London Buses Discussion

[158756]

But is there the capacity on the tubes to take more passengers? What happens when there is a signal failure or other disruption on the tubes? Where is the resilience in the transport network?

A lot of the problem is the tubes aren't full like they used to be anymore, so they aren't making the money to subsidise the buses.

We don't run buses as a backup for tube failures and they don't do that in other big cities. In the event of disruption, the usual response is to get people to use other tube lines. Consider the £billions spent on tube upgrades over the last 20 or so years, plus the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink Programme.

Both these consultations are in areas affected by the Overground - the 259/279/349 parallel what is now the Weaver line, and outer end of the 38 has options to get to the West End via the Mildmay/Weaver/Windrush. Notably the proposed new number 10 ends just as it gets into the catchment area of those lines.


For all London's bus system is praised by politicians introducing franchising elsewhere, TfL don't appear to have any answers now bus use in inner London is in the same spiral of decline as the rest of the country. Just more cuts, usage declines further and repeat. As reported in post #3916 their efforts to arrest the decline in bus speeds are failing.

 

[johncrossley]

For all London's bus system is praised by politicians introducing franchising elsewhere, TfL don't appear to have any answers now bus use in inner London is in the same spiral of decline as the rest of the country.

This is a deliberate policy to transfer resources from central/inner London to outer London. This makes a lot of sense because the car is far less likely to be an alternative in central/inner London and the only stat that really matters is the car modal share. Most travel in outer London is by car so that is where service should be improved. If usage in inner London *wasn't* going down then there would be something wrong because that would mean that TfL's and the boroughs' investment in cycling wasn't bearing fruit. The inconvenient truth for many people on this forum is that cycling competes head on with buses. If this means fewer people are on buses then that saves TfL money if they are able to cut services without overcrowding being the outcome. Taxpayers have spent billions on the tube, Elizabeth Line etc. so we would also hope that people are transferring from bus to rail.

The so called 'decline' needs to be put into perspective as per capita usage is still high when compared to most other cities in the UK and is still considerably above pre-TfL levels. Myself and I suspect most other people in outer London wouldn't want to swap the current service compared to what we had before franchising and definitely wouldn't swap it with what they have outside London.

 

[Deerfold]

This is a deliberate policy to transfer resources from central/inner London to outer London. This makes a lot of sense because the car is far less likely to be an alternative in central/inner London and the only stat that really matters is the car modal share. Most travel in outer London is by car so that is where service should be improved. If usage in inner London *wasn't* going down then there would be something wrong because that would mean that TfL's and the boroughs' investment in cycling wasn't bearing fruit. The inconvenient truth for many people on this forum is that cycling competes head on with buses. If this means fewer people are on buses then that saves TfL money if they are able to cut services without overcrowding being the outcome. Taxpayers have spent billions on the tube, Elizabeth Line etc. so we would also hope that people are transferring from bus to rail.

The so called 'decline' needs to be put into perspective as per capita usage is still high when compared to most other cities in the UK and is still considerably above pre-TfL levels. Myself and I suspect most other people in outer London wouldn't want to swap the current service compared to what we had before franchising and definitely wouldn't swap it with what they have outside London.

Unfortunately, bus speeds are falling, so more buses are required to maintain the same frequency (which also suggest congestion is worsening).

 

[johncrossley]

Unfortunately, bus speeds are falling, so more buses are required to maintain the same frequency (which also suggest congestion is worsening).

Worsening congestion may not necessarily be down to increased private car traffic. It could be to do with lower speed limits, more delivery vehicles, increased commercial vehicle traffic and reduced road space.

 

[aron2smith]

Worsening congestion may not necessarily be down to increased private car traffic. It could be to do with lower speed limits, more delivery vehicles, increased commercial vehicle traffic and reduced road space.

Ever bigger cars too, about time that was strictly regulated! Especially size and weight. Soon the cars won't fit on our roads and I wish that was an exaggeration. The bigger models already struggle to fit in standard parking spaces. The chaotic nature of roadworks from privatised utilities doesn't help either. Nothing seems to be joined up these days.

 

[Deerfold]

Worsening congestion may not necessarily be down to increased private car traffic. It could be to do with lower speed limits, more delivery vehicles, increased commercial vehicle traffic and reduced road space.

It still means TfL not saving money from lower frequencies.

 

[coach fan]

Worsening congestion may not necessarily be down to increased private car traffic. It could be to do with lower speed limits, more delivery vehicles, increased commercial vehicle traffic and reduced road space.

Private hire vehicles by far have had the most detrimental affect on congestion. It’s nuts TfL have licenced so many, even more so when they’re basically competitors to their services. Yes they get licence money but that isn’t a continual income stream like fares are.
Not helped by the fact most of them can’t drive. Or deliberately drive bad which makes congestion just that bit worse.

 

[Jim James]

Should all but residents and essential users and cyclist be banned from Central London roads> Road space in central London is scares so
using it for buses is the most efficient use of it. It would also considerable reduce the cost of running the bgus services as well as improving timekeeping and reliability

 

[Mikey C]

As reported in post #3916 their efforts to arrest the decline in bus speeds are failing.

It can be argued that the actions of politicians have been major contributors to the decline in bus speeds. Whether it's reduced speed limits, cycle lanes and priority schemes taking road capacity, or removing traffic gyratories.

Which isn't to say that those decisions were necessarily wrong, but they've all had consequences for the attractiveness of buses.

 

[Timmyd]

Yep, I use buses in Central London every day and there are certain journeys which are now pointless trying to do by bus. Look at the Holborn which has been completely jammed up by the Proctor Street works. Then constant frequency reductions make short hops harder, with routes like the 15 having a fraction of the frequency they used to have (even though that particular route always seems busy with tourists). The 38 changes look like taking it the same way as would halve the frequency to Victoria given the 19 is only every 10 mins

 

[700007]

Unfortunately, bus speeds are falling, so more buses are required to maintain the same frequency (which also suggest congestion is worsening).

Also suggests that the bus network as a whole is failing to meet minimum performance standards and doesn't seem to be on the track to improving.

 

[Thirteen]

The Bus and Tram fares are increasing but not until July 2026. Oddly while the fare increases for Tube and Rail are been shown, it doesn't say what the buses and trams are increasing to, my guess is £1.85 or £1.90.

 

[Edvid]

GLA press release

As part of the Government’s £2.2bn multi-year funding deal for TfL - agreed in the Spending Review in July 2025 - it expects TfL fares to rise by inflation plus one per cent (RPI+1). However, as an emergency cost-of-living measure, the Mayor plans to use City Hall budgets to help Londoners by freezing bus and tram fares until July 2026.

The plans would mean that only fares on Tube and TfL rail services would increase from March 2026.

Fare changes listed in the article are currently provisional as a Mayoral Decision hasn't been issued yet.

 

[aron2smith]

Caps and Travelcards remaining frozen softens the blow somewhat.

 

[Mark L]

The Bus and Tram fares are increasing but not until July 2026. Oddly while the fare increases for Tube and Rail are been shown, it doesn't say what the buses and trams are increasing to, my guess is £1.85 or £1.90.

Bus and tram fares are frozen until July. The mayor’s announcement is silent on what happens then. They could go up but may be further frozen.

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

Private hire vehicles by far have had the most detrimental affect on congestion. It’s nuts TfL have licenced so many, even more so when they’re basically competitors to their services. Yes they get licence money but that isn’t a continual income stream like fares are.
Not helped by the fact most of them can’t drive. Or deliberately drive bad which makes congestion just that bit worse.

TfL has no legal power to limit the number of PHV licences issued.

 

[coach fan]

Bus and tram fares are frozen until July. The mayor’s announcement is silent on what happens then. They could go up but may be further frozen.

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


TfL has no legal power to limit the number of PHV licences issued.

It’s something they could fight to control. But they. That have no interest in it as they get licence and admin fees from it.

 

[Mikey C]

Interesting that a major policy of a Labour Mayor (fares freeze) has been flipped because of a Labour government, to a real term increase (RPI+1).

 

[coach fan]

Interesting that a major policy of a Labour Mayor (fares freeze) has been flipped because of a Labour government, to a real term increase (RPI+1).

So much for a Labour government and a Labour mayor working together. Hysterical.

 

[Mark L]

It’s something they could fight to control. But they. That have no interest in it as they get licence and admin fees from it.

No it isn’t and in any event the licence fees probably only just cover the costs of administering the process. The only lever is to prescribe areas such as vehicle type but even that can only do so much.

It’s something that officials wish they could change but despite lobbying it’s a vain hope. This MQ sums up the situation https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...estions-mayor/find-an-answer/cap-phv-licences

 

[MCR247]

So much for a Labour government and a Labour mayor working together. Hysterical.

Well technically I’d argue that is an example of them working together

 

[Snow1964]

A lot of the problem is the tubes aren't full like they used to be anymore, so they aren't making the money to subsidise the buses.

Per latest TfL finance report period 7 (April - mid October)

Page 19 Underground
revenue £1430m, operating costs £1256m, net £188m
but after interest and capital costs, the loss is £419m

Page 18 Buses
revenue £822m, operating costs £1406m, net loss £575m
so buses heading for huge loss of over £1bn for full year

figures show bus losses 28% worst than last year
and page 5 shows passenger numbers dropped 4.5% in a year

More a question of how long mayor and TfL will continue to tolerate losses of £3m per day on bus network, before they seriously pare back bus routes of frequency.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s25561/Appendix%201%20Finance%20Report%20Presentation%20Period%207%20202526.pdf

 

[coach fan]

Per latest TfL finance report period 7 (April - mid October)

Page 19 Underground
revenue £1430m, operating costs £1256m, net £188m
but after interest and capital costs, the loss is £419m

Page 18 Buses
revenue £822m, operating costs £1406m, net loss £575m
so buses heading for huge loss of over £1bn for full year

figures show bus losses 28% worst than last year
and page 5 shows passenger numbers dropped 4.5% in a year

More a question of how long mayor and TfL will continue to tolerate losses of £3m per day on bus network, before they seriously pare back bus routes of frequency.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s25561/Appendix%201%20Finance%20Report%20Presentation%20Period%207%20202526.pdf

Too many buses in London as it is. They need cutting back. Some night routes and 24/7 routes seem to carry not much else than stale air.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Caps and Travelcards remaining frozen softens the blow somewhat.

That requires approval from the TOCs, which I can't see DfT allowing. (Not that I'm cynical, of course.)

 

[Thirteen]

Bus and tram fares are frozen until July. The mayor’s announcement is silent on what happens then. They could go up but may be further frozen.

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

It's been frozen for almost three years, there must come a point where they have to increase the fare.

It's nuts how the operating costs for buses is £156m more than the London Underground. One wonders if they need someone to do Beeching style review and see what is needed and what isn't needed.

 

[aron2smith]

That requires approval from the TOCs, which I can't see DfT allowing. (Not that I'm cynical, of course.)

In the Mayor's article it said about them being frozen. DFT is freezing rail fares, so why would there be an issue? The government forcing TFL to increase fares when any other country would just fund them unconditionally isn't right. Keeping travelcards/ caps as they are seems to be a good compromise.

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

It's been frozen for almost three years, there must come a point where they have to increase the fare.

It's nuts how the operating costs for buses is £156m more than the London Underground. One wonders if they need someone to do Beeching style review and see what is needed and what isn't needed.

Why can't they just be subsidised? The very real risk of cutting buses in this way means 2 things - severe overcrowding on what is left and anyone who doesn't want to deal with overcrowded, unreliable services just driving and adding to traffic on narrow streets. Unfortunately a lot of Outer London boroughs have developments that would have no public transport if they weren't subsidised, as they are away from the main roads. Today, TFL's network is comprehensive, why reduce that?

If anything, TFL should move towards owning the garages and buses fully and then more flexible practices could be adopted such as short runs and garage runs. Planning the network around the garages would make a lot of sense and could restore services back to fringe areas that lost them. Some bold and potentially unpopular road restrictions will need to be introduced on the busier roads too. There needs to be a relentless focus on buses from TFL again and part of that should be restoring all bus route roads to 30mph, far more bus lanes and even traffic light priority, anything to make them faster needs to happen.

 

[Mark L]

TFL should move towards owning the garages and buses fully and then more flexible practices could be adopted such as short runs and garage runs. Planning the network around the garages would make a lot of sense and could restore services back to fringe areas that lost them

How would this be funded? Garage runs won’t make the network more attractive, not least as many bus garages are remote from traffic objectives.

 

[Snow1964]

It's nuts how the operating costs for buses is £156m more than the London Underground. One wonders if they need someone to do Beeching style review and see what is needed and what isn't needed.

I think previous Finance meeting included an unbudgeted transfer to cover London buses, as losing lot more than expected.

What seems to be happening is that some of the Operators have got fed up with race to bottom, and are handing back loss making contracts at break points. They are then being added to tendering programme, retendered, and in many cases just one bidder at half as much again.

TfL Buses also seems to have got itself in a muddle over its zero emissions policy from 2030 (or if it will be 2 or3 years later), resulting in lots of short 3 year tenders with existing buses which is storing up trouble for 2-3 years time.

 

[jumble]

I think previous Finance meeting included an unbudgeted transfer to cover London buses, as losing lot more than expected.

What seems to be happening is that some of the Operators have got fed up with race to bottom, and are handing back loss making contracts at break points. They are then being added to tendering programme, retendered, and in many cases just one bidder at half as much again.

TfL Buses also seems to have got itself in a muddle over its zero emissions policy from 2030 (or if it will be 2 or3 years later), resulting in lots of short 3 year tenders with existing buses which is storing up trouble for 2-3 years time.

Why does it come as a surprise to anyone that bus companies who produced their tenders on the basis of electricity prices before Ukraine war are running away as soon as they can?

 

[Mark L]

Why does it come as a surprise to anyone that bus companies who produced their tenders on the basis of electricity prices before Ukraine war are running away as soon as they can?

In addition to the increase in costs, which includes higher pay levels as well as energy, decking reliability means that operators are no longer receiving as much in QIC payments from TfL. It’s something of a perfect storm really.

This week’s GLA Transport Committee chuntered away at length about how terrible it all was but didn’t really seem to come up with any concrete proposals to address the problems afflicting London’s bus network.

 

[Mikey C]

Cycle lanes and priority schemes, reducing space for all road traffic (including buses).
20mph speed limits across most of inner London.

It's hardly surprising buses are becoming less attractive.