Municipal bus companies proposal

[Non Multi]

The problem for "country" services coming into London is that lack of intermediate traffic once the boundary is crossed with TfL's artificially low fares and range of proprietory smart cards and passes

No it's worse than that, on high frequency TfL routes that cross the Greater London boundary punters let the non-TfL buses go by and wait for the red buses to usually save £2.50 for a two way journey. The drop off in custom is very apparent even to passengers.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't know the current provision/demand in Enfield etc, but @thomasheywood makes a great point here that could be quoted in many bus threads

Some enthusiasts seem obsessed with orbital routes, a number of nostalgic comments you get in any region of the UK are about bringing back the 'outer circle' etc

In some places there's that demand, especially if it links 'out of town ' places like hospitals

But realistically, how many people will pay two quid (minimum) to travel from their suburb with a primary school/ Co-op/ Greg's/ chip shop/ Indian restaurant/ estate agent/ Church/ two pubs to travel to another suburb that has basically the same facilities?

At least part of the problem with orbital services (and lots of other “improvements” that are either suggested on here or even put into practice by well-meaning authorities) is that they are done in isolation. Many of the potential journeys on orbital routes will be “legs” of journeys so unless and until you get integrated ticketing, timetabling and infrastructure they will rarely happen. As an example of the latter, pre COVID my quickest way home from the station (if I just missed the direct bus) involved a dog leg with (in theory) perfect interchange time. However, the positioning of the bus stops meant crossing two arms of a two-lane roundabout crossroads (if you see what I mean) without any pedestrian crossings. Not conducive to the use of public transport at all!

I think @tbtc is on the money. There is often a clamour for orbital links but there is seldom sufficient critical mass of passengers to justify such services unless there happens to be a major and defined traffic objective.

Even examples in places like Bristol (where there was a dominant operator) showed that it's laudable but often not sustainable without funding, even with easy ticketing and interchange nodes (such as UWE, Bristol Parkway, Southmead Hospital). Buses work best at moving large flows of people, not a myriad of complex and conflicting journeys.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I used to live in Hemel Hempstead, I can understand the envy of looking at TfL and wondering why Hertfordshire can't have the same. But it comes down to population and it comes down to money. Even in Hemel, where the main part of the town is quite some distance from the railway, the town services are quiet on weekdays and they're quiet on evenings, because a lot of people living in Hemel are away at work in London during the day.

It didn't work because it was badly executed, the whole point of using breadvans being to run them more frequently, but I can see why Arriva in Hemel experimented by bringing in a new fleet of Mercedes Sprinter 45s for the town network in 2017. During the day they were, apparently, fine; it was just in the peak times they left people behind.

The places outside of the London boundary which get red buses are either on the way between two London boroughs (Borehamwood) or they're the most logical turning point for buses that start within the London boundary (Watford, Potters Bar, Epsom, Dartford).

As for orbital routes, they work when they operate between distinct places which are traffic generators in their own right. Hemel - St Albans - Hatfield gets a good service because people want to travel to those places. Superloop works because people do want to go from Walthamstow to Brent Cross, or from Bromley to Croydon. But in most places people don't want to go from one suburb to another, or not in sufficient quantities to be worthwhile anyway.

 

[aron2smith]

Probably because Borehamwood & Debden offer something for London residents to gain as town centres and are a logical point to terminate at for buses that are heading at least as far as the boundary rather than just stopping at a roundabout in the middle of nowhere due to boundaries being between places. Flamstead End/Hammond Street are effectively housing estates north of the logical destination for London residents of Waltham Cross and offer no gain for London ratepayers who subsidise their bus services. London provides services for London residents, you are not a London resident (even if it is, unusually, a little difficult to spot the join around Waltham Cross) as you live in Hertfordshire so they don't care about you whilst Hertfordshire would rather you stay in Hertfordshire so are not going to spend lots of money to take you out of the county & they can't afford to pay the sort of money TfL demand to extend one of their services there. Herts doesn't have the funding London does (simple demographics and population density means they have less money regardless of other funding streams TfL gets that Herts does not) nor does it have the bus usage culture that much of London does that will support London levels of service without major medium to long term support to establish it (there may be lots of cars parked around the station but that only shows lots of people use the train not that lots of people would be prepared to catch a bus to the station even if a service existed (it used to, my employer used to run a bus from Cuffley & Hammond Street to Cheshunt Station every half-hour in the peaks - first bus 0620, last bus 1910 - and it relied on council funding and was not that well used)

I was born in London, and still am a Londoner. I've brought that with me, that's why I feel so strongly about it. The fact we get Weaver Line rail services adds to the feeling of TFL should just bloody serve buses here too (so it's the same as Watford then). In old London bus maps all the way up to the 80s, Cheshunt was clearly a key part of the wider London network with routes not just going south into London (279) but west to Potters Bar (242) and east to Waltham Abbey (217 and then later 317 from Waltham Cross or 242), Loughton (250) and Chingford (242). Similar to all current fringe areas, possibly more connected. Borehamwood is a decent town centre but the 292 starts in an estate not massively different to what is seen in Hammond Street or Flamstead End, 107 mainly sticks to the town centre. Debden is not much of a town centre at all, really a small parade like Old Pond is, and the routes that TFL run from there are similarly residential through Debden and much of Loughton. The start of route 20 is residential for quite a way. I know the TFL network has to end somewhere but it all seems a bit arbitrary at present. I've been on every London bus route for myself, much of South London (especially the South East of it), is similarly low rise, low density suburban sprawl to where I live. Really it's a huge failure to join up transport and development.

When traffic is light, I've known my bus to reach Waltham Cross in just 12 minutes from Flamstead End and this is quite often in the middle of the day, 18 minutes in normal traffic conditions. How TFL couldn't adjust the network that currently stops in Waltham Cross to accommodate that, would surely not cost that much of a difference when TFL seem perfectly happy to dead run from Potters Bar Garage through Cuffley and Goff's Oak on routes 317 and 491 anyway. Upshire is similarly around a 15 minute bus ride from Waltham Cross. Even more baffling is the huge number of buses dead running from Potters Bar to Barnet, when only one bus an hour is in public service (non-TFL though).

If buses can't cover a built up area properly, then they've failed to do their job in my opinion. It shouldn't matter who is Herts, London or Essex, it's all the same built up area here in the Lea Valley and the same transport should be covering the lot. Also the cost of using an Arriva route and then TFL doesn't encourage anyone to use it at all, it costs almost 3x as much as TFL only! The inflexibility of the counties and TFL is truly staggering and it's those of us who have no choice but to rely on buses who suffer. Also I know you are referring to the C1 route, the route that exists today is bizarre and would make more sense as a circular town service. You'd think Brookfield Shopping Centre would be a draw for Londoners too, my family are originally from Edmonton and they were aware of the place even when it was new in the 80s!

 

[SteveHFC]

Aron - have you tried contacting TfL with your thoughts on this and asked why they don't run buses in the areas you believe they should?

 

[thomasheywood]

I used to live in Hemel Hempstead, I can understand the envy of looking at TfL and wondering why Hertfordshire can't have the same. But it comes down to population and it comes down to money. Even in Hemel, where the main part of the town is quite some distance from the railway, the town services are quiet on weekdays and they're quiet on evenings, because a lot of people living in Hemel are away at work in London during the day.

It didn't work because it was badly executed, the whole point of using breadvans being to run them more frequently, but I can see why Arriva in Hemel experimented by bringing in a new fleet of Mercedes Sprinter 45s for the town network in 2017. During the day they were, apparently, fine; it was just in the peak times they left people behind.

The places outside of the London boundary which get red buses are either on the way between two London boroughs (Borehamwood) or they're the most logical turning point for buses that start within the London boundary (Watford, Potters Bar, Epsom, Dartford).

As for orbital routes, they work when they operate between distinct places which are traffic generators in their own right. Hemel - St Albans - Hatfield gets a good service because people want to travel to those places. Superloop works because people do want to go from Walthamstow to Brent Cross, or from Bromley to Croydon. But in most places people don't want to go from one suburb to another, or not in sufficient quantities to be worthwhile anyway.

In the case of Potters Bar the town used to be in London (or at least Middlesex), Is that not the reason Potters Bar has a bus garage and TfL routes?

 

[aron2smith]

Aron - have you tried contacting TfL with your thoughts on this and asked why they don't run buses in the areas you believe they should?

It's not actually clear who is responsible or who to contact with something like this. And the area being split the way it is between the different counties really doesn't help with figuring that out or fixing the problem. Seems typical of this country. Another thing that is frustrating is in February 2024, the London Assembly discussed a petition about extending TFL routes to Waltham Abbey (the neighbouring town which is essentially in the same situation as Cheshunt) and the Assembly voted to agree to extending the bus routes. Then nothing came of it. These authorities really need to be more accountable to the public.

To me, TFL and the councils need to have a long look at the bus network in Waltham Cross and the surrounding towns and then redesign the lot. Congestion is awful here, whilst access to jobs and services is difficult. Right on the doorstep of the capital. It's bonkers.

 

[mattb7tl]

I support municipals more over franchising but support both systems.

Reading is frequently flaunted as an example to follow because of 'bus priority' but that is utter nonsense. It isn't even well executed priority it is quite subpar. I visited the town last year under the perfect conditions for bus usage with schools running and sun blazing. It continues to stick in my mind with how quiet or even empty the buses were compared to my region. If a good third of those services ran at those levels in my town they would be due for withdrawal or reductions. It seems municipal operators can provide higher levels of service with lower demand and remain sustainable.

 

[Surreytraveller]

In the case of Potters Bar the town used to be in London (or at least Middlesex), Is that not the reason Potters Bar has a bus garage and TfL routes?

The reason is basically, London Transport's operating area only coincided with Greater London from 1970 when the Greater London Council was formed, and after the intervening 15 years or so, bus services operated with red buses outside this new boundary were cut back

 

[Tetchytyke]

These authorities really need to be more accountable to the public.

They are accountable to people in London, who pay for TfL.

People in Cheshunt do not live in London and therefore do not pay for TfL.

Same reason why the Croxley Link never happened. Things change and TfL aren’t prepared to pay for things that are outside their patch, unless there is a benefit to them for doing so.

 

[thomasheywood]

They are accountable to people in London, who pay for TfL.

People in Cheshunt do not live in London and therefore do not pay for TfL.

Same reason why the Croxley Link never happened. Things change and TfL aren’t prepared to pay for things that are outside their patch, unless there is a benefit to them for doing so.

It's not actually clear who is responsible or who to contact with something like this. And the area being split the way it is between the different counties really doesn't help with figuring that out or fixing the problem. Seems typical of this country. Another thing that is frustrating is in February 2024, the London Assembly discussed a petition about extending TFL routes to Waltham Abbey (the neighbouring town which is essentially in the same situation as Cheshunt) and the Assembly voted to agree to extending the bus routes. Then nothing came of it. These authorities really need to be more accountable to the public.

To me, TFL and the councils need to have a long look at the bus network in Waltham Cross and the surrounding towns and then redesign the lot. Congestion is awful here, whilst access to jobs and services is difficult. Right on the doorstep of the capital. It's bonkers.

It wouldn’t surprise me if TfL wanted to withdraw all cross border bus services, they’ve tried on multiple occasions to cut back/withdraw the 465 and only backed down when Surrey paid up…

 

[greenline712]

@aron2smith . . . contact everybody!! Contact your local councillor; contact your MP; contact the Herts CC member with responsibility for public transport; contact TfL; contact your local LibDems (who are usually pretty good at taking up local issues). Structure your argument carefully, stating why you believe that Cheshunt deserves a better bus service. Be prepared for little or no response . . . set up a local Public Transport Users Group and lobby over and over again.

I suspect that, for the reasons stated herein over and over and over again, you won't get very far, but at least you will have tried. Simply reiterating arguments on here will get nowhere . . . sorry, but nobody on an on-line forum is likely to be able to help in any way meaningful.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It wouldn’t surprise me if TfL wanted to withdraw all cross border bus services, they’ve tried on multiple occasions to cut back/withdraw the 465 and only backed down when Surrey paid up…

Money is tight, I think it is fair enough for TfL to only run cross-border services if they make sense operationally for TfL or if the other county pays. The 465 is a great example of that, really; it doesn’t benefit London taxpayers for it to go all the way to Dorking.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Money is tight, I think it is fair enough for TfL to only run cross-border services if they make sense operationally for TfL or if the other county pays. The 465 is a great example of that, really; it doesn’t benefit London taxpayers for it to go all the way to Dorking.

Isn’t the 465 supported by Surrey and TfL between Dorking and Leatherhead?

However, this is issue of cross border routes across the UK is perhaps understandable. 1974 saw lots of borders moved so they were more logical so they run through rural areas rather than urban (so you have fewer examples of one side of the road in one jurisdiction).

Also wherever you have a border, the have nots will look longingly at the haves. Include Cheshunt and Broxbourne, then why not Hoddeadon, then Hertford, and if you do that, Harlow?

 

[aron2smith]

Isn’t the 465 supported by Surrey and TfL between Dorking and Leatherhead?

However, this is issue of cross border routes across the UK is perhaps understandable. 1974 saw lots of borders moved so they were more logical so they run through rural areas rather than urban (so you have fewer examples of one side of the road in one jurisdiction).

Also wherever you have a border, the have nots will look longingly at the haves. Include Cheshunt and Broxbourne, then why not Hoddeadon, then Hertford, and if you do that, Harlow?

That's why really the best thing to do is turn TFL into a much more regional body, like a south east regional transport authority. One authority for the city and commuter areas. Maybe they had it right all along when London Transport and London Country were the same company (1933 to 1970). To solve a lot of the problems London has now, requires genuinely regional authorities especially in terms of housing, transport and infrastructure. It requires a radically different approach to how local government has been run to this point. And to me the local government reorganisation and devolution stuff since Labour come back to power has been deeply fascinating to watch, but it will be very disappointing to me if the new strategic authorities end up falling along old county lines. The potential is massive.

I really like this video that explores the idea in more detail -

Also I agree with you, Harlow especially needs a major overall. Many town services run just once or twice an hour and many areas of the town requires 2 buses just to get to the trains. No wonder the lucky areas that get a bus to Epping, go there instead! A lot cheaper. Harlow also used to be very well connected to places on the edge of London like Chingford and Romford, but those links are long gone. Even just ensuring each town has clock face bus departures to every rail station in the area would make a huge difference to start with.

And yes Surrey help fund the 465, makes me wonder if they help fund the routes to Staines, Esher and Redhill too? I don't think Herts or Essex help fund a single cross-boundary route which is a huge shame.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==

Money is tight, I think it is fair enough for TfL to only run cross-border services if they make sense operationally for TfL or if the other county pays. The 465 is a great example of that, really; it doesn’t benefit London taxpayers for it to go all the way to Dorking.

Why does everyone assume Londoners don't need to travel outside the city? In reality, a sizable amount of out bound commuting does happen. Not as much as inward commuting but enough for there to be links like the 465. The home counties have a lot of industries that London used to have, especially creative and sciences/ research, and they moved because it was cheaper and more land available. Seeing there and the city as separate seems increasingly redundant and really a big regional plan would make a lot of sense.

In the case of the 465, there should be more links like it, not less. It has to benefit Leatherhead, Box Hill and Dorking businesses quite a lot that Londoners can cheaply travel out to them on a comprehensive bus route that runs all day and same for local residents who want to visit Kingston or Chessington. Take it away and the town dies a bit, which is what I think happened in the Lea Valley, especially Waltham Abbey. In truth, neighbouring towns have many links, families, social, cultural, economic and so on and counties often cut across these. Make it difficult and expensive to visit and people stop visiting.

The whole narrative around the taxpayer baffles me, we all want better services, why do we let politicians act like it's reasonable we don't want to pay for anything and then let them off the hook when privatisation and outsourcing actually waste huge sums of money?

 

[JonathanH]

And yes Surrey help fund the 465, makes me wonder if they help fund the routes to Staines, Esher and Redhill too? I don't think Herts or Essex help fund a single cross-boundary route which is a huge shame.

Isn't the point just that the natural boundaries of TfL services are closer to the edge of London in some instances than others? There are buses to Grays, Waltham Cross, Potters Bar, Borehamwood, Watford Junction beyond the boundaries. Those are seen as the places immediately beyond London.

It applies in the opposite direction as well. There seems to be a natural traffic objective for the 405 from Redhill and 407 from Caterham to reach Croydon which means they run for a fair distance in London. If they only ran to Purley, or in the case of the 407, Coulsdon, then they could be run as part of the Metrobus network, and not TfL.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Isn’t the 465 supported by Surrey and TfL between Dorking and Leatherhead?

It is supported by Surrey; the point was TfL were (if I recall correctly) intending to curtail it at Leatherhead if Surrey didn’t cough up more support.

Isn't the point just that the natural boundaries of TfL services are closer to the edge of London in some instances than others? There are buses to Grays, Waltham Cross, Potters Bar, Borehamwood, Watford Junction beyond the boundaries. Those are seen as the places immediately beyond London.

A lot of it is just various quirks of history, Potters Bar having the Metroline depot for instance means it has some TfL routes. Although the 84 to Barnet was not a TfL route, which is why it doesn’t run anymore.

There isn’t anything to stop operators running services into London from outside the TfL boundary, as we see with Uno’s commercial stuff in north London, for instance. It’s just that a lot of these routes won’t stand up commercially.

It’s always going to be an issue with services that cross boundaries but can’t operate commercially. Each authority will only fund something if it benefits their taxpayers.

Why does everyone assume Londoners don't need to travel outside the city? In reality, a sizable amount of out bound commuting does happen.

If there was the demand these services would operate commercially.

That's why really the best thing to do is turn TFL into a much more regional body, like a south east regional transport authority.

It doesn’t matter how big you make an authority, there will always be a boundary.

 

[aron2smith]

It’s always going to be an issue with services that cross boundaries but can’t operate commercially. Each authority will only fund something if it benefits their taxpayers.

If there was the demand these services would operate commercially.

It doesn’t matter how big you make an authority, there will always be a boundary.

We should just run them anyway, make the services attractive to everyone and fund the buses as an essential expense like we do for education or healthcare. Give a couple billion a year to run all buses in the country if necessary.
Many useful routes aren't commercial, and cutting them arguably undermines the commercial routes. Not everyone lives on a main route, so the unprofitable routes feed them. In a decent public transport system, buses act as feeders to the rail network, in the Home Counties that would probably be the best use of buses. And if we see buses as serving wider social objectives such as reducing isolation and improving access to opportunities for example, even TFL doesn't go far enough to fixing such issues. They rightly say about Outer London but those places need decent connectivity to county towns as much as they do the centre of the city.

Yes but the boundary makes more sense across some random field than across a couple commuter towns. The current boundaries are too close to the centre and this appears to be the case in many of our towns and cities all across the country. And I think the fewer authorities that exist the better, may actually see stuff getting done then!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We should just run them anyway, make the services attractive to everyone and fund the buses as an essential expense like we do for education or healthcare. Give a couple billion a year to run all buses in the country if necessary.
Many useful routes aren't commercial, and cutting them arguably undermines the commercial routes. Not everyone lives on a main route, so the unprofitable routes feed them. In a decent public transport system, buses act as feeders to the rail network, in the Home Counties that would probably be the best use of buses. And if we see buses as serving wider social objectives such as reducing isolation and improving access to opportunities for example, even TFL doesn't go far enough to fixing such issues. They rightly say about Outer London but those places need decent connectivity to county towns as much as they do the centre of the city.

Yes but the boundary makes more sense across some random field than across a couple commuter towns. The current boundaries are too close to the centre and this appears to be the case in many of our towns and cities all across the country. And I think the fewer authorities that exist the better, may actually see stuff getting done then!

You may not have noticed but we are pretty well screwed in terms of the public finances. The idea that you can blithely say we should just spend another £2bn just doesn't address the realities of this, nor the politics of all this. Not withstanding that to have London style frequencies and fares, it still requires £800m and that is in an area where bus usage is/was already high and there's already a chunk of cross-subsidy in there as well. £2bn sounds like a lot (and I'd love it in my bank account) but across the UK, it's not that large. What we can't do is simply have buses trundling around carting fresh air around on the vague premise of "connectivity" though we do seem to have it with some BSIP schemes (yes, Cambridgeshire).

That isn't to say that there aren't things that can't be done. As we've seen in Herts, there are now local multi-operator zonal tickets, and we see the same in Colchester, Southend so perhaps Essex CC should be working (and maybe they are) to have something similar in other locations.

Wherever there is a boundary, you will still get haves vs have nots. If we had this mythical South East England PTE, covering Kent and Essex, Herts and Berks and Surrey, you'll still have anomalies. That is simply the reality of life.

 

[820KDV]

There will always be boundaries, my local authority is neighboured by 8 others, with large traffic flows into two of them and lesser flows into three more. The final three are very close to the boundary the local town for the villages just within our boundary. In various ways we support services across all of those boundaries, with hardly any contribution from our eight neighbours, indeed when congestion in the big town over the boarder got to the stage we couldn't run the service with the two buses allocated we withdrew the "dog-leg" diversions via one of the villages in our neighbour's area. Pure practicality, if they won't pay we have to look after our own. And we certainly get questions from our Councillors when we support cross-boundary buses; but those are some of the places their electorate want to travel to.

With devolution our politicians want to join us with two other authorities to form an L shape. Guess what, in bus terms the two other councils are of marginal and limited importance in bus terms. Of the important neighbours (in bus traffic terms) one is already a Combined Authority, and the other wants to look away from us for its devolution grouping.

If you look at the Sub-national Transport Board (STB) areas our county boarders two others, and when you look at the country as a whole they make sense, except ours which looks like the bits which didn't fit anywhere else.

Whichever way you split it there will be boundaries. You can, even today, see "boundaries" which date back to National Bus Company subsidiary areas, and Market Analysis Project revisions and splits in our county.

An extra £2bn for buses would be fantastic, but it must be realised that an enhancement we are funding under BSIP2 (which was granted in May 2023 as BSIP+) only comes live next weekend as the operator hasn't been able to recruit drivers. Similarly, we are struggling to spend our Bus Grant to Local Authorities (BGLA) due to insufficient drivers for major improvements, and in the case of one operator, he is operating all the buses his license allows and without additional parking space he can't apply for more. But bus depot sites are very hard to find.

We all want to do more, we are getting good results where we are able to do things, but sadly its not as simple as it seems.

 

[aron2smith]

You may not have noticed but we are pretty well screwed in terms of the public finances. The idea that you can blithely say we should just spend another £2bn just doesn't address the realities of this, nor the politics of all this. Not withstanding that to have London style frequencies and fares, it still requires £800m and that is in an area where bus usage is/was already high and there's already a chunk of cross-subsidy in there as well. £2bn sounds like a lot (and I'd love it in my bank account) but across the UK, it's not that large. What we can't do is simply have buses trundling around carting fresh air around on the vague premise of "connectivity" though we do seem to have it with some BSIP schemes (yes, Cambridgeshire).

That isn't to say that there aren't things that can't be done. As we've seen in Herts, there are now local multi-operator zonal tickets, and we see the same in Colchester, Southend so perhaps Essex CC should be working (and maybe they are) to have something similar in other locations.

Wherever there is a boundary, you will still get haves vs have nots. If we had this mythical South East England PTE, covering Kent and Essex, Herts and Berks and Surrey, you'll still have anomalies. That is simply the reality of life.

Thinking about it makes me really angry, we are not a poor country by any means, just terribly managed. Handicapped even. Governments have squandered the last 15 years with this devastating scarcity mindset and then wonder why nothing works either at all or is very inefficient in how it works. 40 years of privatisation and outsourcing has took its toll too. As I said before, every increase in bus service gives me more confidence to use the service a bit more but what I don't appreciate is being forced into what is really a curfew when a route ends too early for my needs. Few buses in the evenings and on weekends, that doesn't give me confidence to use them, in the way even a consistent half hourly till Midnight rail timetable does. Why can't buses in the home counties match that? Before my time they did much more often, now apparently they can't, even though the population has never been higher. That doesn't add up.

Also I wouldn't assume London buses would have such a high ridership if they had been deregulated like the rest of the country, policies like the hopper fare and minimum operating hours make all the difference.

Any investment in public transport pays for itself many times over in economic benefits. Apparently with buses, it's around 5 to 1. So even if it's not profitable, it has huge value. To me, if a bus isn't well used, it shouldn't be cut without finding out why first. Cambridgeshire is an interesting one, if they created a Chatteris - March Station - Wisbech service that would have huge potential with the number of trains that stop at March, the current T7? service for some reason doesn't do that as it goes via Manea with no rail interchange. Maybe instead of expecting each route to make a profit, we should work with communities and democratically cover where people want to go that way. The current deregulated services give no say at all. Honestly, if authorities aren't sure if a service is worth it, run it as a DRT first, at least gives us who don't drive something!

And sorry administrative boundaries really shouldn't matter, in transport, you'd think an overlap would be normal. In reality, artificial boundaries are getting in the way of life, which in a functional country doesn't make any sense.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Thinking about it makes me really angry, we are not a poor country by any means, just terribly managed. Handicapped even. Governments have squandered the last 15 years with this devastating scarcity mindset and then wonder why nothing works either at all or is very inefficient in how it works. 40 years of privatisation and outsourcing has took its toll too. As I said before, every increase in bus service gives me more confidence to use the service a bit more but what I don't appreciate is being forced into what is really a curfew when a route ends too early for my needs. Few buses in the evenings and on weekends, that doesn't give me confidence to use them, in the way even a consistent half hourly till Midnight rail timetable does. Why can't buses in the home counties match that? Before my time they did much more often, now apparently they can't, even though the population has never been higher. That doesn't add up.

Also I wouldn't assume London buses would have such a high ridership if they had been deregulated like the rest of the country, policies like the hopper fare and minimum operating hours make all the difference.

Any investment in public transport pays for itself many times over in economic benefits. Apparently with buses, it's around 5 to 1. So even if it's not profitable, it has huge value. To me, if a bus isn't well used, it shouldn't be cut without finding out why first. Cambridgeshire is an interesting one, if they created a Chatteris - March Station - Wisbech service that would have huge potential with the number of trains that stop at March, the current T7? service for some reason doesn't do that as it goes via Manea with no rail interchange. Maybe instead of expecting each route to make a profit, we should work with communities and democratically cover where people want to go that way. The current deregulated services give no say at all. Honestly, if authorities aren't sure if a service is worth it, run it as a DRT first, at least gives us who don't drive something!

And sorry administrative boundaries really shouldn't matter, in transport, you'd think an overlap would be normal. In reality, artificial boundaries are getting in the way of life, which in a functional country doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry but even if we didn't have the last x years of Tory mismanagement, the fact is that public transport isn't the major consideration for the population. And if another £2bn was to be found, there are perhaps more pressing issues in the minds of the electorate. How about sorting out the infected blood scandal, or RAAC built schools from the 1960s, or the parlous state of our armed forces, or the lack of affordable social housing, or improving social care... I could go on and on.

As for the evidence that buses pay for themselves 5 times over... I'd love to see the evidence and the context. Please supply.

As for administrative boundaries, at the risk of repeating oneself.... there is always a boundary. Unless you're suggesting that there is one single entity covering the entire UK run from somewhere in Haltwhistle? Guess what... even in other countries, public transport is regionally organised.

 

[aron2smith]

I'm sorry but even if we didn't have the last x years of Tory mismanagement, the fact is that public transport isn't the major consideration for the population. And if another £2bn was to be found, there are perhaps more pressing issues in the minds of the electorate. How about sorting out the infected blood scandal, or RAAC built schools from the 1960s, or the parlous state of our armed forces, or the lack of affordable social housing, or improving social care... I could go on and on.

As for the evidence that buses pay for themselves 5 times over... I'd love to see the evidence and the context. Please supply.

As for administrative boundaries, at the risk of repeating oneself.... there is always a boundary. Unless you're suggesting that there is one single entity covering the entire UK run from somewhere in Haltwhistle? Guess what... even in other countries, public transport is regionally organised.

I saw it mentioned in this report. https://rsnonline.org.uk/the-econom...ces-a-significant-boost-for-rural-communities
Some sites online say £4.55 in economic benefits for every £1 spent. Maybe it's easy to misunderstand and probably the highest benefits are where it's targeted. To me it seems like a good return and a much better way than route 310 carries 100 passengers, but it carried 80 so lets cut it and risk losing more passengers by cutting the frequency for example. Also I do agree there are many competing priorities right now, but transport is not one of those things that should be neglected, it can cut across many of the other problems.

Also in my frustration, words often fail me. If our public transport was genuinely regionally organised, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. What we have now is fragmented and a mess and it's amazing councils make heads and tails of it to be honest. The way Wales is dividing itself into 4 for the purposes of franchising buses is what makes for logical boundaries. Seeing the buses in Ireland (26 counties but just 15 TFI local link regions + Dublin Buses), it's split up of course but services overlapped between local routes and regional coaches, there were very few gaps in the network and none in towns like we see in England. A gap in the network like the 84 - Potters Bar to New Barnet is unthinkable in other European countries and yet it had nothing for 18 months!

In England, we seem to be dividing buses by county which isn't really big enough in scale in many cases and then splitting that network into dozens of companies, some in Hertfordshire like Uno run like 10 routes, Sullivans just 2 daytime routes and it's like this all over the place with no regard of being a network, that's what I don't understand and that doesn't seem efficient to me, certainly doesn't encourage new passengers. Money is one part of the problem but the scale is also missing, part of why TFL works is because it has appropriate economy of scale for what they want it to do. Everywhere else in the country this was broken up, with little thought for the consequences. How many regions England should be split into for buses is a debate in itself.

 

[GusB]

I rather like the idea of buses being locally-run and, to be honest, I'm not actually that bothered if those services are operated by private companies under contract, by arms-length publicly-owned bodies or in-house by councils. My own local council has its own public transport department and operates services to places that no commercial operator would touch. My biggest gripe is that there's no multi-operator ticket and as a result there's no "network effect". This issue really needs to be addressed.

I look at the services that Moray Council runs and I often think how nice it'd be to have a day out, but there's no integration with the services that are run by Stagecoach; the cheapest option for me is to take the car.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I saw it mentioned in this report. https://rsnonline.org.uk/the-econom...ces-a-significant-boost-for-rural-communities
Some sites online say £4.55 in economic benefits for every £1 spent. Maybe it's easy to misunderstand and probably the highest benefits are where it's targeted. To me it seems like a good return and a much better way than route 310 carries 100 passengers, but it carried 80 so lets cut it and risk losing more passengers by cutting the frequency for example. Also I do agree there are many competing priorities right now, but transport is not one of those things that should be neglected, it can cut across many of the other problems.

The context is all important. The report actually says "Investing in bus services can provide significant economic value. Based on a selection of typical investments to improve bus services, including providing priority over other traffic, higher service frequencies, and lower fares, every £1 of public funding spent on a package of measures could generate £4.55 in economic benefits, with targeted interventions generating over £5 in economic benefits." so it's not merely a case of build it and they will come. It's justifying investment in capital expenditure in part. Also part of the benefit calculated is the benefit of simply employing more drivers and more support staff.

The fact is that there are many competing parties for scarce monies. To put that in some context, it is calculated that Rachel Reeves has c.£10bn in financial headroom and that might be swallowed up easily if borrowing costs go up.

Also in my frustration, words often fail me. If our public transport was genuinely regionally organised, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. What we have now is fragmented and a mess and it's amazing councils make heads and tails of it to be honest. The way Wales is dividing itself into 4 for the purposes of franchising buses is what makes for logical boundaries. Seeing the buses in Ireland (26 counties but just 15 TFI local link regions + Dublin Buses), it's split up of course but services overlapped between local routes and regional coaches, there were very few gaps in the network and none in towns like we see in England. A gap in the network like the 84 - Potters Bar to New Barnet is unthinkable in other European countries and yet it had nothing for 18 months!

I do appreciate your frustration but at some point, there's a boundary. And at that boundary, you will have someone who lucks out. In this case, that's you. FWIW, I literally live on a county boundary... I can walk into Somerset in about 200 metres.

Rather that having a mythical Transport for South East PTE that only encompasses your home, we expand it so it's bounded by the A414 instead of the M25... well, that would be a bit daft because Hatfield would be in TfSE land and Welwyn and St Albans wouldn't be so put the boundary further north. So does Harpenden fall in TfSE land? And so it goes on and on.

A gap like the 84. Firstly, to say it's unthinkable in other European countries. Believe me, it's not. Head to France and you'll see lots of parochial examples.

In England, we seem to be dividing buses by county which isn't really big enough in scale in many cases and then splitting that network into dozens of companies, some in Hertfordshire like Uno run like 10 routes, Sullivans just 2 daytime routes and it's like this all over the place with no regard of being a network, that's what I don't understand and that doesn't seem efficient to me, certainly doesn't encourage new passengers. Money is one part of the problem but the scale is also missing, part of why TFL works is because it has appropriate economy of scale for what they want it to do. Everywhere else in the country this was broken up, with little thought for the consequences. How many regions England should be split into for buses is a debate in itself.

TfL is able to spend £800m a year in propping up its bus network. However, that figure is increasingly difficult to square so they're busy cutting services in the centre. In fact, against an increase in population over the last 10 years, London bus patronage actually peaked in 2014 and was falling long before Covid. It's also removed about 10% of the fleet as it struggles to square that circle.

So the idea that you can expand TfL's reach further doesn't work financially. And if it's costing £800m (and that's with high levels of patronage and killer routes), imagine how much it will cost to bring London style routes and frequencies to the home counties?

Also, bus networks must reflect actual travel patterns. Some places and routes simply don't justify the route and, in some cases, there is a lifecycle where they used to be an important link but their reason for being has simply declined.

I rather like the idea of buses being locally-run and, to be honest, I'm not actually that bothered if those services are operated by private companies under contract, by arms-length publicly-owned bodies or in-house by councils. My own local council has its own public transport department and operates services to places that no commercial operator would touch. My biggest gripe is that there's no multi-operator ticket and as a result there's no "network effect". This issue really needs to be addressed.

I look at the services that Moray Council runs and I often think how nice it'd be to have a day out, but there's no integration with the services that are run by Stagecoach; the cheapest option for me is to take the car.

There's a couple of things here. Now, I like a multi-operator ticket as much as the next person. In fact, probably more and I've enjoyed quite a few - since 2020 and the pandemic, I've enjoyed SE Network Rider in South Wales, Staffordshire Knot, Devon Day Ticket, Explorer North East, Discovery (SE), Herts Intalink, Avon DayRider, Derbyshire Wayfarer, Norfolk Fusion..... I could go on.

However, I recognise that I am a relative outlier. Most people don't want or need that level of flexibility. The times I've asked for that type of ticket and then seen the driver scrolling through menus to find this unfamiliar ticket. Still, it's a nice thing to have.



Where I think the real benefits are, and this is where I think Herts are being smart, is to get local multi-operator zonal tickets. And this is where I think the councils are missing a trick. Essex has tendered the Harlow work on evenings and Sundays and there's no inter-availability between the two or three operators. Instead, make it part of the tender spec and/or introduce Herts style zones using BSIP funds to "grease the wheels".

 

[RT4038]

Where I think the real benefits are, and this is where I think Herts are being smart, is to get local multi-operator zonal tickets. And this is where I think the councils are missing a trick. Essex has tendered the Harlow work on evenings and Sundays and there's no inter-availability between the two or three operators. Instead, make it part of the tender spec and/or introduce Herts style zones using BSIP funds to "grease the wheels".

The problem is - the County can make a multi operator ticket part of the tender spec for the tendered services, but cannot 'make' that ticket available for use on the commercial services. My County of residence includes a clause to accept the commercial ticket on parallel subsidised services, but this does rather incentivise commercial operators not to register evening and Sunday journeys as they get the revenue from returns and day/period tickets issued earlier in the day/week. Some of the Operators are only interested in a multi operator ticket if it is priced well above their own tickets, and/or is reimbursed on the basis of actual use (determined by electronic means not driver pushing the correct button), but the biggest operator by far does not have such ticketing equipment at present.
A multi operator ticket only available on the subsidised network is about as good as a chocolate teapot !

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The problem is - the County can make a multi operator ticket part of the tender spec for the tendered services, but cannot 'make' that ticket available for use on the commercial services. My County of residence includes a clause to accept the commercial ticket on parallel subsidised services, but this does rather incentivise commercial operators not to register evening and Sunday journeys as they get the revenue from returns and day/period tickets issued earlier in the day/week. Some of the Operators are only interested in a multi operator ticket if it is priced well above their own tickets, and/or is reimbursed on the basis of actual use (determined by electronic means not driver pushing the correct button), but the biggest operator by far does not have such ticketing equipment at present.
A multi operator ticket only available on the subsidised network is about as good as a chocolate teapot !

Indeed and yet we've seen them

Apologies but I was mixing my drinks a bit. I meant that making the tendered operation a net cost operation with the LA taking the revenue risk so that Central Connect would accept Arriva weekly passes etc in Harlow, which is what the OP was suggesting (I think).

However, Herts has managed to get all operators into line with zonal multi-operator tickets. As with anywhere, different LAs have different priorities and yes, the knotty problem of effectively returning revenue to operators is a tricky one. A sad move was Diamond East Mids who left the Knot scheme (sorry for the pun) for that reason.

 

[thomasheywood]

The problem is - the County can make a multi operator ticket part of the tender spec for the tendered services, but cannot 'make' that ticket available for use on the commercial services. My County of residence includes a clause to accept the commercial ticket on parallel subsidised services, but this does rather incentivise commercial operators not to register evening and Sunday journeys as they get the revenue from returns and day/period tickets issued earlier in the day/week. Some of the Operators are only interested in a multi operator ticket if it is priced well above their own tickets, and/or is reimbursed on the basis of actual use (determined by electronic means not driver pushing the correct button), but the biggest operator by far does not have such ticketing equipment at present.
A multi operator ticket only available on the subsidised network is about as good as a chocolate teapot !

County councils could make a condition of bidding for tenders that multi-operator tickets are valid for ALL a companies services, commercial and tendered, I doubt there’s anything in law stopping them

 

[RT4038]

I meant that making the tendered operation a net cost operation with the LA taking the revenue risk so that Central Connect would accept Arriva weekly passes etc in Harlow, which is what the OP was suggesting (I think).

Strictly speaking, the tendered operation does not need to be net cost to achieve this. My County of residence does this with net subsidy contract, and the contractor must take this into account when tendering. But as I said, either way this is a hidden subsidy to the Commercial operator, who is collecting revenue for service not rendered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

County councils could make a condition of bidding for tenders that multi-operator tickets are valid for ALL a companies services, commercial and tendered, I doubt there’s anything in law stopping them

That would be challenged as an unfair contract term [companies without commercial services would be at a competitive advantage] - most certainly it would result in some operators not bidding for tenders and you would still end up with those operators' commercial services not accepting the tickets. County Councils have little reason to upset their commercial operators and prospective tenderers [ especially in these days of few tenderers anyway] on something that could be so easily shown as manifestly unfair.

 

[mattb7tl]

A lot of the listed reasons as to why they can't achieve a functional cohesive network very much prove buses are a natural monopoly.
Monopolies are not great in private hands.