Should TfL extend more bus routes beyond Greater London? (and wider discussion regarding redefining London)

[Jim James]

Moderator note: Split from

Go Ahead London non TFL routes.

Just curious what is the logic in Go Ahead London continuing to operate three non TFL school routes in Surrey instead of putting them in the Metrobus Crawley division? Is there any reason why they have not transferred them to their Metrobus Crawley division? Go Ahead London still run the 618...

www.railforums.co.uk

What would be useful would be for TfL to extend some service beyond London.

They could say extend the 317 to Cheshunt Brookfield Centre, which would restore a lion to Enfield. The 217 could also be extended restoring a long-lost link to Wood Green, Restoring a direct service to Waltham Abbey would also be sensible

 

[MotCO]

which would restore a lion to Enfield.

Why would Enfield want a lion?

 

[317 forever]

Why would Enfield want a lion?

Because it could do a roaring trade

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What would be useful would be for TfL to extend some service beyond London. They could say extend the 317 to Cheshunt Brookfield Centre which would restore a lion to Enfield. The 217 could also be extended restoring a long lost link to Wood Green, Restoring a direct service to Waltham Abbey would also be sensible

First of all, they already run the 317 out of London to Waltham Cross. They run a number of services across the border but usually to the first major traffic objective whether that's Kingston or Waltham Cross or even Slough. However, why would they then want the financially responsibility of running services even further out of the area to Woking or Chertsey or Maidenhead. They haven't got the money to pay for their existing services; despite a £1bn subsidy to the bus network, they have had to reduce frequencies on many, many services. In such financially challenging times, why would they pay for something that most benefit to people that don't live in their area?

This is always the issue where you have boundaries; there will always be someone who is just the other side and is disadvantaged.

 

[mangad]

First of all, they already run the 317 out of London to Waltham Cross. They run a number of services across the border but usually to the first major traffic objective whether that's Kingston or Waltham Cross or even Slough.

Much as some of its residents would like to believe otherwise, Kingston upon Thames is in Greater London!

 

[aron2smith]

First of all, they already run the 317 out of London to Waltham Cross. They run a number of services across the border but usually to the first major traffic objective whether that's Kingston or Waltham Cross or even Slough. However, why would they then want the financially responsibility of running services even further out of the area to Woking or Chertsey or Maidenhead. They haven't got the money to pay for their existing services; despite a £1bn subsidy to the bus network, they have had to reduce frequencies on many, many services. In such financially challenging times, why would they pay for something that most benefit to people that don't live in their area?

This is always the issue where you have boundaries; there will always be someone who is just the other side and is disadvantaged.

So align the boundaries with the actual built up area and be done with it! Greater London would likely grow by over a million people in one go if that happened. You must understand why in some places like Waltham Abbey and dozens of middle sized towns around London, people desire the London Transport routes to come back, it just makes sense from a social, traffic and environmental, even planning prospective. If TFL's network north of London was equal to that south of London, it would reach places like Ongar, Harlow, probably any town served by the 724 and villages below it like Shenley, maybe even as far north west as Hemel Hempstead. If north of London was full of villages like Westerham or the odd town like Redhill or Epsom, people like me wouldn't be complaining about the buses. But unfortunately we got nearly all of the new towns, south only got Crawley by comparison.

But every time I see an accident reported on the M25 or the A10, the whole area for miles around shuts down in gridlock, that is not right and needs some kind of cross boundary solution. The works in Waltham Cross for the past year have also caused so much chaos with the traffic, the division of this built up area is a disaster.

If Crews Hill with its 10 or 20 thousand houses on its own goes ahead, we will need an actual solution, an actual cross-M25 bus network, the status quo already doesn't cut it without adding even more people to the area.

It was really silly that we once a comprehensive Country network connecting city, suburb and fringe areas altogether nicely, just for some muppet to sell it off!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2025 ==

Much as some of its residents would like to believe otherwise, Kingston upon Thames is in Greater London!

Yeah I think he'll find the buses from Kingston go on to Staines, Esher, Epsom and even Dorking. All TFL. Technically a different county but such a sprawly area all the way to the M25, that on satellite images, most people wouldn't be able to distinguish London and Surrey at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2025 ==

What would be useful would be for TfL to extend some service beyond London. They could say extend the 317 to Cheshunt Brookfield Centre which would restore a lion to Enfield. The 217 could also be extended restoring a long lost link to Wood Green, Restoring a direct service to Waltham Abbey would also be sensible

I second this. I would also extend the 215 to Waltham Cross via the Abbey, so Chingford and Walthamstow are easier to get to. Also my family surname is Lyons, so I really like the restoring a lion to Enfield bit, as that was where my wider family lived for most of their lives. We've all moved now though.

But in all seriousness, Broxbourne has plans for thousands of homes at Brookfield and around Cheshunt Station, Waltham Abbey has plans for housing in Parklands, Enfield has the ear of the government on making Crews Hill a ''new town''. I hate the word, but this area needs a bespoke solution to the bus network and all 3 areas to fund the network. I would rather all 3 areas be in 1 borough but in the meantime we need the authorities to work together, public transport is a pressing issue around these parts.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So align the boundaries with the actual built up area and be done with it! Greater London would likely grow by over a million people in one go if that happened. You must understand why in some places like Waltham Abbey and dozens of middle sized towns around London, people desire the London Transport routes to come back, it just makes sense from a social, traffic and environmental, even planning prospective. If TFL's network north of London was equal to that south of London, it would reach places like Ongar, Harlow, probably any town served by the 724 and villages below it like Shenley, maybe even as far north west as Hemel Hempstead. If north of London was full of villages like Westerham or the odd town like Redhill or Epsom, people like me wouldn't be complaining about the buses. But unfortunately we got nearly all of the new towns, south only got Crawley by comparison.

But every time I see an accident reported on the M25 or the A10, the whole area for miles around shuts down in gridlock, that is not right and needs some kind of cross boundary solution. The works in Waltham Cross for the past year have also caused so much chaos with the traffic, the division of this built up area is a disaster.

If Crews Hill with its 10 or 20 thousand houses on its own goes ahead, we will need an actual solution, an actual cross-M25 bus network, the status quo already doesn't cut it without adding even more people to the area.

It was really silly that we once a comprehensive Country network connecting city, suburb and fringe areas altogether nicely, just for some muppet to sell it off!

<Sigh> This has been explained to you before. Not only was Waltham Cross chosen because it is a naturally nodal point but there is always some point where you have a boundary. If you were to expand the TfL area to encompass the virtually continuous urban sprawl that is SE England... well, you'd have TfL being responsible not only for buses in Cheshunt but Broxbourne and Hoddesdon. However, by the same rule, they would also be responsible for buses in Slough and Maidenhead, Gravesend, Epsom, Walton on Thames and Woking... And of course, I assume that you'd want exactly the same standard of service as TfL buses with similar headways, Hopper tickets etc. There are countless cross-border routes in the south of London - however, they run to the next most obvious nodal point so don't stop dead at the border like just south of Coulsdon; they run to Redhill but not to Reigate. Same with the 81... it runs past Colnbrook to Slough but doesn't head off to Taplow. Only the 465 to Dorking really springs to mind as a TfL route that really heads past a natural break point (and its some historic operational reason that eludes my memory, I think).

The fact is that TfL is already creaking under the financial strain so what you want might cost....a few hundreds of millions more. Of course, we can pay for it by taxing people more (but only the rich, obviously) and, of course, cutting out all those fat cat bus barons. Back in the real world, there's a real discussion about the future of the £3 fare cap; I mean, you could remove the fuel duty discount but that would be electoral suicide. I don't see where the money is coming from for what we have, let alone what we might like. As for the selling off of this comprehensive Country network... you do know how much it was haemorrhaging in the golden days of the 1960s and 1970s and how much it was pared back just to staunch the losses? I'm sure @greenline712 can advise!

 

[aron2smith]

<Sigh> This has been explained to you before. Not only was Waltham Cross chosen because it is a naturally nodal point but there is always some point where you have a boundary. If you were to expand the TfL area to encompass the virtually continuous urban sprawl that is SE England... well, you'd have TfL being responsible not only for buses in Cheshunt but Broxbourne and Hoddesdon. However, by the same rule, they would also be responsible for buses in Slough and Maidenhead, Gravesend, Epsom, Walton on Thames and Woking... And of course, I assume that you'd want exactly the same standard of service as TfL buses with similar headways, Hopper tickets etc. There are countless cross-border routes in the south of London - however, they run to the next most obvious nodal point so don't stop dead at the border like just south of Coulsdon; they run to Redhill but not to Reigate. Same with the 81... it runs past Colnbrook to Slough but doesn't head off to Taplow. Only the 465 to Dorking really springs to mind as a TfL route that really heads past a natural break point (and its some historic operational reason that eludes my memory, I think).

The fact is that TfL is already creaking under the financial strain so what you want might cost....a few hundreds of millions more. Of course, we can pay for it by taxing people more (but only the rich, obviously) and, of course, cutting out all those fat cat bus barons. Back in the real world, there's a real discussion about the future of the £3 fare cap; I mean, you could remove the fuel duty discount but that would be electoral suicide. I don't see where the money is coming from for what we have, let alone what we might like. As for the selling off of this comprehensive Country network... you do know how much it was haemorrhaging in the golden days of the 1960s and 1970s and how much it was pared back just to staunch the losses? I'm sure @greenline712 can advise!

You can sigh all you want but we need the government to set up truly regional transport authorities, 1 of which in England would be an expanded TFL, in fact you just described the ideal situation for the London+ one. Attached is more or less how I see the absurdity of the status quo. London is a global city, it should be obvious to those in charge that it has a vast hinterland that needs a similar and consistent level of services.

Point is the issue won't just go away without far reaching reform and proper funding. The government's priorities like the new towns (Crews Hill is just 3 to 4 miles from me and would have a large impact on top of the local plans) and local government reorganisation only brings this issue of transport to the fore and this time it can't be ignored. We have serious housing and infrastructure issues and how services like transport are organised is critical to sorting out housing.

Fuel duty freeze has to end one way or another, it has been an enormous waste of money, many estimates over £100 billion+ since 2010 with very little to show for it. Makes me angry thinking what they could've gone on instead, especially during all those years of austerity. I can't help but wonder what Treasury will do when most people have EVs instead?

£3 bus fares are set to last until March 2027 but by then, franchising will happen in a fair few areas meaning this policy is redundant nationally, even places like Herts where it's unclear what will happen next for buses, had major ticket reform via Intalink Connect and its Savercards, which to me seems like much better value for money than the national fare cap. Just needs schemes like it to have more logical boundaries is all.

All I'm really arguing for is for joined up public transport and integration of services between neighbouring areas, that's it. For that, we need authorities to think regional.

 

[Jim James]

Because it could do a roaring trade

The bus somehow diverted itself to Broxbourne zoo

 

[Dwarfer1979]

You can sigh all you want but we need the government to set up truly regional transport authorities, 1 of which in England would be an expanded TFL, in fact you just described the ideal situation for the London+ one. Attached is more or less how I see the absurdity of the status quo. London is a global city, it should be obvious to those in charge that it has a vast hinterland that needs a similar and consistent level of services.

But do the people of the Lea Valley, except you, want to be part of London? I know in Surrey the suggestion of expanding London is very unpopular and I suspect the same view is held in most of the Home Counties. We can see in the current attempt to change the structure of Local Authorities that people are very attached the the identity of where they live, particularly if what you are looking to move them to is a big city. I live in Leicester and the debate about transferring a number of suburbs that are in the county but contiguous with the city (you literally can't spot the join in most cases and in some places the boundary runs through the middle of a housing estate) to an expanded city as part of the reorganisation of the county has been incredibly contentious but the basic argument is that the people who live in the county don't want to live in the city. Just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean it does to the majority and doesn't mean it is either politically desirable or possible.

 

[Jim James]

But do the people of the Lea Valley, except you, want to be part of London? I know in Surrey the suggestion of expanding London is very unpopular and I suspect the same view is held in most of the Home Counties. We can see in the current attempt to change the structure of Local Authorities that people are very attached the the identity of where they live, particularly if what you are looking to move them to is a big city. I live in Leicester and the debate about transferring a number of suburbs that are in the county but contiguous with the city (you literally can't spot the join in most cases and in some places the boundary runs through the middle of a housing estate) to an expanded city as part of the reorganisation of the county has been incredibly contentious but the basic argument is that the people who live in the county don't want to live in the city. Just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean it does to the majority and doesn't mean it is either politically desirable or possible.

The problem is no the authority they are in but is one of a lack of cross border services

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You can sigh all you want but we need the government to set up truly regional transport authorities, 1 of which in England would be an expanded TFL, in fact you just described the ideal situation for the London+ one. Attached is more or less how I see the absurdity of the status quo. London is a global city, it should be obvious to those in charge that it has a vast hinterland that needs a similar and consistent level of services.

Point is the issue won't just go away without far reaching reform and proper funding. The government's priorities like the new towns (Crews Hill is just 3 to 4 miles from me and would have a large impact on top of the local plans) and local government reorganisation only brings this issue of transport to the fore and this time it can't be ignored. We have serious housing and infrastructure issues and how services like transport are organised is critical to sorting out housing.

Fuel duty freeze has to end one way or another, it has been an enormous waste of money, many estimates over £100 billion+ since 2010 with very little to show for it. Makes me angry thinking what they could've gone on instead, especially during all those years of austerity. I can't help but wonder what Treasury will do when most people have EVs instead?

£3 bus fares are set to last until March 2027 but by then, franchising will happen in a fair few areas meaning this policy is redundant nationally, even places like Herts where it's unclear what will happen next for buses, had major ticket reform via Intalink Connect and its Savercards, which to me seems like much better value for money than the national fare cap. Just needs schemes like it to have more logical boundaries is all.

All I'm really arguing for is for joined up public transport and integration of services between neighbouring areas, that's it. For that, we need authorities to think regional.

TfL IS a regional transport organisation. It's just that you happen to live just the other side of the boundary.

However, if you then decided to expand that to TfSE and encompass not just London but Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Herts and Bucks...but can you imagine how much it would cost to have TfL style fares and service provision over an area such as that? And it would still have some boundary somewhere where "Aron of Luton" bemoans the fact that they are over the border from Harpenden and look at their service provision? Even if they expanded the area to encompass what I mapped out, with the consequent levels of fares support required and bus service provision (and I'm sure that is what you would expect or why else would you do it), the cost would be much higher than would be supported by HM Treasury. That and, as @Dwarfer1979 mentions, there are some determined people who really would not want the boundaries to be changed especially in SW London/Surrey, and this is not a new situation in that area.

FWIW, I am against the fuel duty freeze and would like to see the chancellor look to wean the country off it incrementally. It was done as a political expediency by the last government. However, getting rid of it will be mightily difficult and politically toxic - surely, you must understand the political optics of that, given what we saw with winter fuel payments to wealthy pensioners. It would also push inflation higher so it's a really difficult area to get out of, especially with the triple lock too. Moreover, the fact is that money saved from that is simply going to be used in other areas - the health service, servicing the national debt, social care, social security and pensions. So yeah, we'd love "proper funding" but there's many more, emotionally charged, demands on that money; dare I say it but the travails of HS2 has probably adversely impacted the appetite for major public transport investment.

I know we're public transport advocates on this forum but idealism must be tempered by realism.

 

[greenline712]

I know we're public transport advocates on this forum but idealism must be tempered by realism.

Hear Hear!! As has been pointed out many, many times before . . . all this forum will do is allow hot air to be released. If a new or revised Local Transport Authority is desired, then agitate with your politicians. I'll say no more . . . frankly I'm bored with this topic.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As far as the historical angle goes, and as alluded to by @TheGrandWazoo, cross border retrenchment really started in the 1980s . . . in the 1960s not much was done by LT as they were focussed on building the Victoria Line, as the ageing of the Country Bus fleet showed.

In the 1970s LCBS asked for subsidy (from the Shire Counties) to keep loss-making bus routes running; and until they received it then many routes were withdrawn, but generally further out from the London / LCBS boundary.

In the 1980s, with deregulation, the real process of enforcing the London Boundary started, and this continued throughout the 1990s, with privatisation in London making the operators look long and hard at the financial status of their non-London work. It's worth pointing out that Surrey part-subsidises Route 465 (but for how much longer?). Hertfordshire DID part-subsidise 107; 142; 258 and 292, but stopped doing so in the late 2000s, as the bill from TfL was around 40% of the total bill for supported bus routes in the entire County!! Herts were prepared to continue some subsidies, but only if TfL would reduce frequencies to something more appropriate; TfL refused, so Herts walked away.
{The famous case was Route 292, which runs at 2 BPH throughout every evening, but in Borehamwood many buses run either empty or with penny numbers of passengers. Route 107 isn't much better.}.

Moving into the 2000s, the big problem was that London converted to a flat-fare system, and supplied the operators with ETMs that were very basic, and were unable to cope properly with graduated fares and returns. Any route in London (apart from limited-stop Green Line-like services) had to comply, or lose any subsidy from London. This made routes like 84 and 310, with very long outside-London sections, impossible to maintain . . . Arriva gave up with 310; Metroline persevered with 84, but with exclusion from Oyster and stupidly cheap single-only fares, eventually gave up (as we all know).

Ultimately, someone always has to pay. If the passengers won't, then the taxpayer will, and if the taxpayer doesn't regularly use the bus, they'll scream blue murder. Until that question is answered, then the crayonistas can draw as many pretty maps as they like, but sod-all will happen. Life sucks . . . and, as a 68-year old . . . hands off my triple lock!!!

 

[Jim James]

Hear Hear!! As has been pointed out many, many times before . . . all this forum will do is allow hot air to be released. If a new or revised Local Transport Authority is desired, then agitate with your politicians. I'll say no more . . . frankly I'm bored with this topic.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As far as the historical angle goes, and as alluded to by @TheGrandWazoo, cross border retrenchment really started in the 1980s . . . in the 1960s not much was done by LT as they were focussed on building the Victoria Line, as the ageing of the Country Bus fleet showed.

In the 1970s LCBS asked for subsidy (from the Shire Counties) to keep loss-making bus routes running; and until they received it then many routes were withdrawn, but generally further out from the London / LCBS boundary.

In the 1980s, with deregulation, the real process of enforcing the London Boundary started, and this continued throughout the 1990s, with privatisation in London making the operators look long and hard at the financial status of their non-London work. It's worth pointing out that Surrey part-subsidises Route 465 (but for how much longer?). Hertfordshire DID part-subsidise 107; 142; 258 and 292, but stopped doing so in the late 2000s, as the bill from TfL was around 40% of the total bill for supported bus routes in the entire County!! Herts were prepared to continue some subsidies, but only if TfL would reduce frequencies to something more appropriate; TfL refused, so Herts walked away.
{The famous case was Route 292, which runs at 2 BPH throughout every evening, but in Borehamwood many buses run either empty or with penny numbers of passengers. Route 107 isn't much better.}.

Moving into the 2000s, the big problem was that London converted to a flat-fare system, and supplied the operators with ETMs that were very basic, and were unable to cope properly with graduated fares and returns. Any route in London (apart from limited-stop Green Line-like services) had to comply, or lose any subsidy from London. This made routes like 84 and 310, with very long outside-London sections, impossible to maintain . . . Arriva gave up with 310; Metroline persevered with 84, but with exclusion from Oyster and stupidly cheap single-only fares, eventually gave up (as we all know).

Ultimately, someone always has to pay. If the passengers won't, then the taxpayer will, and if the taxpayer doesn't regularly use the bus, they'll scream blue murder. Until that question is answered, then the crayonistas can draw as many pretty maps as they like, but sod-all will happen. Life sucks . . . and, as a 68-year old . . . hands off my triple lock!!!

What could be useful would be a bus route from Waltham Abbey to the Brookfield Centre

 

[alex397]

I can see both sides of this argument. But there does need to be better collaboration between authorities so that silly boundaries don’t exist.
At least Waltham Cross has a decent bus station where people can easily interchange between TfL and non-TfL services.
But inequalities do exist where some settlements would have a hugely better service if they just happened to be ‘over the border’. And you have odd situations where Passingford Bridge and Stapleford Abbots gets a TfL service, yet Waltham Abbey has no public transport to the Chingford area. Also, between those two places Sewardstone has no service at all - villagers have to walk down to the Lea Valley camp site which incredibly has a daily TfL service from early to very late even though it isn’t even in the TfL boundary.

 

[aron2smith]

But do the people of the Lea Valley, except you, want to be part of London? I know in Surrey the suggestion of expanding London is very unpopular and I suspect the same view is held in most of the Home Counties. We can see in the current attempt to change the structure of Local Authorities that people are very attached the the identity of where they live, particularly if what you are looking to move them to is a big city. I live in Leicester and the debate about transferring a number of suburbs that are in the county but contiguous with the city (you literally can't spot the join in most cases and in some places the boundary runs through the middle of a housing estate) to an expanded city as part of the reorganisation of the county has been incredibly contentious but the basic argument is that the people who live in the county don't want to live in the city. Just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean it does to the majority and doesn't mean it is either politically desirable or possible.

Point is we shouldn't have to change the boundaries, just to get public transport that goes directly to ALL neighbouring areas, it needs to overlap. Who even created such hard boundaries anyway? It's ridiculous and regardless of 'identity', people don't live life based on some artificial county drawn 100s of years, especially when commuting is involved.

Also looked at Leicester's boundaries, they are even sillier than Bristol's, only Nottingham manages to be worse! I don't understand why people would be angry at the city, it's literally their county's fault for putting all their housing target right on the boundaries of the city! And sorry but the majority in Surrey are wrong if they think they are separate, it's almost continuous from Guildford all the way to London.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

TfL IS a regional transport organisation. It's just that you happen to live just the other side of the boundary.

However, if you then decided to expand that to TfSE and encompass not just London but Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Essex, Herts and Bucks...but can you imagine how much it would cost to have TfL style fares and service provision over an area such as that? And it would still have some boundary somewhere where "Aron of Luton" bemoans the fact that they are over the border from Harpenden and look at their service provision? Even if they expanded the area to encompass what I mapped out, with the consequent levels of fares support required and bus service provision (and I'm sure that is what you would expect or why else would you do it), the cost would be much higher than would be supported by HM Treasury. That and, as @Dwarfer1979 mentions, there are some determined people who really would not want the boundaries to be changed especially in SW London/Surrey, and this is not a new situation in that area.

Don't you think TFL's area would make more sense if it was fully surrounded by small villages of at most a few thousand? North of London, it's instead surrounded by a dozen or so towns of 50000 to 100000, that is why it's a problem. Hertfordshire in particular isn't helped by a total lack of a main town, instead it's dominated by medium to large towns all a couple miles at most away from the last. Quite a way to go before it's predominantly rural, like you quite quickly see in Essex. As said before, we shouldn't have to change county boundaries just to get a joined up bus network. And I bet with Surrey residents, they would be angry if TFL ever decided to cut their routes. To me, London and the surrounding commuter belt is a special case, arbitrarily dividing it up is a disaster and part of why London is amongst the most congested cities in the world, it needs some give and take and some flexibility. I'm hoping one or two of the Home Counties actually franchises the buses and then we might finally see some alignment on policies. Crucial if Crews Hill is to be a success.

FWIW, I am against the fuel duty freeze and would like to see the chancellor look to wean the country off it incrementally. It was done as a political expediency by the last government. However, getting rid of it will be mightily difficult and politically toxic - surely, you must understand the political optics of that, given what we saw with winter fuel payments to wealthy pensioners. It would also push inflation higher so it's a really difficult area to get out of, especially with the triple lock too. Moreover, the fact is that money saved from that is simply going to be used in other areas - the health service, servicing the national debt, social care, social security and pensions. So yeah, we'd love "proper funding" but there's many more, emotionally charged, demands on that money; dare I say it but the travails of HS2 has probably adversely impacted the appetite for major public transport investment.

I know we're public transport advocates on this forum but idealism must be tempered by realism.

Yeah I agree but I would like Labour to explain honestly why it's acceptable for rail and bus fares to get more expensive every year, while fuel duty stays the same? It's at odds with any attempt to encourage more people to not use the car. I think if it finally ends, 2025 is the best time to do it, already unpopular but with enough time to turn things around before the next general election. I would frame it as 5p for fixing the roads!

To me this forum seems really conservative, when we should all want a much more accessible, easy to use, affordable and expanded, joined up network of buses, trams and trains. Counties should not in any way be a barrier to that.

 

[317 forever]

Point is we shouldn't have to change the boundaries, just to get public transport that goes directly to ALL neighbouring areas, it needs to overlap. Who even created such hard boundaries anyway? It's ridiculous and regardless of 'identity', people don't live life based on some artificial county drawn 100s of years, especially when commuting is involved.

Also looked at Leicester's boundaries, they are even sillier than Bristol's, only Nottingham manages to be worse! I don't understand why people would be angry at the city, it's literally their county's fault for putting all their housing target right on the boundaries of the city! And sorry but the majority in Surrey are wrong if they think they are separate, it's almost continuous from Guildford all the way to London.

This may be for another thread, but the Leicester Flexi area where day multi-operator tickets are valid includes sone areas just outside the City of Leicester, such as Fosse Park, Wigston and Oadby.

 

[aron2smith]

I can see both sides of this argument. But there does need to be better collaboration between authorities so that silly boundaries don’t exist.
At least Waltham Cross has a decent bus station where people can easily interchange between TfL and non-TfL services.
But inequalities do exist where some settlements would have a hugely better service if they just happened to be ‘over the border’. And you have odd situations where Passingford Bridge and Stapleford Abbots gets a TfL service, yet Waltham Abbey has no public transport to the Chingford area. Also, between those two places Sewardstone has no service at all - villagers have to walk down to the Lea Valley camp site which incredibly has a daily TfL service from early to very late even though it isn’t even in the TfL boundary.

Spot on and whilst authorities don't work together, it's the locals who suffer. I don't live in the Abbey but a bus to Chingford would really benefit me by making it much easier to get to Epping Forest. What exists now, the 66 has one of the weirdest frequencies of any bus I've ever used!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

The bus somehow diverted itself to Broxbourne zoo

If only a bus went there now, could be one for the HL1 route.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

The problem is no the authority they are in but is one of a lack of cross border services

Spot on. The loss of them was a big mistake.

 

[johncrossley]

Transport does need to take into account the fact that people will travel regardless of where politicians draw lines on a map. By and large, boundaries don't affect car travel. Maybe there are slight differences between transport policies between councils that might affect the decision to drive or not, for example parking. ULEZ is of course relevant for some motorists, but only a small minority.

Just because things have always been bad doesn't mean improvements can't happen. Ireland historically has a pretty woeful record on transport as there is of course a similar culture to the UK. But they have just implemented a zonal fare system covering an area roughly 50 km around Dublin, crossing several city and county boundaries, and encompassing all modes of public transport. It probably helps that they now have a TfL style body covering the whole of the Republic of Ireland. Before Transport for Ireland, they had Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, Irish Rail and Luas all doing their own thing and issuing their own tickets. It's not perfect, but a lot of progress has been made. It is probably fair to say that the Dublin city boundary isn't such a hard border compared to the TfL boundary. Obviously you have a lower level of service where the population density is lower, but the actual artificial lines drawn on the map aren't so important.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Don't you think TFL's area would make more sense if it was fully surrounded by small villages of at most a few thousand? North of London, it's instead surrounded by a dozen or so towns of 50000 to 100000, that is why it's a problem. Hertfordshire in particular isn't helped by a total lack of a main town, instead it's dominated by medium to large towns all a couple miles at most away from the last. Quite a way to go before it's predominantly rural, like you quite quickly see in Essex. As said before, we shouldn't have to change county boundaries just to get a joined up bus network. And I bet with Surrey residents, they would be angry if TFL ever decided to cut their routes. To me, London and the surrounding commuter belt is a special case, arbitrarily dividing it up is a disaster and part of why London is amongst the most congested cities in the world, it needs some give and take and some flexibility. I'm hoping one or two of the Home Counties actually franchises the buses and then we might finally see some alignment on policies. Crucial if Crews Hill is to be a success.

The point is that you're going to have anomalies. As I said before, your point isn't merely about control and planning. You want the same service provision as TfL, the same fare levels.... am I right? Franchising won't deliver that... It needs funding (see below). However, the extension of TfL's remit to include half the home counties... just isn't going to happen. Let's come back to this in five years' time and see how much change there has been.

The fact is that most instances around the UK do see supported services go over the county boundary to the usual, natural terminus point. It would be stupid to see buses stopping at Saltash and not cross the Tamar, or from Wales into Chester. There are some border areas that have turned into bus netherworlds, not least between West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire - yes, two PTEs that you might think would have a certain remit. Services from Pontefract and Wakefield to Doncaster have disappeared. In the case of the former, we have a service from Pontefract to Kirk Smeaton, and one from Norton to Doncaster - can you guess where the boundary might be? So yes, I'd love to see it happen and the funds made available to improve cross border services, and with the White Rose Agreement, we might see it. Whether that then extends to routes into Lincolnshire or Derbyshire...

Yeah I agree but I would like Labour to explain honestly why it's acceptable for rail and bus fares to get more expensive every year, while fuel duty stays the same? It's at odds with any attempt to encourage more people to not use the car. I think if it finally ends, 2025 is the best time to do it, already unpopular but with enough time to turn things around before the next general election. I would frame it as 5p for fixing the roads!

To me this forum seems really conservative, when we should all want a much more accessible, easy to use, affordable and expanded, joined up network of buses, trams and trains. Counties should not in any way be a barrier to that.

Conservative? Perhaps some of us are older and have been through this before?

The fact is that we can be as revolutionary as we want. The fact is that transport policy is political, as are the funding priorities of the chancellor, and you have to understand the way in which politics work. For instance, I'd imagine that you think that ULEZ is a good thing, dissuading people from using cars etc. The 2023 Uxbridge by-election shows that you have to tread carefully and be aware of the optics; no point in securing the moral high ground if you don't have any power from which to do anything. If anything, the experience of Manchester is quite indicative - the referendum on a congestion zone? A low emission zone? All got the boot when they saw where the politics was.

I really cannot see where the funds will come from. Yeah, you might be able to screw down some firms with a slight margin reduction, and hope that you're going create some organic growth. Certainly as we're seeing in London, they're struggling to balance the books now so I don't see how you're going to get anywhere near the funding to achieve expanding TfL world to the home counties.

Thing is... people on this forum are going to be overwhelmingly pro-public transport. That isn't a representative picture of the electorate, and if you think that we're not radical enough, then you're really out of touch with what the general voter will go for. Ask the average voter what is important to them... public transport won't be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd thing on their mind. So yeah, take the fuel duty down if you dare but if you think that folks will buy that it'll be spent on the roads, I suspect you'll get a rude awakening. A five year incremental weaning off to pay for social care might be palatable but transport.... nope.

Just because things have always been bad doesn't mean improvements can't happen. Ireland historically has a pretty woeful record on transport as there is of course a similar culture to the UK. But they have just implemented a zonal fare system covering an area roughly 50 km around Dublin, crossing several city and county boundaries, and encompassing all modes of public transport. It probably helps that they now have a TfL style body covering the whole of the Republic of Ireland. Before Transport for Ireland, they had Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, Irish Rail and Luas all doing their own thing and issuing their own tickets. It's not perfect, but a lot of progress has been made. It is probably fair to say that the Dublin city boundary isn't such a hard border compared to the TfL boundary. Obviously you have a lower level of service where the population density is lower, but the actual artificial lines drawn on the map aren't so important.

You're missing the point.

This isn't about fares per se, as zonal fares can be instituted fairly readily. The fares argument is that if you want to have the same basic structure of fares at the same levels, then the money would need to be found to sustain that. I'd argue that the money isn't there. It's not there in London, let alone in an expanded TfL world.

Instead, the main gripe of @aron2smith appears to surround service provision; the lack of direct links and the disparity in service levels. In Ireland, that still persists. Places like Rathcoole and Leixlip (to a lesser extent) that are in Co Dublin get some patchy coverage but head across into Co Kildare, you have a few LocalLink services and that is it.

 

[TrenHotel]

It's striking how popular and busy the TfL routes between Dartford, Darent Valley and Bluewater (96 and 428) are when compared with Kent services (including Fastrack) - the convenience and relative cheapness of London ticketing does seem to win out over what's on offer over the border. It's a good thing that Kent and TfL were able to agree on these cross-border services (particularly the 96 using part of the Fastrack dedicated route).

 

[johncrossley]

It's striking how popular and busy the TfL routes between Dartford, Darent Valley and Bluewater (96 and 428) are when compared with Kent services (including Fastrack) - the convenience and relative cheapness of London ticketing does seem to win out over what's on offer over the border. It's a good thing that Kent and TfL were able to agree on these cross-border services (particularly the 96 using part of the Fastrack dedicated route).

The is a good example on how that artificial line dividing Dartford from the rest of London's built up area causes problems.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Various other cities appear to manage it fairly well, where city buses seem to cross borders into neighbouring authorities without much issue. Behind the scenes a lot probably goes on of course. An example being Berlin where numerous BVG routes often cross the border from Berlin into the state of Brandenburg.

This is a good example because not only is Brandenburg a separate local authority, it is a separate state! Despite that, there is a transport authority covering both states:

Berlin is an outlier due to its complex post-war history and governance.

I have to say the argument about the boundaries around London is getting rather tedious. We all get that @aron2smith wants more buses in and around Cheshunt. But the simple truth is that if these buses were in huge demand then they would be operating commercially; cross-boundary services can be operated commercially from outside London, and there are countless examples where that happens, especially at Heathrow. As they're not running commercially then that means there isn't the demand, so we are then reliant on local authority funding.

TfL fund their bus network to the tune of a billion quid a year. Essex and Hertfordshire councils do not. Enhancements to the buses are within the gift of those councils but, clearly, the people resident in those areas do not care enough to push their councils to raise taxes to spend the money.

There will always be a boundary and someone will always be on the wrong side of it. Move TfL's boundary to include Cheshunt but what about Broxbourne and Hoddesdon? Include them and what about Hertford? Harlow? Include them and what about Sawbridgeworth and Bishop's Stortford? Include them and what about Saffron Walden? Suddenly you're within a few miles of Cambridge and now you have the boundary between the town and its biggest traffic draw.

 

[johncrossley]

But the simple truth is that if these buses were in huge demand then they would be operating commercially; cross-boundary services can be operated commercially from outside London, and there are countless examples where that happens, especially at Heathrow. As they're not running commercially then that means there isn't the demand, so we are then reliant on local authority funding.

We all know that bus usage drops dramatically when crossing the TfL boundary, even if you are basically still in the London urban area. Commercial operations are simply not as attractive to potential passengers.

 

[NCT]

We all know that bus usage drops dramatically when crossing the TfL boundary, even if you are basically still in the London urban area. Commercial operations are simply not as attractive to potential passengers.

Councils simply do not have the financial muscle to subsidise more buses.

 

[Tetchytyke]

We all know that bus usage drops dramatically when crossing the TfL boundary, even if you are basically still in the London urban area.

The further out of the centre of London you are, the easier it is to use a car. That's the simple truth. I drove everywhere locally when I lived in Hemel Hempstead. Bus usage in zone 6 isn't dramatically different to bus usage over the border.

Clearly TfL's heavily subsidised fares would be more attractive than commercial fares, but if people wanted to use the bus they would be using the bus.

 

[johncrossley]

Bus usage in zone 6 isn't dramatically different to bus usage over the border.

I beg to differ. So many routes in zone 6 run every 12 minutes or better and still experience overcrowding at times.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

I have to say the argument about the boundaries around London is getting rather tedious. We all get that @aron2smith wants more buses in and around Cheshunt. But the simple truth is that if these buses were in huge demand then they would be operating commercially; cross-boundary services can be operated commercially from outside London, and there are countless examples where that happens, especially at Heathrow. As they're not running commercially then that means there isn't the demand, so we are then reliant on local authority funding.

London is a little complicated, you can run a commercial cross boundary service but the heavily subsidised service within London skews the economics the further into London you get. Heathrow isn't an issue as it is right on the boundary so there is little conflict, Kingston does well a the distance within London in most directions is low (the 465 was the anomaly as there is a long tongue of London sticking south out of Chessington which caused an issue and is why the TfL supported service seems to get so far south) but places like Croydon lost a lot of the commercial cross boundary services as they lost so much income for local travel within London when they cut the fares on the subsidised TfL services but that funding isn't available to commercial operators for them to reduce fares (unless they were prepared to provide London spec vehicles, dual-door & standee, and London spec equipment).

TfL run quite deep into Surrey and there the council pays TfL to operate cross-boundary services. This is better than what they had before when the cross-boundary services were operated by Arriva.

But at a price Surrey are not entirely happy in having to pay for what they actually want due to the excessive provision and low fares that London insists on but they can't provide their own provision viably due to the existence of the TfL service charging half the price on the busiest section.

Most people describe London as within the M25 motorway, regardless of Hertfordshire, Surrey etc

Not if you live in the area between the M25 & the London boundary, and in Surrey the M25 is nowhere near the London boundary for much of its distance through the county. Often being 10 or more miles of open country south of the London boundary.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I beg to differ. So many routes in zone 6 run every 12 minutes or better and still experience overcrowding at times.

Some do, but there is a reason why so many of the routes in Barnet, for instance, are fairly small single deckers. It’s similarly in places like Bromley too.

TfL have published stats that show how car ownership and car usage has reduced, and for that we should be pleased. It would be interesting to see how that varies across the area e.g. between Southwark and Orpington.

Definitely. I strongly suspect that car ownership and car usage remains high in the outer suburbs where most houses have a driveway. In the inner suburbs less so, the hassle of finding somewhere to park the damn thing every night would outweigh the utility of owning a car.

London is a little complicated, you can run a commercial cross boundary service but the heavily subsidised service within London skews the economics the further into London you get.

Absolutely, but if there was a significant latent demand from over the border then the income from fares within London wouldn’t matter so much.

So this is an excuse not to change anything then? Regardless, London has a massive pull on the south east, we need the strategic governance that reflects that, services with it.

It’s a fact. There will always be a boundary and there will always be somebody on the wrong side of it. You appear obsessed with the idea that TfL should take over services in Cheshunt- your comments on other blogs show that- without any appreciation of what that would like like in practical terms.

Where would you draw the border? Presumably 300 yards up the street from your house?

Places like Cheshunt, the artificial divide in the area makes buses very unattractive to use for the more popular local journeys, like to Enfield. Just 1 route doesn't terminate in Waltham Cross and it goes to Waltham Abbey! The A10 traffic shows plenty of people go between the two.

If there was a significant latent demand for people to take the bus from Cheshunt to Enfield then those routes would still exist. The fact is that there isn’t and so they don’t.

The A10 may be busy, but is it busy with people who would leave their car at home? Highly unlikely.

BSIP funding has helped to seed new routes, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the BSIP funding ends. BSIP is currently paying for 2bph from Hemel Hempstead to Chesham, Amersham, and High Wycombe. I don’t see that lasting.

 

[aron2smith]

It’s a fact. There will always be a boundary and there will always be somebody on the wrong side of it. You appear obsessed with the idea that TfL should take over services in Cheshunt- your comments on other blogs show that- without any appreciation of what that would like like in practical terms.

I'm obsessed with this issue because it makes life harder for no reason, life is more isolating because of cuts to things like buses. That is also a fact. It has contributed to work and social events being out of reach for me, I see my area and the traffic and parking problems put me off learning to drive, I don't trust myself to use a car anyway and because of council cuts, walking is also not great as pavements are in bad condition, in part thanks to pavement parking. Government cut so much council funding with no thought for the future, we are now 10+ years after that with growing daily reminders of the consequences of those policies. Believe it or not, I don't want to complain about this stuff, I just want things to work and I want to remain connected to the town I grew up in but was priced out of. It's nice to go places where things just work but alienating when I go home again. Talking about trains on here is much more fun than this, would be nice if it was easier to get to them in real life.

Maybe if you see it online, maybe someone who can do something about it will see it, I don't know. This country and time is very frustrating with few places to let that out. Thing is we could do what I'm arguing for, in 1950 and 1980, why when this country is supposedly richer today, we can't now?

Where would you draw the border? Presumably 300 yards up the street from your house?

Where the continuous built up area ends. So more or less this definition the ONS uses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Built-up_Area

If there was a significant latent demand for people to take the bus from Cheshunt to Enfield then those routes would still exist. The fact is that there isn’t and so they don’t.

The A10 may be busy, but is it busy with people who would leave their car at home? Highly unlikely.

Yeah because no decent affordable alternative exists! Would be the same argument with people driving to Central London, if the trains were divided and made as inconvenient to use as buses are. £3 for a private bus + £1.75 on top for TFL just for one way, almost 3x as much as TFL only, no wonder people like my Mum just drive instead.