Municipal bus companies proposal

[Dwarfer1979]

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.

There is no need to play with contract terms Enhanced Partnerships do it with very little issue, that is how Hertfordshire have managed to do it and it is similar in a number of places (Nottingham was doing this through their Statutory Quality Partnership years ago, if you wanted to serve the city centre stops you had to join the Robin Hood scheme) - you want to run a local bus in Hertfordshire you have to agree to join the EP and this requires participation in their ticketing scheme (other places may not be set up with the legal structures but the threat is there that they could which encourages most to work with the council). The environment is changing and operators are moving with it, there is a lot less obstruction by the larger operators of these sort of schemes as they can see the future is through partnership and working with the council but it is a lot of work for the councils to implement and manage so it may not be a priority initially over other improvements.

 

[RT4038]

There is no need to play with contract terms Enhanced Partnerships do it with very little issue, that is how Hertfordshire have managed to do it and it is similar in a number of places (Nottingham was doing this through their Statutory Quality Partnership years ago, if you wanted to serve the city centre stops you had to join the Robin Hood scheme) - you want to run a local bus in Hertfordshire you have to agree to join the EP and this requires participation in their ticketing scheme (other places may not be set up with the legal structures but the threat is there that they could which encourages most to work with the council). The environment is changing and operators are moving with it, there is a lot less obstruction by the larger operators of these sort of schemes as they can see the future is through partnership and working with the council but it is a lot of work for the councils to implement and manage so it may not be a priority initially over other improvements.

You are right - some areas have done it, but it very much depends on historical structures. Enhanced Partnerships are collaborative and whether you can get such a scheme depends on the Operators at the time of set up (I have to laugh at 'you want to run a local bus service in XXXshire' - in my XXXshire of residence there are no budding new Operators, only a reducing number of those who were in the EP to start, and no multi operator ticket scheme could be agreed [only agreement to move towards one] at that point!). With wildly different large operators, suspicious of each other, this has not been a priority, particularly due to ticketing equipment. It'll come eventually, as the various obstacles are gradually worn down. It does rather depend on the vagaries of each area, their passenger flows, and the level of fear amongst bus company commercial departments as to how much revenue is potentially at risk.

 

[greenline712]

Perhaps a little background concerning multi-operator tickets (MOT) might be helpful. Before I retired I was a member of the Intalink Steering Committee, so I do know of what I speak!
Intalink had an Explorer ticket, effectively a MOT, and this ticket was issued and accepted on the basis of the revenue "fell where it lay" . . . in other words, the operator that sold the ticket kept the revenue. In the interest of encouraging ridership, operators of commercial services accepted that they might accept more Explorers than they sold.

The concept was expanded with a Colney7 ticket, valid on all operators between London Colney and St Albans, on the same basis. This was "brokered" by the County, as the operators were (and still are) embargoed by competition legislation from directly talking to each other.

Further expansion took place in some areas, where a BusZone ticket, still a MOT, was available . . . examples were Watford, St Albans and Hemel Hempstead. These tickets were priced around £1/week higher than those similar "own-brand" tickets of local operators. In Watford and St Albans, some success was noted in increasing sales; however in Hemel Hempstead sales were negligable, as Arriva was predominant in the area.

The concept of a Zonal Explorer had been mooted pre-Covid, but that was rather stalled, for obvious reasons. This eventually materialised as the Intalink Connect MOT . . . AFAIK still sold and accepted on all operators on a revenue "falls where it lies" basis.

It is important to note that operators of commercial services cannot be "compelled" to take part . . . which is why negotiations as to which services are valid, and which are not takes some time. Negotiations also need to take place with neighbouring authorities and operators of cross-boundary commercial services . . . all taking time again.

Contracts for "tendered" services can obviously be detailed to compel acceptance (as noted by @RT4038) . . . the tendering operator will, if a net-cost contract, factor that into their finance model. If a gross-cost contract, then the revenue effectively passes back to the tendering authority anyway. In the case of Harlow . . . are the evening/Sunday contracts net-cost or gross-cost? If gross-cost, then Essex CC "could" compel Central Connect to accept Arriva tickets.

Intalink may not be perfect . . . certainly their efforts on roadside publicity have recently slipped . . . but compared with plenty of other LTAs, they are streets ahead, and the Intalink Connect ticket proves that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Perhaps a little background concerning multi-operator tickets (MOT) might be helpful. Before I retired I was a member of the Intalink Steering Committee, so I do know of what I speak!
Intalink had an Explorer ticket, effectively a MOT, and this ticket was issued and accepted on the basis of the revenue "fell where it lay" . . . in other words, the operator that sold the ticket kept the revenue. In the interest of encouraging ridership, operators of commercial services accepted that they might accept more Explorers than they sold.

The concept was expanded with a Colney7 ticket, valid on all operators between London Colney and St Albans, on the same basis. This was "brokered" by the County, as the operators were (and still are) embargoed by competition legislation from directly talking to each other.

Further expansion took place in some areas, where a BusZone ticket, still a MOT, was available . . . examples were Watford, St Albans and Hemel Hempstead. These tickets were priced around £1/week higher than those similar "own-brand" tickets of local operators. In Watford and St Albans, some success was noted in increasing sales; however in Hemel Hempstead sales were negligable, as Arriva was predominant in the area.

The concept of a Zonal Explorer had been mooted pre-Covid, but that was rather stalled, for obvious reasons. This eventually materialised as the Intalink Connect MOT . . . AFAIK still sold and accepted on all operators on a revenue "falls where it lies" basis.

It is important to note that operators of commercial services cannot be "compelled" to take part . . . which is why negotiations as to which services are valid, and which are not takes some time. Negotiations also need to take place with neighbouring authorities and operators of cross-boundary commercial services . . . all taking time again.

Contracts for "tendered" services can obviously be detailed to compel acceptance (as noted by @RT4038) . . . the tendering operator will, if a net-cost contract, factor that into their finance model. If a gross-cost contract, then the revenue effectively passes back to the tendering authority anyway. In the case of Harlow . . . are the evening/Sunday contracts net-cost or gross-cost? If gross-cost, then Essex CC "could" compel Central Connect to accept Arriva tickets.

Intalink may not be perfect . . . certainly their efforts on roadside publicity have recently slipped . . . but compared with plenty of other LTAs, they are streets ahead, and the Intalink Connect ticket proves that.

Great bit of context. Herts has always been one of the better local authorities in respect of public transport and buses in particular.

Also, apologies to @RT4038 and @greenline712 for transposing my gross and net costs! I know in the past where there were instances where operators were compelled to accept weekly/season tickets but not day tickets on routes where another operator ran the main service. Of course, where the revenue risk sits is all important.

In the world of EPs and to secure other funding, it is hoped that operators will take an enlightened view on revenue apportionment in a growing market. In my locality, I see the good and bad of multi-operator tickets. In West of England Combined Authority area, the MOT Rider tickets (zone) are now the same price as First's own products but the advertising/marketing is minimal. The region ticket is now £6.50 vs First's £7.00 but then again, that extends across the borders in Somerset and Wiltshire.

 

[aron2smith]

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.

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.

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.

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".

If it was up to me, regardless of the boundary, there wouldn't be a hard border or anything arbitrary, they'd overlap. The A414 is as arbitrary as the M25 for buses. Why would services to Welwyn Garden City, St Albans or Hemel Hempstead be severed to somewhere close to a new boundary, that makes little sense to do that. Towns near the boundary should have buses from both authorities. In my case, you'd think people in Enfield would want to go to Brookfield as much as I want to go to Enfield, the huge amounts of traffic on the A10 and local roads in this area proves my point and maybe car ownership would be lower or used less on both sides of the Greater London border if the network was much more responsive to the built up area rather than just terminating at somewhere convenient for the transport authority. Brookfield as a local example, the current bus service doesn't encourage people to take the bus at all unless they have no other choice, no one will pay double either, so even though services meet in Waltham Cross, it's essentially a severed region, which is bad for everyone.

Cambridgeshire when it franchises, one of the routes it will control goes to Bedford. Why? Because it's a useful regional connection, mutually beneficial, it would make no sense to cut it back. Same with Bee Network, routes to Huddersfield and Warrington exist, as do Glossop/ Hadfield and Hayfield amongst others, areas that interact a lot with Greater Manchester. If TFL were serious at reducing congestion in London, they would find a way of improving services and connectivity further out than they do now, as much of the traffic is from people who live outside.

Also why is the subsidy a bad thing? I think it's a price worth paying given the numerous benefits and activity TFL makes possible. Also unsurprising Central London buses are cutting back, the Elizabeth Line and ongoing tube improvements changed everything, travel patterns changed but their cuts haven't cut anyone off completely.

And I don't expect London frequencies, I expect London's coordination. If there's a train every 30 minutes, run a bus that serves the residential areas in that town every 30 minutes to time with the train. On core routes, try to even out the gaps between buses as much as possible. Regularly all 3 routes in my town come together, then nothing at all for 20 minutes+! That won't encourage people to use buses. TFL are a lot better at scheduling the routes I've found, so it's truly turn up and go. I personally like what Herts has done with making it easier to understand what bus goes from 1 town to another though. The ticketing could be a very good thing, but needs automatic capping as it's hard to explain to people. In North Wales you are not penalised for using tap and cap vs buying a 1bws ticket outright, which makes it much more attractive.

The other thing really lacking is the late and weekend services. Trains and businesses run late, people work all sorts of shifts, so where are the buses? An hourly service on every route after the evening peak until the end of the day would be fine in most cases in places like mine. If you know where to look, a good number of TFL routes are down to twice an hour after 7:30pm/ 8pm.

 

[thomasheywood]

If it was up to me, regardless of the boundary, there wouldn't be a hard border or anything arbitrary, they'd overlap. The A414 is as arbitrary as the M25 for buses. Why would services to Welwyn Garden City, St Albans or Hemel Hempstead be severed to somewhere close to a new boundary, that makes little sense to do that. Towns near the boundary should have buses from both authorities. In my case, you'd think people in Enfield would want to go to Brookfield as much as I want to go to Enfield, the huge amounts of traffic on the A10 and local roads in this area proves my point and maybe car ownership would be lower or used less on both sides of the Greater London border if the network was much more responsive to the built up area rather than just terminating at somewhere convenient for the transport authority. Brookfield as a local example, the current bus service doesn't encourage people to take the bus at all unless they have no other choice, no one will pay double either, so even though services meet in Waltham Cross, it's essentially a severed region, which is bad for everyone.

Cambridgeshire when it franchises, one of the routes it will control goes to Bedford. Why? Because it's a useful regional connection, mutually beneficial, it would make no sense to cut it back. Same with Bee Network, routes to Huddersfield and Warrington exist, as do Glossop/ Hadfield and Hayfield amongst others, areas that interact a lot with Greater Manchester. If TFL were serious at reducing congestion in London, they would find a way of improving services and connectivity further out than they do now, as much of the traffic is from people who live outside.

Also why is the subsidy a bad thing? I think it's a price worth paying given the numerous benefits and activity TFL makes possible. Also unsurprising Central London buses are cutting back, the Elizabeth Line and ongoing tube improvements changed everything, travel patterns changed but their cuts haven't cut anyone off completely.

And I don't expect London frequencies, I expect London's coordination. If there's a train every 30 minutes, run a bus that serves the residential areas in that town every 30 minutes to time with the train. On core routes, try to even out the gaps between buses as much as possible. Regularly all 3 routes in my town come together, then nothing at all for 20 minutes+! That won't encourage people to use buses. TFL are a lot better at scheduling the routes I've found, so it's truly turn up and go. I personally like what Herts has done with making it easier to understand what bus goes from 1 town to another though. The ticketing could be a very good thing, but needs automatic capping as it's hard to explain to people. In North Wales you are not penalised for using tap and cap vs buying a 1bws ticket outright, which makes it much more attractive.

The other thing really lacking is the late and weekend services. Trains and businesses run late, people work all sorts of shifts, so where are the buses? An hourly service on every route after the evening peak until the end of the day would be fine in most cases in places like mine. If you know where to look, a good number of TFL routes are down to twice an hour after 7:30pm/ 8pm.

When looking at TfL services you’re wearing rose tinted glasses, there is no coordination between tube/rail and bus frequencies and if you think TfL services are ‘turn up and go’ take a trip to South London where even the main routes run at best every 20 minutes in the evening…

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If it was up to me, regardless of the boundary, there wouldn't be a hard border or anything arbitrary, they'd overlap. The A414 is as arbitrary as the M25 for buses. Why would services to Welwyn Garden City, St Albans or Hemel Hempstead be severed to somewhere close to a new boundary, that makes little sense to do that. Towns near the boundary should have buses from both authorities. In my case, you'd think people in Enfield would want to go to Brookfield as much as I want to go to Enfield, the huge amounts of traffic on the A10 and local roads in this area proves my point and maybe car ownership would be lower or used less on both sides of the Greater London border if the network was much more responsive to the built up area rather than just terminating at somewhere convenient for the transport authority. Brookfield as a local example, the current bus service doesn't encourage people to take the bus at all unless they have no other choice, no one will pay double either, so even though services meet in Waltham Cross, it's essentially a severed region, which is bad for everyone.

Cambridgeshire when it franchises, one of the routes it will control goes to Bedford. Why? Because it's a useful regional connection, mutually beneficial, it would make no sense to cut it back. Same with Bee Network, routes to Huddersfield and Warrington exist, as do Glossop/ Hadfield and Hayfield amongst others, areas that interact a lot with Greater Manchester. If TFL were serious at reducing congestion in London, they would find a way of improving services and connectivity further out than they do now, as much of the traffic is from people who live outside.

Also why is the subsidy a bad thing? I think it's a price worth paying given the numerous benefits and activity TFL makes possible. Also unsurprising Central London buses are cutting back, the Elizabeth Line and ongoing tube improvements changed everything, travel patterns changed but their cuts haven't cut anyone off completely.

And I don't expect London frequencies, I expect London's coordination. If there's a train every 30 minutes, run a bus that serves the residential areas in that town every 30 minutes to time with the train. On core routes, try to even out the gaps between buses as much as possible. Regularly all 3 routes in my town come together, then nothing at all for 20 minutes+! That won't encourage people to use buses. TFL are a lot better at scheduling the routes I've found, so it's truly turn up and go. I personally like what Herts has done with making it easier to understand what bus goes from 1 town to another though. The ticketing could be a very good thing, but needs automatic capping as it's hard to explain to people. In North Wales you are not penalised for using tap and cap vs buying a 1bws ticket outright, which makes it much more attractive.

The other thing really lacking is the late and weekend services. Trains and businesses run late, people work all sorts of shifts, so where are the buses? An hourly service on every route after the evening peak until the end of the day would be fine in most cases in places like mine. If you know where to look, a good number of TFL routes are down to twice an hour after 7:30pm/ 8pm.

Ok, let's go through these. I made the self same point that the A414 was as arbitrary. The point is that you always have a boundary and that some areas will have better service provision than others. That is simply the reality of the situation.

Did I say that the subsidy was a bad thing? No. What I said was that there is a huge amount of subsidy in London and that services can only be achieved with that huge amount of funding AND this is despite a much higher population density AND that this is also despite high passenger usage and revenue i.e. there is a level of cross-subsidy. Is this not true? To fund TfL style services outside of the capital will cost proportionately more because population density is lower - is this not true? Also, the cuts to central London buses may not have cut people off but what they have done is reduce the attractiveness of services and passenger figures are now akin to 2005 levels. This at a time when the population of the capital is higher - is this not true? Also, the programme of reductions began before the Elizabeth line opened (and the Northern line extension) and others are simply not impacted by such moves yet have still been cut. Turn up and travel frequencies - well some of those routes are now reduced to every 12, 15 or 20 mins and other routes (like 170 Victoria to Roehampton) had fairly big cuts to their PVR.

Now, interesting that you mention Bee Network running to Warrington. Of course, there's a boundary and perhaps people in Warrington might (in time) look longingly at Greater Manchester? However, they're on the other side of that particular boundary. Also, whilst Bee Network heads over the border to Glossop or Warrington or Huddersfield, the routes to Chorley and St Helens aren't. And of course, we've seen a reduction in cross-border routes into areas to the west of Altrincham so it's not been an entirely positive experience.

As you've been advised before.... contact TfL. Find out why they won't run a red bus to Cheshunt, or to other areas. If Cambridgeshire are prepared to run to Bedford, or GM to Huddersfield, why aren't TfL doing the same for you?

 

[aron2smith]

When looking at TfL services you’re wearing rose tinted glasses, there is no coordination between tube/rail and bus frequencies and if you think TfL services are ‘turn up and go’ take a trip to South London where even the main routes run at best every 20 minutes in the evening…

I look at it with 'rose tinted glasses', as they generally turn up when they say and rarely more than 5 minutes late unless there's loads of roadworks. And I agree there is no coordination between the bus and train times in London but when the bus is every 10 minutes and the train is every 15 minutes or so, it's a lot easier to get around. Even easier in areas with tube and DLR. Where I live, the bus is every 20 minutes which times very poorly with a half hourly train, doesn't help when you have to factor in a 10 minute walk as the bus doesn't go to the main station. Weirdly it's a lot easier to access rail services here when my bus is on a Saturday timetable and every half hour, the exact day I don't want to go anywhere. So London's logic extends to places outside where we just don't have the services. Really if it we can't afford better services, it makes a lot of sense to coordinate them, but that won't happen while buses stay privatised.

Also would be nice to have an actual evening service, let alone every 20 minutes. Places like Orpington hit the sweet spot I think in terms of transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

Did I say that the subsidy was a bad thing? No. What I said was that there is a huge amount of subsidy in London and that services can only be achieved with that huge amount of funding AND this is despite a much higher population density AND that this is also despite high passenger usage and revenue i.e. there is a level of cross-subsidy. Is this not true? To fund TfL style services outside of the capital will cost proportionately more because population density is lower - is this not true? Also, the cuts to central London buses may not have cut people off but what they have done is reduce the attractiveness of services and passenger figures are now akin to 2005 levels. This at a time when the population of the capital is higher - is this not true? Also, the programme of reductions began before the Elizabeth line opened (and the Northern line extension) and others are simply not impacted by such moves yet have still been cut. Turn up and travel frequencies - well some of those routes are now reduced to every 12, 15 or 20 mins and other routes (like 170 Victoria to Roehampton) had fairly big cuts to their PVR.

One way or another, it has to be funded and I would rather cross-subsidy exist than not. It's not a network if every route has to pay its way. Whole areas in Outer London would get poor or no services otherwise, goes back to poor land use and development. Not pretending TFL doesn't have problems but it's seems to be more resilient than areas with deregulated routes. Herts lost over 1/2 of its bus routes, TFL lost 4%. What I also wonder is how there is such a contrast between regions in the country. Gatwick Diamond across Surrey and Sussex, much of it was London Country and yet it's services are very strong under Metrobus including frequent 24 hour services and yet towns up the road such as Sevenoaks barely have a bus service at all. Isle of Wight, mostly rural but has some really frequent and late running routes. Compact coastal towns all along the South Coast from Bournemouth to Brighton also do very well. To me it's development, geography and one quality company. Transport is a natural monopoly, there is no competition. It needs consistent funds, not endless uncertainty and phony 'competition'.

I'd like to think smart planning of bus services in the Home Counties could achieve some great responses, if far more rural regions can do it but they need to run later.

Also 170 is still every 10 minutes. The changes to the 205 is the one I really don't understand, they shouldn't be touching routes like that until is the tube is 100% level boarding.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

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.

Strongly agree, this is why I wish counties wouldn't waste their time on Enhanced Partnerships, they barely change anything. Better off just going straight to Franchising or Municipal Ownership but really buses need to be organised at a regional level, which annoyingly is unlikely unless Parliament does it! Many counties aren't the right scale for public transport.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridgeshire when it franchises, one of the routes it will control goes to Bedford. Why? Because it's a useful regional connection, mutually beneficial, it would make no sense to cut it back.

Be careful what you wish for. Franchising has not happened in Cambridgeshire yet, and nobody knows what will happen to a route like Cambridge-Bedford if/when it does, especially now that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has a new mayor.

Most Cambridgeshire buses run without local authority support: cross border services vary considerably depending on how heavily they are used, and whether they make money for the operator. Before the pandemic Cambridge-Bedford was part of the X5, a high specification coach service running every 30 minutes and the eastern end of a through route to/from Milton Keynes and Oxford. Now it is operated with bog standard double deckers, only running between Cambridge and Bedford, and hourly for much of the day.

For an alternative experience of Cambridgeshire cross border services look at the chequered history of Cambridge-Royston bus services over the border with Hertfordshire.

Cambridgeshire is in a peculiar situation at present because it has both a mayor and an upper tier local authority, though that won't be lasting much longer. The new government's devolution agenda will also be extending to Hertfordshire, though I have seen nothing on what the existing Hertfordshire authorities are proposing. I don't even know whether Hertfordshire will get it own mayor, or a mayor covering a wider area. If you are concerned about cross border bus services to/from Hertfordshire, then you need to know the answer to that question, because, in the not too distant future, the mayor will be one of the key decision makers on buses in Hertfordshire.

 

[greenline712]

Be careful what you wish for. Franchising has not happened in Cambridgeshire yet, and nobody knows what will happen to a route like Cambridge-Bedford if/when it does, especially now that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has a new mayor.

Most Cambridgeshire buses run without local authority support: cross border services vary considerably depending on how heavily they are used, and whether they make money for the operator. Before the pandemic Cambridge-Bedford was part of the X5, a high specification coach service running every 30 minutes and the eastern end of a through route to/from Milton Keynes and Oxford. Now it is operated with bog standard double deckers, only running between Cambridge and Bedford, and hourly for much of the day.

For an alternative experience of Cambridgeshire cross border services look at the chequered history of Cambridge-Royston bus services over the border with Hertfordshire.

Cambridgeshire is in a peculiar situation at present because it has both a mayor and an upper tier local authority, though that won't be lasting much longer. The new government's devolution agenda will also be extending to Hertfordshire, though I have seen nothing on what the existing Hertfordshire authorities are proposing. I don't even know whether Hertfordshire will get it own mayor, or a mayor covering a wider area. If you are concerned about cross border bus services to/from Hertfordshire, then you need to know the answer to that question, because, in the not too distant future, the mayor will be one of the key decision makers on buses in Hertfordshire.

A couple of points here . . .
A unitary authority, with mayor, has been ruled out by almost all (if not all) leaders of the 11 districts / boroughs in Hertfordshire . . . that's why you've heard nothing!! I won't say that some changes won't happen . . . Watford and Three Rivers are in a strange situation, with Watford almost surrounded by Three Rivers, and the borough boundary (in some cases) being barely 2 miles from the town centre . . . in addition, Watford already undertake some back-office functions on behalf of Three Rivers. Some sort of merger would seem sensible.

At the risk of being shot down by locals . . . might the reduction in frequency of the X5 be because passenger numbers have fallen off, perhaps because journey times have become longer? A bus service running every 30 minutes would not be cut back to hourly if the finances were still good . . . And I thought that the X5 had been removed from franchising, as with other cross-boundary services like the X4 at Peterborough and the Delaine services to/from Lincolnshire.

As far as the 26 to Royston is concerned . . . with a train service of about 3-4 TPH, and taking around 20 minutes, compared with a bus service every two hours and taking about an hour . . . which would you use? It's not as though there are loads of chimneys along the A10.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Also, whilst Bee Network heads over the border to Glossop or Warrington or Huddersfield, the routes to Chorley and St Helens aren't.

Don't forget the Wigan - Chorley service which is Bee Network. As for St Helens, these routes would most likely be part of Merseyside's scheme.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Most Cambridgeshire buses run without local authority support: cross border services vary considerably depending on how heavily they are used, and whether they make money for the operator. Before the pandemic Cambridge-Bedford was part of the X5, a high specification coach service running every 30 minutes and the eastern end of a through route to/from Milton Keynes and Oxford. Now it is operated with bog standard double deckers, only running between Cambridge and Bedford, and hourly for much of the day.

For an alternative experience of Cambridgeshire cross border services look at the chequered history of Cambridge-Royston bus services over the border with Hertfordshire.

Exactly - the need is clearly there in some areas (and is shown by their commercial operation) and others not.

Another little example are the plans for Merseyside. Their plans are to truncate certain routes (Birkenhead - Ellesmere Port - Chester) as they don't see their remit as providing services to Chester!

One way or another, it has to be funded and I would rather cross-subsidy exist than not. It's not a network if every route has to pay its way. Whole areas in Outer London would get poor or no services otherwise, goes back to poor land use and development. Not pretending TFL doesn't have problems but it's seems to be more resilient than areas with deregulated routes. Herts lost over 1/2 of its bus routes, TFL lost 4%. What I also wonder is how there is such a contrast between regions in the country. Gatwick Diamond across Surrey and Sussex, much of it was London Country and yet it's services are very strong under Metrobus including frequent 24 hour services and yet towns up the road such as Sevenoaks barely have a bus service at all. Isle of Wight, mostly rural but has some really frequent and late running routes. Compact coastal towns all along the South Coast from Bournemouth to Brighton also do very well. To me it's development, geography and one quality company. Transport is a natural monopoly, there is no competition. It needs consistent funds, not endless uncertainty and phony 'competition'.

I'd like to think smart planning of bus services in the Home Counties could achieve some great responses, if far more rural regions can do it but they need to run later.

Also 170 is still every 10 minutes.

At the risk of repeating myself... London's buses are massively subsidised. Some comes from central government (and has massively reduced). Other funds come from cross-subsidy. It is a huge amount and those cross subsidies are not available in Hertfordshire or many other provincial counties as their is simply not enough killer routes to prop up the rest. So yes, they can spend money on propping up routes... that's not available to Herts.

If you want to know why the contrast in areas such as Crawley vs Sevenoaks... Even in London Country days, there were large differences in the respective strength of operations. Somewhere like Tring was known as Sleepy Hollow in comparison to Hemel, and the same holds true of the South East corner. In terms of Crawley, you have a combination of a good and innovative operator in Metrobus, a supportive local authority and, most crucially, a strong private sector influence in Gatwick Airport that provides both funding, has contributed to infrastructure, and provides a commercial market. Towns like Redhill and Reigate have some links north of the M25 (every 15 mins to Croydon, every hour to Sutton and Epsom) but many more south. Sevenoaks and the area around it was always more sparsely populated and had fewer links, and they were reduced when LCBS withdrew many routes and closed East Grinstead depot in 1981. In a way, topography is a reason too. Then ask why TfL haven't taken it upon themselves to introduce a regular service to Sevenoaks from Orpington?

You mention how Go Ahead have this raft of good operations from Brighton to Bournemouth. First of all, they are both great operations. Note the distinction... they are TWO different and quite separate companies in B&H/Metrobus, and Go South Coast group of firms. Different management teams etc. They are very good - then compare with Go East Anglia... less good. And to be honest, even in the halcyon of National Bus Company, there were differences in age profile and networks and why... because of local individual characteristics. There are so many factors that you have to consider.

Take Brighton... It's an exemplar of how a modern bus network should operate AND it doesn't require municipal ownership. Why does it work? Partly geography - it's a very compact city with high population density. Partly economics - it is growing, is affluent, and has a significant tourist market. Partly the approach of the various parties - The city council have been very good in providing bus priority and this is backed up by a very forward thinking bus company who have invested. Isle of Wight - well, that's tourists. They get fleeced and let's not forget, Southern Vectis did pull back from or reduce other routes so it's great that routes get night buses, but it wasn't without losers.

FWIW, the 170 is still every 10 mins but the PVR by a quarter. I picked it out as an example of a large cut that has nothing to do with any other tube or rail improvements. I you want an example of service headway being widened so it's not turn up and go, try the A10.

Ask TfL why they don't consider the wider network benefits of extending routes into your neighbourhood...? Share the answer here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

Don't forget the Wigan - Chorley service which is Bee Network. As for St Helens, these routes would most likely be part of Merseyside's scheme.

You're right - I was referring to the 125 (which you probably guessed). And yes, the 34 will be part of Merseyside, I'd expect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

 

[RT4038]

At the risk of repeating myself... London's buses are massively subsidised. Some comes from central government (and has massively reduced). Other funds come from cross-subsidy. It is a huge amount and those cross subsidies are not available in Hertfordshire or many other provincial counties as their is simply not enough killer routes to prop up the rest. So yes, they can spend money on propping up routes... that's not available to Herts.

On the button. Even with franchising or municipal bus operation, there is no indication that funding is going to be increased to provincial Authorities to increase subsidies to bus services to provide more service. On the contrary, the danger is that (a) the bus service funding that there is may be diverted to their Statutory duties [Special Educational Needs, and Adult & Child Social Care] that are on the verge of financial collapse. and/or (b) political control through franchising or municipal operation will divert bus service funding to narrow perceived needs (on the basis of who shouts loudest) for special services running infrequently (or DRT) up and down every other street for the elderly / hard of mobility to shops / medical facilities / day centres / council offices etc, and/or 'non'entitled' school services not covering their costs, to the detriment of ordinary bus services currently running and forget about more evening services etc.

In my county of residence, some cross boundary services are provided commercially, and some are subsidised. The view to the subsidised ones are that my county subsidises those which mainly benefit the residents of my county near the border to get to the nearest town over the border, in those instances where the county residents actually have much desire to get to that town. Services on which another counties' residents are the main beneficiaries (i.e. make up the majority of passengers), then it is up to the neighbouring county to provide the subsidy and the level of service appropriate to their needs. . Any subsidised cross border service only runs for the shortest distance over the border to the nearest town. Horses for courses of course, and some exceptions mostly for historical reasons, but certainly no additional 'peak' vehicles used on them.
One of the neighbouring counties is a Metropolitan one, and there is a ring of Industrial estates just inside the boundary of my County of residence. In that case the Metropolitan County provides any subsidised services, as they cater mainly for their residents (and taxpayers).
Of course, for financial reasons, none of the services subsidised by my County of residence have anything like a 'London' style of frequency, and evening and Sunday services are very thin in comparison.

In the spirit of the policy of my home County, I can quite see why TfL do not run to Flamstead End - the majority of passengers being from Hertfordshire towards London and little desire for residents of Enfield or Wood Green to visit Flamstead End, so these services would be for the funding of Hertfordshire. Cross border TfL service is provided in the area to Waltham Cross, the nearest town that some London residents may wish to visit, and also interchange to services deeper into Hertfordshire such as Cheshunt etc

 

[aron2smith]

In the spirit of the policy of my home County, I can quite see why TfL do not run to Flamstead End - the majority of passengers being from Hertfordshire towards London and little desire for residents of Enfield or Wood Green to visit Flamstead End, so these services would be for the funding of Hertfordshire. Cross border TfL service is provided in the area to Waltham Cross, the nearest town that some London residents may wish to visit, and also interchange to services deeper into Hertfordshire such as Cheshunt etc

By your logic how many people in Walthamstow want to go to Chester Road in Debden or anywhere in Debden, which is served by the 20, doesn't stop it providing a really useful service for people along the route. For a time before I lived up here, I lived in Enfield and my Nan lived here in Cheshunt, a direct bus between the 2 would've been really helpful but because it didn't exist like it did decades earlier we drove instead. People make this choice all the time because the buses don't currently serve our needs and that is what needs to change.

It's not about specifically running to my area, it's that it's far more logical to run London's buses to the actual edge of an urban area, which here is Hammond Street, where I live is just on the way. You can't really separate Cheshunt from London and that was somehow more obvious to the people in charge throughout much of the 20th century when London and the surrounding areas had a much lower population than now. And yet now the houses are going up, apparently 1 bus an hour on 242 and 3 buses on 251 is all we can manage, with nothing making it convenient to get to the trains and nothing beyond 7:30pm, that doesn't add up. Same with Waltham Abbey, access to the trains and tube is limited from there. It all makes me wish the greenbelt didn't exist and they built up the area properly, TFL and our councils couldn't ignore us then. And yes I wish Herts would throw money in the pot for TFL to cover the commuter belt better. I also wish regional structures existed that made it far easier for these authorities to meet up and discuss issues, collaborate etc. Some kind of regular forum as these counties don't exist separate, in reality it's a region that is deeply interconnected but local government for some reason doesn't reflect that.

Also apparently there's a Transport for Hertfordshire now. But for some reason it's hard to find out anything about it and no county council meetings specifically about it.

 

[RT4038]

By your logic how many people in Walthamstow want to go to Chester Road in Debden or anywhere in Debden, which is served by the 20, doesn't stop it providing a really useful service for people along the route.

I'm not suggesting it is not a useful service, it is purely an issue of 'who pays for it'?

For a time before I lived up here, I lived in Enfield and my Nan lived here in Cheshunt, a direct bus between the 2 would've been really helpful but because it didn't exist like it did decades earlier we drove instead. People make this choice all the time because the buses don't currently serve our needs and that is what needs to change.

Unfortunately this is life all over the country where administrative boundaries meet - it is particularly acute on the outskirts of London and the other Metropolitan Counties because they are areas of high density of population which can afford high levels of service (and sometimes subsidy) coming up against administrative areas with low density of populations and low ability (and desire) to subsidise bus services.

. And yet now the houses are going up, apparently 1 bus an hour on 242 and 3 buses on 251 is all we can manage, with nothing making it convenient to get to the trains and nothing beyond 7:30pm, that doesn't add up.

It does add up. It is like this all over the country in the rural counties like where you live. Even in the urban areas of those rural counties. 4 buses an hour is the most that is achieved on all but two main trunk routes in my home County; a bus every half hour is considered a good service and no co-ordination with train timetables either, as economy of operation (covering as much route as possible with the minimum of buses and staff) is considered a priority. As for evening services - there is a bus an hour on some routes (only recently though, with BSIP funding) with some routes having a couple of trips on Friday & Saturday nights and many having nothing at all.

It all makes me wish the greenbelt didn't exist and they built up the area properly, TFL and our councils couldn't ignore us then. And yes I wish Herts would throw money in the pot for TFL to cover the commuter belt better. I also wish regional structures existed that made it far easier for these authorities to meet up and discuss issues, collaborate etc. Some kind of regular forum as these counties don't exist separate, in reality it's a region that is deeply interconnected but local government for some reason doesn't reflect that.

Also apparently there's a Transport for Hertfordshire now. But for some reason it's hard to find out anything about it and no county council meetings specifically about it.

I understand your frustration, but plenty of people in the semi rural and rural fringes of London did not want to be part of the GLC when formed - do all your neighbours want to be part of a London Borough? TfL ignore you because you are not part of London - first you need to change that. They do not want to take over your route(s) and improve them because they know they will make a stonking loss and they have no desire to be subsidising your area from the much more densely populated parts of London. To take on your area routes will mean cutting somewhere else - where is the incentive to do that?

I am unsure how regional structures to discuss issues, collaborate etc or even Transport for Hertfordshire (which I guess is the Herts C.C. Public Transport Dept. renamed?) are going to help what you want, which is either Hertfordshire spending much more money (coming from where?) on subsidising local bus services, or TfL taking money from subsidising services in London to subsidise extending their routes into Hertfordshire. Taking money from the good burghers of Tower Hamlets to subsidise those in the perceived affluence of Hertfordshire is unlikely to go down well. I suspect that the majority of Hertfordshire residents do not value bus services greatly (if at all) and spending more of what money they do have on them is simply not going to be a high priority.

I suspect that Local Government does not reflect the deep interconnectedness because the majority of residents in the surrounding Counties do not want this interconnectedness to mean they are lumped together and have to pay higher taxes and accept London influence in their decision making. Central Government know that providing services (be it bus or other services) in low density areas is much more expensive per resident than in high density areas, so knows that service provision from a big city cannot be rolled out across rural areas. Too expensive. Hence the gradual roll back of London Transport / TfL over the last 55 years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

An eloquent and considered reply from @RT4038, and many facets that I recognise from areas across the UK.

The inescapable truth is that TfL already subsidise buses to the tune of £800m (and in essence, there is some additional hidden subsidy there). They do run across "the border" - see the 81 to Slough, the 405 to Redhill and, of course, several to Waltham Cross in the 217, 317 and 279 (among others). That they can see the benefit of running across the border is doubtless because of the benefit to the passengers in intermediate places that may look to those places for medical, retail, employment or other reasons. However, TfL can hardly manage its current scope. Therefore, the idea that they will look to take on extra scope and responsibility and subsidise more services that, for the most part, will benefit Herts residents is simply not going to happen.

So can Herts do more. Well, they have some challenging financial issues as do most local authorities. 75% of their income goes on SEND and social care. If we look at how they could target improvements with BSIP funding...perhaps the 310 could have a better evening service? Whether that could act as a pump priming initiative is perhaps dependant on whether Arriva can step up to the plate... experience suggests that might be a challenge.

Clearly, operators don't believe that there is sufficient demand for a commercial service from Cheshunt/Broxbourne to Enfield or they'd be doing it, it's not in TfL's interest, and Herts probably haven't the cash.

 

[greenline712]

Perhaps we ought to be asking why TfL are prepared to run some routes into neighbouring counties / authorities and not others. An awful lot will be dependent on history . . . so here goes. In no particular order:
Lakeside: partially because it is a major traffic objective for London residents, but also because South Ockenden was built to house East End residents made homeless during WW2. In fact, Route 370 was a Country route until annexed by London in the 2000s!
Debden: this estate was a "London Overspill" estate, built in the 1950s / 1960s. It was not unreasonable for Central buses to run the bus services, plus they had a Garage at Loughton until closure in the 1990s. Route 20 used to run to Epping, until TfL realised that, once past Loughton, it was green fields all the way!
Waltham Cross: a logical place to terminate London routes . . . it's actually less than half-a-mile across the border!
Hammond Street, Upshire and Waltham Abbey: these were really Central routes because the nearest bus garage was a Central garage. They were London contracts in the early days of London tendering, and were seen as anacronistic (effectively wholly operating outside London, therefore not relevent to London). Indeed, Hammond Street was served by Route 279 until localised (to deal with unreliability at the end of a busy London route).
Potters Bar: the Garage was built by Walter Dangerfield in the 1920s, and his company was purchased by LPTB in 1930. It has always been a Central garage, although in the 1990s it was very nearly closed; only being saved by the drivers taking a huge pay cut and having their conditions of employment revised. Route 298 provides the link to the Underground, and Route 313 the link to Chase Farm Hospital, which is the local (major) hospital to Potters Bar.
Borehamwood: another London Overspill town . . . 107 runs from London to London; 292 provides a decades old link to London, and are also both fully funded by TfL, Herts having withdrawn funding in the 2000s (they disagreed with the high frequencies required by London . . . having driven on the route in the 1990s, I can confirm that evening passengers were often zero on many journeys once outside London!).
Watford: buses from London have been Central routes since the 1920s, and do provide a bus-rail link at Stanmore (142). It's the logical place to terminate as well (and also not funded by Herts CC . . . they preferred to spend their money on routes that actually benefitted Herts residents!).
Harefield: Route 331 runs from London to London, so it is logical to be a London route.
Slough: complicated by the proximity to Heathrow Airport; the 81 has also been a Central route since pre WW1.
Staines: again . . . the logical place to terminate London routes, although the 458 (as 218) was a Central route, and is now a Surrey-funded route.
Dorking: this is the genuine outlier . . . I can only assume that Surrey CC are prepared to pay for buses departing Dorking at 0500 and arriving at 0030 . . . I'm darn sure there will be no passengers travelling then!!
Epsom: this is a funny one . . . 406 and 418 were always Country routes, as were the routes from Sutton and Cheam. 406 and 418 became London routes following a bus war in the 1980s between London Country SW and London United . . . they do provide value as part of the overall frequency from Tolworth to Kingston.
Redhill: always a Country route, but this does add value to London residents to terminate at Redhill, and also adds to the overall service into Croydon from the south.
Orpington: I cannot see any rationale for the R5 and R10 routes . . . Country routes since the 1920s; almost no passengers travelling now, unless there is a substantial school movement somewhere?
Bluewater: and we complete the circle . . . it is a destination in its own right (as is Dartford, just across the Kentish border).

So Debden and Borehamwood are effectively London (as far as their residents are concerned); Waltham Cross; Watford; Slough and Staines are simply somewhere to terminate; Dorking and Epsom are presumably funded by Surrey CC; Lakeside and Bluewater are traffic objectives for London residents.

None of this will help our Cheshunt correspondent in his desire to see London Buses take over the whole of the Home Counties, but it does show that there are good reasons for the current TfL network being what it is. I suspect that there are similar sutuations all over the country that franchising will affect (as we're already seeing on the borders of Manchester, of course).

 

[thomasheywood]

Perhaps we ought to be asking why TfL are prepared to run some routes into neighbouring counties / authorities and not others. An awful lot will be dependent on history . . . so here goes. In no particular order:
Lakeside: partially because it is a major traffic objective for London residents, but also because South Ockenden was built to house East End residents made homeless during WW2. In fact, Route 370 was a Country route until annexed by London in the 2000s!
Debden: this estate was a "London Overspill" estate, built in the 1950s / 1960s. It was not unreasonable for Central buses to run the bus services, plus they had a Garage at Loughton until closure in the 1990s. Route 20 used to run to Epping, until TfL realised that, once past Loughton, it was green fields all the way!
Waltham Cross: a logical place to terminate London routes . . . it's actually less than half-a-mile across the border!
Hammond Street, Upshire and Waltham Abbey: these were really Central routes because the nearest bus garage was a Central garage. They were London contracts in the early days of London tendering, and were seen as anacronistic (effectively wholly operating outside London, therefore not relevent to London). Indeed, Hammond Street was served by Route 279 until localised (to deal with unreliability at the end of a busy London route).
Potters Bar: the Garage was built by Walter Dangerfield in the 1920s, and his company was purchased by LPTB in 1930. It has always been a Central garage, although in the 1990s it was very nearly closed; only being saved by the drivers taking a huge pay cut and having their conditions of employment revised. Route 298 provides the link to the Underground, and Route 313 the link to Chase Farm Hospital, which is the local (major) hospital to Potters Bar.
Borehamwood: another London Overspill town . . . 107 runs from London to London; 292 provides a decades old link to London, and are also both fully funded by TfL, Herts having withdrawn funding in the 2000s (they disagreed with the high frequencies required by London . . . having driven on the route in the 1990s, I can confirm that evening passengers were often zero on many journeys once outside London!).
Watford: buses from London have been Central routes since the 1920s, and do provide a bus-rail link at Stanmore (142). It's the logical place to terminate as well (and also not funded by Herts CC . . . they preferred to spend their money on routes that actually benefitted Herts residents!).
Harefield: Route 331 runs from London to London, so it is logical to be a London route.
Slough: complicated by the proximity to Heathrow Airport; the 81 has also been a Central route since pre WW1.
Staines: again . . . the logical place to terminate London routes, although the 458 (as 218) was a Central route, and is now a Surrey-funded route.
Dorking: this is the genuine outlier . . . I can only assume that Surrey CC are prepared to pay for buses departing Dorking at 0500 and arriving at 0030 . . . I'm darn sure there will be no passengers travelling then!!
Epsom: this is a funny one . . . 406 and 418 were always Country routes, as were the routes from Sutton and Cheam. 406 and 418 became London routes following a bus war in the 1980s between London Country SW and London United . . . they do provide value as part of the overall frequency from Tolworth to Kingston.
Redhill: always a Country route, but this does add value to London residents to terminate at Redhill, and also adds to the overall service into Croydon from the south.
Orpington: I cannot see any rationale for the R5 and R10 routes . . . Country routes since the 1920s; almost no passengers travelling now, unless there is a substantial school movement somewhere?
Bluewater: and we complete the circle . . . it is a destination in its own right (as is Dartford, just across the Kentish border).

So Debden and Borehamwood are effectively London (as far as their residents are concerned); Waltham Cross; Watford; Slough and Staines are simply somewhere to terminate; Dorking and Epsom are presumably funded by Surrey CC; Lakeside and Bluewater are traffic objectives for London residents.

None of this will help our Cheshunt correspondent in his desire to see London Buses take over the whole of the Home Counties, but it does show that there are good reasons for the current TfL network being what it is. I suspect that there are similar sutuations all over the country that franchising will affect (as we're already seeing on the borders of Manchester, of course).

A small correction, Harefield is in London, Denham is the village in Buckinghamshire that the 331 serves

 

[greenline712]

A small correction, Harefield is in London, Denham is the village in Buckinghamshire that the 331 serves

Of course it is!! Thanks. The principle still stands, though . . .

 

[RT4038]

Borehamwood: another London Overspill town . . . 107 runs from London to London; 292 provides a decades old link to London, and are also both fully funded by TfL, Herts having withdrawn funding in the 2000s (they disagreed with the high frequencies required by London . . . having driven on the route in the 1990s, I can confirm that evening passengers were often zero on many journeys once outside London!).

Which brings another issue into play - Hertfordshire are unlikely to be willing to subsidise TfL services running into Cheshunt [for instance] by itself because of the sheer cost of the additional frequency and length of operating day, plus the cost of the TfL fares regime, both of which will be considerably higher than they pay for services in other urban areas of the County - Oxhey, Leavesden, Meriden, Rickmansworth, Marshalswick, Gadebridge, Bandley Hill, Knightsfield etc etc , where a proportion of the population would also like to enjoy a similar level of service and fares. It would be very difficult to justify in Cheshunt but not in these places too.

 

[aron2smith]

I suspect that Local Government does not reflect the deep interconnectedness because the majority of residents in the surrounding Counties do not want this interconnectedness to mean they are lumped together and have to pay higher taxes and accept London influence in their decision making. Central Government know that providing services (be it bus or other services) in low density areas is much more expensive per resident than in high density areas, so knows that service provision from a big city cannot be rolled out across rural areas. Too expensive. Hence the gradual roll back of London Transport / TfL over the last 55 years.

But London is influencing our and neighbouring councils decision making a lot, especially with housing. Their is enormous pressure to build on the green belt. If you look very closely on Google Maps satellite, there is loads of small infill housing all over western side of Cheshunt and towns like it in the south east, all recent and effectively a continuous built up area with Goffs Oak now. Add to that council plans to expand Brookfield to build a new town centre with new homes adding 5000 people to the local area, Enfield similarly planning for 1000s of homes in Crews Hill. There were plans for a massive film studio near Waltham Cross but appears to have fallen through, naturally after concreting over the field! Hoddesdon recently expanded with High Leigh (not finished yet though), Ware is planning a major extension to its north and east, Harlow and Gilston will add 22000 new homes. Even further out, Bishops Stortford and Cambridge have expanded massively in recent years. I don't think a lot of these developments would be as big as they are if housing wasn't such an expensive nightmare in London.

I am not against new developments but we can't keep building isolated and car centric estates with no or limited public transport, no infrastructure, 1 shop if you are lucky. Many towns near to but outside London really struggle with traffic without any further urban expansions and that desperately needs addressing. I really do blame the green belt policy as its created a distorting effect on development, instead of it being stopped, developments are further away instead and in places that force people to drive. We can't have future places be like that, regardless of the transport authority.

Planning and transport really need to happen together, otherwise you end up with frustrated people like me who can't travel as easily as it could be if a town was designed properly in the first place.

Thinking of another town in TFL zone 8, Dartford, I'd probably be satisfied with the public transport if I lived there instead. Especially Fastrack.

Also unfortunately it's not an equal 4 buses/ hour where I live as the hourly 242 is scheduled just 3 minutes before a 251 service and in reality both come together which is daft. Basically 3/ hour in reality.

Also interesting post Greenline712, I'd argue Cheshunt is London Overspill though as Enfield Council built many council houses out here 60+ years ago and they own and manage the land. Creates a lot of confusion locally, even more than usual with a 2 tier council system! I'd argue if major employment still happens at the former proposed Sunset Studios site and Brookfield does expand as planned, it needs all day bus services like you see in Borehamwood or Lakeside. And TFL terminating at Waltham Cross has been deeply damaging to running an effective bus network further out in Lea Valley. Waltham Abbey could be a popular destination given the history in the town, Olympic legacy and another gateway to Epping Forest if the buses conveniently went out to it. Plenty of employment there too but for some reason underserved by buses and not near the railways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

Which brings another issue into play - Hertfordshire are unlikely to be willing to subsidise TfL services running into Cheshunt [for instance] by itself because of the sheer cost of the additional frequency and length of operating day, plus the cost of the TfL fares regime, both of which will be considerably higher than they pay for services in other urban areas of the County - Oxhey, Leavesden, Meriden, Rickmansworth, Marshalswick, Gadebridge, Bandley Hill, Knightsfield etc etc , where a proportion of the population would also like to enjoy a similar level of service and fares. It would be very difficult to justify in Cheshunt but not in these places too.

Why are you comparing a whole town to neighbourhoods? Cheshunt is 48000 people or so. Better to compare it like to like to Hemel, Watford, Welwyn or St Albans, rather than a small neighbourhood. Also other than Oxhey and Rickmansworth, none of the towns these neighbourhoods are in even allow oyster cards on either train, bus or both.

 

[Simon75]

Is looking at how buses run in other countries could give a solution to cross border services?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Is looking at how buses run in other countries could give a solution to cross border services?

I'm not certain how revenue/costs are apportioned. You can certainly travel from Maastricht to Liege (Belgium) and Aachen (Germany).

A nearer to home example is the village of Muff (no sniggering at the back ) in the Irish Republic. It is situated just over the border from NI near (London)derry. It is served by Ulsterbus's Foyle Metro network, every hour, using nice modern electric buses. The reason is that the border is on the edge of the village so the bus serves places like Culmore and then the next logical place to turn round is just over the border and the revenue outweighs the costs.

Of course, Ulsterbus could theoretically extend further north up Lough Foyle and serve larger places like Moville. However, why would they? Instead, there is a TfI LocalLink service from those villages to Derry every 3 hours or so using a minicoach. Moville and Greencastle do get a more frequent service... to the smaller town of Letterkenny which is further away but is, of course, in the Republic.

This is the point. There are many examples of journeys running across a boundary. In the case of the OP, it isn't that TfL don't operate across the border - they do. They just happen to terminate in a logical place for them (Waltham Cross) and for the vast majority of passengers. This has been explained at length - the OP would perhaps be better served contacting TfL or Herts CC as it feels like we're can't really move forward.

 

[RT4038]

But London is influencing our and neighbouring councils decision making a lot, especially with housing. Their is enormous pressure to build on the green belt. If you look very closely on Google Maps satellite, there is loads of small infill housing all over western side of Cheshunt and towns like it in the south east, all recent and effectively a continuous built up area with Goffs Oak now. Add to that council plans to expand Brookfield to build a new town centre with new homes adding 5000 people to the local area, Enfield similarly planning for 1000s of homes in Crews Hill. There were plans for a massive film studio near Waltham Cross but appears to have fallen through, naturally after concreting over the field! Hoddesdon recently expanded with High Leigh (not finished yet though), Ware is planning a major extension to its north and east, Harlow and Gilston will add 22000 new homes. Even further out, Bishops Stortford and Cambridge have expanded massively in recent years. I don't think a lot of these developments would be as big as they are if housing wasn't such an expensive nightmare in London.

This is not peculiar to your area, or the area surrounding London. This is Central Government policy to build 1.5 million more homes all over the country. This policy does not come with funding for TfL style bus service frequencies or fares.

I am not against new developments but we can't keep building isolated and car centric estates with no or limited public transport, no infrastructure, 1 shop if you are lucky. Many towns near to but outside London really struggle with traffic without any further urban expansions and that desperately needs addressing. I really do blame the green belt policy as its created a distorting effect on development, instead of it being stopped, developments are further away instead and in places that force people to drive. We can't have future places be like that, regardless of the transport authority.

Planning and transport really need to happen together, otherwise you end up with frustrated people like me who can't travel as easily as it could be if a town was designed properly in the first place.

Couldn't agree with you more, but I think that we will keep building isolated and car centric estates with no or limited public transport etc because the majority of people aspire to car travel, shopping in retail parks and home delivery and are quite happy and feel safe with such development.
Will this be seen as 'short sighted' in the future? Quite possibly, but it is seen as quite acceptable now.

Also unfortunately it's not an equal 4 buses/ hour where I live as the hourly 242 is scheduled just 3 minutes before a 251 service and in reality both come together which is daft. Basically 3/ hour in reality.

Have you taken this up with your Local Transport Authority (Hertfordshire) and the two bus companies concerned? Maybe they can influence a change, or maybe it is not possible to change due to their relationship with routes elsewhere, without expense (and subsidy) of additional vehicles and staff?

Also interesting post Greenline712, I'd argue Cheshunt is London Overspill though as Enfield Council built many council houses out here 60+ years ago and they own and manage the land. Creates a lot of confusion locally, even more than usual with a 2 tier council system! I'd argue if major employment still happens at the former proposed Sunset Studios site and Brookfield does expand as planned, it needs all day bus services like you see in Borehamwood or Lakeside. And TFL terminating at Waltham Cross has been deeply damaging to running an effective bus network further out in Lea Valley. Waltham Abbey could be a popular destination given the history in the town, Olympic legacy and another gateway to Epping Forest if the buses conveniently went out to it. Plenty of employment there too but for some reason underserved by buses and not near the railways.

Because it will cost money to make any change, and money is short and Waltham Abbey's history and Olympic legacy is simply not a priority.

Why are you comparing a whole town to neighbourhoods? Cheshunt is 48000 people or so. Better to compare it like to like to Hemel, Watford, Welwyn or St Albans, rather than a small neighbourhood. Also other than Oxhey and Rickmansworth, none of the towns these neighbourhoods are in even allow oyster cards on either train, bus or both.

I am well aware that Hertfordshire (unlike most of London) has large tracts of rural areas and even built up areas where demand for bus services is very limited (partly due to low density and partly due to relative affluence), and where residents will be quite reluctant to pay extra taxes to fund TfL style bus services and fares elsewhere in Hertfordshire. The places I mentioned are not for comparison, but are specific areas where there is likely to be above average (for Herts.) demand for bus service, and the residents there are likely to desire TfL style services and fares at the same time should Cheshunt get them.
Extending the use of Oyster cards means that passengers will pay lower fares. Experience has shown that lower fares do not generate sufficient additional riders to make up the shortfall in revenue, at least not in the short to medium term. So who is going to make up this revenue shortfall and where is this money coming from? Big barriers to overcome.

Is looking at how buses run in other countries could give a solution to cross border services?

By all means, but usually all the nuances of the differences in Funding, Administrative and Legal frameworks of the transport industry and both Local and Central Government are difficult to ascertain and do not simply translate to the conditions prevailing here.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

This is not peculiar to your area, or the area surrounding London. This is Central Government policy to build 1.5 million more homes all over the country. This policy does not come with funding for TfL style bus service frequencies or fares.


Couldn't agree with you more, but I think that we will keep building isolated and car centric estates with no or limited public transport etc because the majority of people aspire to car travel, shopping in retail parks and home delivery and are quite happy and feel safe with such development.
Will this be seen as 'short sighted' in the future? Quite possibly, but it is seen as quite acceptable now.

With the added complication still currently that in many parts of the country the authority who authorises the planning & building of new houses (Boroughs) is not the one who funds and plans the bus services (Counties) and in less urban Boroughs it is very common for them to stick there housing on the borough boundary to reduce the pressure on their own services by using the proximity of the big town/city to minimse the extra provision they need to make (there is a housing estate near me which is in the county but cannot be accessed by any means that doesn't pass through the city it is against, there may be a single old footpath across a field across a fence but nothing accessible or all weather) but as a non-urban authority with much of the transport assumed to be car based and not public transport based as I suspect we all agree it should be these days.

 

[aron2smith]

This is not peculiar to your area, or the area surrounding London. This is Central Government policy to build 1.5 million more homes all over the country. This policy does not come with funding for TfL style bus service frequencies or fares.

The plans I mentioned were in place years before this Labour government and their 1.5 million target. In fact the plans in my borough were decided on in 2020. I used to have family near Bishop Stortford and we used to regularly go to Cambridge, been watching both grow more and more for the last 15 years! In fact this government's policies haven't really started yet, as they haven't identified new towns or sites for any urban extensions. I imagine we will know by the end of the year. But to be clear, any plans locally are separate to this government's policies. I wouldn't be surprised if councils like mine are expected to find even more sites to build houses on to be honest. And TFL or no TFL, to me it is a massive failure if new areas aren't planned with public transport in mind. Even if we remain separate to them, I think it best to copy them as they have been good with serving new developments.

Couldn't agree with you more, but I think that we will keep building isolated and car centric estates with no or limited public transport etc because the majority of people aspire to car travel, shopping in retail parks and home delivery and are quite happy and feel safe with such development.
Will this be seen as 'short sighted' in the future? Quite possibly, but it is seen as quite acceptable now.

I would've agreed with you when I was growing up in the late 90s/ 00s but I think quite a major shift in how cars are seen has happened since then, at least in the cities. We at least have to build places that give people a real choice of transport. If most people can take a bus in the day, but can't to get home as it doesn't exist, unsurprisingly they will just drive. Even with all the issues with our trains, this is not a problem even in places limited to trains every couple hours.

Part of why I'm frustrated by the buses instead of just driving is because I see all the problems with driving around here. Dimly lit streets at night so can't really see where you are going, traffic is a major problem - total standstill if the M25 or A10 have an accident!, why would I want to add to that? Parking is a problem with pavements littered with cars. The bigger the cars have got, the worse and more aggressive drivers are! And of course potholes! Add to that driving is very expensive and you pay whether you use the car or not. All in a country not really built for it. I wouldn't care about the buses too much if the pavements were decent to walk on and cars stuck to the road. Regardless of how we travel in my area, it's all pretty terrible. The A10 road causes major severance in the town too.

And in my lifetime, vehicles have doubled in number, we can't cope with another 10 or 20 million of them on our roads. 20 millions vehicles in 1995, 40 million in 2025!

Regardless of how people feel, we need to start planning transport and development together, at least in the towns and cities. And this needs to be consistent across regions.

Have you taken this up with your Local Transport Authority (Hertfordshire) and the two bus companies concerned? Maybe they can influence a change, or maybe it is not possible to change due to their relationship with routes elsewhere, without expense (and subsidy) of additional vehicles and staff?

This is why I want franchising, so I could just go to my county (whatever it is after reorganisation) and point out these issues and hopefully something would change. Right now, it's 2 routes run by 2 different companies, so no chance of accountability at all. The 242 timetable is changing soon with an extension to Hatfield, so hopefully it'll be a better spread out timetable. Franchising in Herts or Essex sadly seems unlikely unless Whitehall gives money to counties/ regions for this purpose.

I am well aware that Hertfordshire (unlike most of London) has large tracts of rural areas and even built up areas where demand for bus services is very limited (partly due to low density and partly due to relative affluence), and where residents will be quite reluctant to pay extra taxes to fund TfL style bus services and fares elsewhere in Hertfordshire. The places I mentioned are not for comparison, but are specific areas where there is likely to be above average (for Herts.) demand for bus service, and the residents there are likely to desire TfL style services and fares at the same time should Cheshunt get them.
Extending the use of Oyster cards means that passengers will pay lower fares. Experience has shown that lower fares do not generate sufficient additional riders to make up the shortfall in revenue, at least not in the short to medium term. So who is going to make up this revenue shortfall and where is this money coming from? Big barriers to overcome.

I learned a really random thing the other day. Hertfordshire is almost the same size as Greater London in terms of area, but with just under 1/7 of the population. The south I'd say is really built up, it's the north and east that is truly rural. Many towns are really close together. As for oyster cards, to me it's always seemed a bit inconsistent, trains accept them (all the way to Hertford East), but buses don't. I see people ask bus drivers if they accept oyster cards, almost every week. So the county divide really isn't obvious. And I actually agree there are big barriers, but things can't stay as they are either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==

With the added complication still currently that in many parts of the country the authority who authorises the planning & building of new houses (Boroughs) is not the one who funds and plans the bus services (Counties) and in less urban Boroughs it is very common for them to stick there housing on the borough boundary to reduce the pressure on their own services by using the proximity of the big town/city to minimse the extra provision they need to make (there is a housing estate near me which is in the county but cannot be accessed by any means that doesn't pass through the city it is against, there may be a single old footpath across a field across a fence but nothing accessible or all weather) but as a non-urban authority with much of the transport assumed to be car based and not public transport based as I suspect we all agree it should be these days.

This may be why so many cities seem unbounded in this country. Nottingham being one acute example, Leicester and Bristol too.

Also seeing what you said with East Hertfordshire Council, pretty much all of their new houses will be in the Gilston Villages, in reality an expansion of Harlow in Essex. Thankfully they and the county are working with Essex to put in the necessary infrastructure and Hertfordshire's bus rapid transit, HERT, if it ever gets built, will start in Harlow.

Saw this article the other day and really sums one of the hidden problems with development now, unadopted estates! - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/who-is-accountable-in-privatised-britain

I started this thread by asking why TFL doesn't serve my town and bashing Arriva being mediocre (also franchised vs deregulated buses) but the real question is why is everything planning, development and councils so isolated and separate? And no accountability with any of it. We really need joined up thinking between development, transport and services, regardless of where we live. It would only make more sense if this country really is struggling financially like is claimed by Labour.

I am hopeful unitary and strategic authorities being established everywhere will eventually make a big difference.

 

[Simon75]

You also have cases like Southend and Thurrock, which are unity authorises, surrounded by Essex county Council, who won't fund certain services as a different council areas. Stoke-on-Trent similar situation, a unity authority, surrounded by Staffordshire County Council . This has been highly by BSIP (bus services improvement plan) where Stoke-on-Trent will fund certain parts of routes within Stoke-on-Trent, but not in say Newcastle under lyme

 

[Dwarfer1979]

The plans I mentioned were in place years before this Labour government and their 1.5 million target. In fact the plans in my borough were decided on in 2020. I used to have family near Bishop Stortford and we used to regularly go to Cambridge, been watching both grow more and more for the last 15 years! In fact this government's policies haven't really started yet, as they haven't identified new towns or sites for any urban extensions. I imagine we will know by the end of the year. But to be clear, any plans locally are separate to this government's policies. I wouldn't be surprised if councils like mine are expected to find even more sites to build houses on to be honest. And TFL or no TFL, to me it is a massive failure if new areas aren't planned with public transport in mind. Even if we remain separate to them, I think it best to copy them as they have been good with serving new developments.

I would've agreed with you when I was growing up in the late 90s/ 00s but I think quite a major shift in how cars are seen has happened since then, at least in the cities. We at least have to build places that give people a real choice of transport. If most people can take a bus in the day, but can't to get home as it doesn't exist, unsurprisingly they will just drive. Even with all the issues with our trains, this is not a problem even in places limited to trains every couple hours.

Part of why I'm frustrated by the buses instead of just driving is because I see all the problems with driving around here. Dimly lit streets at night so can't really see where you are going, traffic is a major problem - total standstill if the M25 or A10 have an accident!, why would I want to add to that? Parking is a problem with pavements littered with cars. The bigger the cars have got, the worse and more aggressive drivers are! And of course potholes! Add to that driving is very expensive and you pay whether you use the car or not. All in a country not really built for it. I wouldn't care about the buses too much if the pavements were decent to walk on and cars stuck to the road. Regardless of how we travel in my area, it's all pretty terrible. The A10 road causes major severance in the town too.

And in my lifetime, vehicles have doubled in number, we can't cope with another 10 or 20 million of them on our roads. 20 millions vehicles in 1995, 40 million in 2025!

Regardless of how people feel, we need to start planning transport and development together, at least in the towns and cities. And this needs to be consistent across regions.

I would expect most, if not all, the people on this forum agree with you on this principle - that is why we are members of a forum like this. The problem is the general public are not quite as sold as industry professionals & enthusiasts influenced by the media who are actively pro car and anti bus (the mythical war on motorists that has apparently been waged for decades despite car usage being seemingly cheaper and easier than ever whilst costs and burdens are increased on public transport) meaning that politicians are unwilling to stick their neck out and actually do the things that are needed to make public transport more attractive and car use less so. London did take that step, helped by the very nature of London being somewhat anti-car (at least as you get closer to the centre), which worked but even now is still somewhat controversial (at least if you read the media) which just helps but other places off trying similar policies. Somehow we have to find a way to persuade the general public that relying less on their car is the way to go but without government assistance it is proving very difficult to get through that negative perception created by media channels run by people who have never used the bus and rarely use the train as they are rich enough to use their cars regardless of where they are going.

This is why I want franchising, so I could just go to my county (whatever it is after reorganisation) and point out these issues and hopefully something would change. Right now, it's 2 routes run by 2 different companies, so no chance of accountability at all. The 242 timetable is changing soon with an extension to Hatfield, so hopefully it'll be a better spread out timetable. Franchising in Herts or Essex sadly seems unlikely unless Whitehall gives money to counties/ regions for this purpose.

You could still go to Herts and see what they can do, they are pretty proactive and have good relationships with their operators. Unfortunately sometimes you just can't get the timetables of two routes co-ordinated due to what they do away from the section you want to co-ordinate. I think in your case one route is cross town whilst one terminates in the bus station which creates a complication around fitting together (and Waltham Cross bus station is run by TfL and when we served it they were particularly twitchy about the provincial operators laying over too long as they wanted all the layover bays for their own services) as does the different routes they take around Cheshunt and what they do at the other end and with a 20-min and hourly service there is a limit to how useful that co-ordination would be without undermining the service to those passengers away from the shared section by having an uneven frequency. There have been many times when trying to co-ordinate times on a shared section that I have simply had to give up after days of trying because the rest of the two routes are simply incompatible.

I learned a really random thing the other day. Hertfordshire is almost the same size as Greater London in terms of area, but with just under 1/7 of the population. The south I'd say is really built up, it's the north and east that is truly rural. Many towns are really close together. As for oyster cards, to me it's always seemed a bit inconsistent, trains accept them (all the way to Hertford East), but buses don't. I see people ask bus drivers if they accept oyster cards, almost every week. So the county divide really isn't obvious. And I actually agree there are big barriers, but things can't stay as they are either.

Oyster, even when new, was built on outdated technology which always meant that for provincial operators they simply can't read them. Whilst London was early with smartcards this meant they didn't wait for the agreed national standards to be reached before starting development so by the time it was launched it was incompatible with those standards (called ITSO) so as other operators moved to smartcard enabled machines some were entirely unable to read the cards due to that set up and even where machines could in theory be capable it came with a large programming cost that may well have made general acceptance of other products more difficult.

I started this thread by asking why TFL doesn't serve my town and bashing Arriva being mediocre (also franchised vs deregulated buses) but the real question is why is everything planning, development and councils so isolated and separate? And no accountability with any of it. We really need joined up thinking between development, transport and services, regardless of where we live. It would only make more sense if this country really is struggling financially like is claimed by Labour.

I am hopeful unitary and strategic authorities being established everywhere will eventually make a big difference.

Unfortunately I think the answer to this is that you live in the UK and our government structure has been for decades, if not centuries, weirdly parochial, disjointed and short-termist - this isn't a recent problem and seems engrained into the system and no one really wants to address it, they may be trying to remove some of the layers to simplify it on a very local level but it won't deal with that parochialism. I would worry about your suggestion of big strategic authorities, for most people travel is local and if you get too big you lose sight of the local needs, smaller projects that bring less publicity, and focus on the big strategic schemes that don't address the things you are complaining about. As you say London covers a similar area to any other county, it may serve more people but it covers a similar area which is probably as big as you want to go to allow local accountability and responsiveness. The big question is why is it that UK politics, both national and local regardless of party as well is seems, appear to be so incapable of basic competence when politicians get involved in decisions when compared to other places whilst at the same time having less regard for professional knowledge and competence (possibly related, if you don't listen to expert advice you will make poorer decisions generally).

 

[RT4038]

The plans I mentioned were in place years before this Labour government and their 1.5 million target. In fact the plans in my borough were decided on in 2020. I used to have family near Bishop Stortford and we used to regularly go to Cambridge, been watching both grow more and more for the last 15 years! In fact this government's policies haven't really started yet, as they haven't identified new towns or sites for any urban extensions. I imagine we will know by the end of the year. But to be clear, any plans locally are separate to this government's policies. I wouldn't be surprised if councils like mine are expected to find even more sites to build houses on to be honest. And TFL or no TFL, to me it is a massive failure if new areas aren't planned with public transport in mind. Even if we remain separate to them, I think it best to copy them as they have been good with serving new developments.

Previous Governments had their housing targets too, and pressurised Local Authorities to achieve them

Unfortunately I think the answer to this is that you live in the UK and our government structure has been for decades, if not centuries, weirdly parochial, disjointed and short-termist - this isn't a recent problem and seems engrained into the system and no one really wants to address it, they may be trying to remove some of the layers to simplify it on a very local level but it won't deal with that parochialism. I would worry about your suggestion of big strategic authorities, for most people travel is local and if you get too big you lose sight of the local needs, smaller projects that bring less publicity, and focus on the big strategic schemes that don't address the things you are complaining about. As you say London covers a similar area to any other county, it may serve more people but it covers a similar area which is probably as big as you want to go to allow local accountability and responsiveness. The big question is why is it that UK politics, both national and local regardless of party as well is seems, appear to be so incapable of basic competence when politicians get involved in decisions when compared to other places whilst at the same time having less regard for professional knowledge and competence (possibly related, if you don't listen to expert advice you will make poorer decisions generally).

But let's face it, we get the system that us, the citizens, cause. We don't get planned new housing areas because that means revealing the intended final size of the area from the start - and that means uproar from the existing residents who vociferously and determinedly try to bat the development to 'another' (unspecified or very expensive to build in area [mudflats etc]) area. Anywhere as long as it does not affect them. Politicians don't propose or support controversial schemes because they want to be re-elected by those very people who are affected by them. We have small parochial local government structures because the people living in the 'nice' bits don't want to be overruled by the masses in the not-so-nice bits. We have less regard for professional knowledge and competence because we don't want what is best for the country as a whole to overrule what is best for us at a given time and place. The experts don't need to get re-elected.
So we end up with lots of small or smallish disjointed new developments, often only connected to each other via main roads, difficult (i.e. too expensive) to serve by attractive public transport. Drip fed developments to appease the existing residents with the hope that the level of indignation and protest is not too high because 'its only an extra 100 houses or so' at a time. And no, these developments can't be small pieces of a larger unrevealed plan, because that plan would be soon leaked and a wall of 'No!' ensuing.

 

[duncombec]

This has been a fascinating thread with lots of interesting information - thank you to those who have provided some historical background, even if the OP isn't overly keen on listening/taking the advice contained therein!

Visiting is, of course, very different to living in the area, but the A10/Great Cambridge Road between Enfield and Waltham Cross-ish has a lot of personal interest for me, being a "road well travelled" between the M25 and my grandmother's house in Bush Hill Park - even before I could claim to be an enthusiast, there was something notable about the "non-Red" buses on the 310 compared to those on the 217 and 231.

I think, with the greatest of respect, @aron2smith has also fallen into the trap of thinking "I want to go there, so everybody else must want to go there too, and I don't understand why there isn't a bus that fits". We've all done it - I probably still do in my own area - but there really doesn't seem to be a lot of call for those travelling northwards out of Enfield. I really can't see what Brookfield has to offer than Enfield Town or Waltham Cross already do, for example - or even Southbury Road retail park. My grandmother had friends in Cheshunt, and as she didn't drive her journey was walk-train-collect by car, whilst her friends would just drive. They only ever made the journey to visit each other, and not for any other sort of leisure purposes - there simply wasn't a need to "let's go shopping in Enfield today", for example.
There was a service from the end of my Grandmother's road that would have taken her to Waltham Cross or Upshire for a period in the 1990s, the 517. Whilst she made occasional use of it to Enfield Town (rather than the 192, slightly further away, or the train, slightly further still), I don't recall her ever saying she went to Waltham Cross (e.g. https://www.timetablegraveyard.co.uk/Scanned_Counties/500to699/517-WalthamX_19940326.pdf; later https://www.timetablegraveyard.co.uk/Scanned_Counties/500to699/517-WalthamX_19960504.pdf - replaced by 377 in 2001).
I'd also mention the 310B, Saturday shopping service to Harlow, here (presumably for a market). https://www.timetablegraveyard.co.u...310A-WalthamX_310B-WalthamX_20011020_4165.pdf, later combined TT https://www.timetablegraveyard.co.u...thamX_310A-WalthamX_311-WalthamX_20000923.pdf.

My collection of Hertfordshire timetables is quite sparse - unlike Surrey, Herts seemed to favour using the same covers on their books, and I've never got around to listing those I have, as well as being twice the size!), but I have looked back over those from 1992 (Leaside), 1995 (Herts Eastern) and 2006 (Area 6). Fundamentally, the level of service provided is much the same - the only real difference in roads serviced in the Cheshunt/Waltham Cross areas comes in the C-series services in 2006 (which I recall were alluded to above, likely by either @Dwarfer1979 or @greenline712), including the station service as mentioned. Frequencies are also really rather similar, and the only other major change is the truncating of the 310 (but more than covered by the increase in 217/231). That would suggest that the level of service is considered "about right" - and in a highly conservative (30/35 seats on Broxbourne Borough Council) and likely high car-ownership area, there simply isn't the will to provide more services carrying "fresh air and the driver".

Other grandmother lived in Potters Bar - very definitely in a Haringey Council owned house, much like "overspill" housing built in Cheshunt (despite her house being in the corner, furthest away and least noticeable from the grass area, it was her house they decided to screw a bright yellow 'No Ball Games' sign to). After 40+ years, I think she had long lost any sense of being a "Londoner", and I would suspect much was true of her neighbours, and those who have lived in Cheshunt a long time. I doubt my parents would either, nearly 40 years after they moved out of the same area. The only bus route there was the local PB1, but I don't seem to recall much discussion about elsewhere. Probably to Barnet, as that was where the hospital was - certainly no discussion of Hatfield.

I'd encourage @aron2smith to check some other resources, too - the excellent londonbuses.co.uk site shows not only that the "red" services did not cease at deregulation, but also that they were highly changeable over a period of years - also, neither the 259 or 279 served Enfield town, just Waltham Cross and Edmonton! I've certainly picked up a fair amount more about services in that area as a result.

One final point I'd counter: I believe there was a suggestion earlier that the Waltham Abbey area was the area that had suffered most from cross-boundary links being lost. I'd also suggest the south-east London/Kent boundary, i.e. those areas that used to be Kent but now aren't. If anything, having looked at a variety of old maps currently hanging around in the sales stock of my local enthusiast Club from the late 60's/early 70s, I'd suggest that 'red' buses extended unusually far north here compared to the country counterparts.