 20 October 2026.