London Buses Discussion

[PGAT]

Is this a move by TfL to get funding from Kent CC or Dartford Council to support the route?

Is it commercially viable for Go-Bus or Kent County buses to run a service from Bluewater to Dartford or beyond? If so, why would TfL seek additional funding support, since the existing routes may cover their costs? Do any TfL services cover their costs?

As far as I'm aware, no, none of TfL's bus routes earn more revenue than they cost to tender, not even the busiest route 18 makes a surplus anymore.

This does look like a very blatant attempt to cut costs by getting other authorities to foot the bill but it is probably a bluff as well. I doubt there is space at Dartford to stand all three routes, it's more plausible that either one of the low frequency routes 428 or 492 get the chop.

 

[Mikey C]

Darent Valley hospital is a main hospital for the area, serving SE London as well as Kent, with many patients AND staff going there from London addresses. It would be ridiculous to make nurses and hospital cleaners change buses in Dartford, and pay twice.

Loads of people who shop and work at Bluewater live in London, so again it would be nonsense. Just as if TfL were to cut the bus service to Lakeside in Essex.

 

[700007]

As far as I'm aware, no, none of TfL's bus routes earn more revenue than they cost to tender, not even the busiest route 18 makes a surplus anymore.

This does look like a very blatant attempt to cut costs by getting other authorities to foot the bill but it is probably a bluff as well. I doubt there is space at Dartford to stand all three routes, it's more plausible that either one of the low frequency routes 428 or 492 get the chop.

I am of the same understanding no route is profitable anymore to TfL themselves due to the massive increase in inflation/NI costs. Many operators are now 'chucking back' contracts to re-tender at significantly higher prices which is pretty much eating away any profit margin TfL would have had on the say 60-70ish routes that I believe were previously profitable to TfL a couple years back especially coupled with the £1.75 fare freeze. If I was a betting man I genuinely would believe that the next few years are going to see some truly serious cuts like we have never seen before as there will be a greater pressure on LBSL to lower costs.

Which brings us very neatly onto the 96/428/492 potential cut back.... But no doubt politically this will go down a right storm.

 

[Mark L]

Is this a move by TfL to get funding from Kent CC or Dartford Council to support the route?

Is it commercially viable for Go-Bus or Kent County buses to run a service from Bluewater to Dartford or beyond? If so, why would TfL seek additional funding support, since the existing routes may cover their costs? Do any TfL services cover their costs?

Fastrack links Dartford and The Darent Valley Hospital / Bluewater.

I suspect that the “threat” to TfL services east of Dartford is part of regular contact between TfL and neighbouring authorities. One of the factors that will influence any decision to maintain the link will be how many passengers from within Greater London use the bus to travel to DVH or Bluewater. I suspect it’s quite high and will include hospital staff and shop workers. If the numbers are low then it would clearly make sense for the services to be curtailed at Dartford ( from where there are adequate onward connections) or look to KCC to make a contribution. Given the existing links I can’t see them doing this!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2026 ==

TfL

I am of the same understanding no route is profitable anymore to TfL themselves due to the massive increase in inflation/NI costs. Many operators are now 'chucking back' contracts to re-tender at significantly higher prices which is pretty much eating away any profit margin TfL would have had on the say 60-70ish routes that I believe were previously profitable to TfL a couple years back especially coupled with the £1.75 fare freeze. If I was a betting man I genuinely would believe that the next few years are going to see some truly serious cuts like we have never seen before as there will be a greater pressure on LBSL to lower costs.

Which brings us very neatly onto the 96/428/492 potential cut back.... But no doubt politically this will go down a right storm.

TfL doesn’t routinely publish cost recovery rates for individual routes although occasionally figures do sneak out - the SL9, for example, apparently has a cost recovery rate of 102%. That said, I’m not sure that the revenue apportionment model is that refined. Given the level of subsidy required for the network it’s probably fair to assume that most routes are loss making.

 

[duncombec]

This does look like a very blatant attempt to cut costs by getting other authorities to foot the bill but it is probably a bluff as well. I doubt there is space at Dartford to stand all three routes, it's more plausible that either one of the low frequency routes 428 or 492 get the chop.

Loads of people who shop and work at Bluewater live in London, so again it would be nonsense. Just as if TfL were to cut the bus service to Lakeside in Essex.

Fastrack links Dartford and The Darent Valley Hospital / Bluewater.

I suspect that the “threat” to TfL services east of Dartford is part of regular contact between TfL and neighbouring authorities. One of the factors that will influence any decision to maintain the link will be how many passengers from within Greater London use the bus to travel to DVH or Bluewater. I suspect it’s quite high and will include hospital staff and shop workers. If the numbers are low then it would clearly make sense for the services to be curtailed at Dartford ( from where there are adequate onward connections) or look to KCC to make a contribution. Given the existing links I can’t see them doing this!

There is very limited stand space in Dartford town centre, and none at all at the hospital. In fact, the best stand space for the area is... Bluewater! The "red routes" are arguably the busiest to serve Bluewater nowadays: passengers seem to stream off every bus that arrives, a number of whom are picked up in Dartford by those who have realised that the £1.75 Oyster/contactless fare is cheaper than the £2 or £3 offering on Fasttrack or Arriva's 480.

The chances of KCC making a contribution are, I suspect, somewhere up there with Nigel Farage announcing that we should rejoin the EU whilst Zia Yusuf simultaneously announces policies that align Reform with the Greens. In the giant sandpit of local politics, KCC's Reform children have generally not played nicely with the Labour Children at Medway, nor the LibDem opposition at KCC.

 

[Hophead]

Part of the problem is likely to be TfL's one-size-fits-all approach to timetable planning. By that I mean, all routes must always operate end to end (yes, there are some limited exceptions, but the overall point stands); Sunday evenings have the same frequency & last bus as all other days; not to mention the tendency to tack an out-boundary extension on to a useful suburban route, so that the beyond London part operates more frequently than would a similar commercial bus.

So, in these 3 instances, does the 96 really need to run every 15 minutes every evening all the way to Bluewater? Does the last 428 really need to run all the way and is a half-hourly service really justified on a Sunday late evening? The last 492 arrives at Bluewater past 01:00 - how many people are using it beyond Crayford? I don't know if Kent CC make a contribution to these routes, but the service level is surely very much higher than any other supported services.

 

[Mark L]

Part of the problem is likely to be TfL's one-size-fits-all approach to timetable planning. By that I mean, all routes must always operate end to end (yes, there are some limited exceptions, but the overall point stands); Sunday evenings have the same frequency & last bus as all other days; not to mention the tendency to tack an out-boundary extension on to a useful suburban route, so that the beyond London part operates more frequently than would a similar commercial bus.

So, in these 3 instances, does the 96 really need to run every 15 minutes every evening all the way to Bluewater? Does the last 428 really need to run all the way and is a half-hourly service really justified on a Sunday late evening? The last 492 arrives at Bluewater past 01:00 - how many people are using it beyond Crayford? I don't know if Kent CC make a contribution to these routes, but the service level is surely very much higher than any other supported services.

You make a good point - I also wonder why the whole service needs to run to Bluewater early on a Sunday morning. Even if half the buses on the 96 and 428 were turned at Dartford before, say, 09:00 it would allow for a small saving. Granted it’s not much in the grand scheme of things but, as a well known supermarket chain would say, “Every little helps”.

There is no funding from KCC for any TfL service in the county.

 

[Mikey C]

The 428 and 492 96 serve Darent Valley though, when essential workers at antisocial times need to get there. Once you get to Darent Valley, you might as well continue to Bluewater I guess.

Even with Bluewater, I imagine cleaners go there well before it opens on a Sunday.

 

[PGAT]

The 428 and 492 serve Darent Valley though, when essential workers at antisocial times need to get there. Once you get to Darent Valley, you might as well continue to Bluewater I guess.

Even with Bluewater, I imagine cleaners go there well before it opens on a Sunday.

Indeed in general for these fringe quieter services the social benefits and obligation to provide a service outweighs the negligible additional cost.

When making cuts, rethinking the main structure of a route or reducing daytime frequencies offer the larger savings, and can usually be justified on the existence of other alternatives.

 

[Marcus Fryer]

….. the say 60-70ish routes that I believe were previously profitable to TfL a couple years back especially coupled with the £1.75 fare freeze. If I was a betting man I genuinely would believe that the next few years are going to see some truly serious cuts like we have never seen before as there will be a greater pressure on LBSL to lower costs.
…...

Perhaps the time has come to end the £1.75 fares freeze.

 

[MotCO]

Perhaps the time has come to end the £1.75 fares freeze.

When's the next Mayoralty elections?

 

[duncombec]

Part of the problem is likely to be TfL's one-size-fits-all approach to timetable planning. By that I mean, all routes must always operate end to end (yes, there are some limited exceptions, but the overall point stands); Sunday evenings have the same frequency & last bus as all other days; not to mention the tendency to tack an out-boundary extension on to a useful suburban route, so that the beyond London part operates more frequently than would a similar commercial bus.

So, in these 3 instances, does the 96 really need to run every 15 minutes every evening all the way to Bluewater? Does the last 428 really need to run all the way and is a half-hourly service really justified on a Sunday late evening? The last 492 arrives at Bluewater past 01:00 - how many people are using it beyond Crayford? I don't know if Kent CC make a contribution to these routes, but the service level is surely very much higher than any other supported services.

You make a good point - I also wonder why the whole service needs to run to Bluewater early on a Sunday morning. Even if half the buses on the 96 and 428 were turned at Dartford before, say, 09:00 it would allow for a small saving. Granted it’s not much in the grand scheme of things but, as a well known supermarket chain would say, “Every little helps”.

There is no funding from KCC for any TfL service in the county.

The 428 and 492 serve Darent Valley though, when essential workers at antisocial times need to get there. Once you get to Darent Valley, you might as well continue to Bluewater I guess.

Even with Bluewater, I imagine cleaners go there well before it opens on a Sunday.

It's worth remembering that Bluewater isn't only a shopping destination - there are a large number of other leisure facilities there too. The cinema, for example, had no fewer than 4 showings tonight that BEGIN after 22:00 - allowing for a 2+ hour film... Google lists tonight's closing time as 00:30. Whilst it may not need the entire service there at that time, I could see it being worth running a reasonably late service.

As mentioned, the hospital is likely to be a fair draw - I don't know DVH's shift change times, but I know at the next one over there is a change at 7am and 8am. Less a case of might as well continue to Bluewater, but there is no space to do anything other than immediately turn around (and that seems very against TfL's policies at each end of the route). The site is very constrained, and I can't imagine the trust responding well to 'demands' to give over car parking space.

Similarly, although there are direct buses provided under Amazon contract for their workers, it cannot be ruled out that passengers from South East London change to Fasttrack or other services to access Amazon or the other warehouses in north Dartford.
It's also worth pointing out that the minutes linked in the Murky Depths Article (9th June) are actually from the previous meeting on 3rd March, and there does not appear to be a specific agenda item on the point for the meeting on 9th June. Indeed, even on 3rd March, it was an 'aside' comment during a wider debate. There has been no TfL consultation announced on the issue, so allowing for the deadline and the usual glacial speed of changes thereafter, I doubt very much anything will change much before next summer. After all, a new contract has only recently been awarded for 96 and 428 at least.

 

[Mark L]

When's the next Mayoralty elections?

2028.

 

[MotCO]

LOTS (Lots.org.uk) has reported the latest tender awards for routes 190, 222, 481, 639, 670, E1 and U10. All remain with their current operator.

What is interesting is that a number of awards* are for 7 years, despite using existing hybrid buses - I thought only awards for EVs were for 7 years.

* Tenders for routes 222, 481, 639, 670, and E1

 

[Man of Kent]

The 428 and 492 serve Darent Valley though, when essential workers at antisocial times need to get there. Once you get to Darent Valley, you might as well continue to Bluewater I guess.

Even with Bluewater, I imagine cleaners go there well before it opens on a Sunday.

The 492 runs via Stone (London Road A226) rather than Darent Valley Hospital (only the 96 and 428 serve the latter) duplicating the generally rather more frequent (and dearer) Arriva 480.

 

[Mikey C]

The 492 runs via Stone (London Road A226) rather than Darent Valley Hospital (only the 96 and 428 serve the latter) duplicating the generally rather more frequent (and dearer) Arriva 480.

Sorry, not sure why I said 492 then, when I meant the 96!

The 492 does serve a couple of smaller hospitals though in East Dartford, stopping outside the Livingstone community hospital and near the Little Brook Hospital in Stone.

 

[Man of Kent]

The Greenwich Wire reports that a possible thinning out of services is being considered, as Kent County Council wants to charge TfL more to use the private Fastrack Busway which provides a quick link between Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater.

TfL could reduce buses to Bluewater because of Kent cash demands - The Greenwich Wire

Buses linking Woolwich and Bluewater are being reviewed after the Reform-run Kent County Council hiked charges to use an access road to reach the shopping centre.

greenwichwire.co.uk

Buses linking Woolwich and Bluewater are being reviewed by Transport for London after the Reform-run Kent County Council hiked charges to use an access road to reach the shopping centre.


Councillors in Dartford have been told that TfL is considering reducing the number of its buses that run east of the town to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater, but not scrapping them altogether.

 

[alex397]

The Greenwich Wire reports that a possible thinning out of services is being considered, as Kent County Council wants to charge TfL more to use the private Fastrack Busway which provides a quick link between Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater.

TfL could reduce buses to Bluewater because of Kent cash demands - The Greenwich Wire

Buses linking Woolwich and Bluewater are being reviewed after the Reform-run Kent County Council hiked charges to use an access road to reach the shopping centre.

greenwichwire.co.uk

I do wonder if KCC realise how much they are getting for nothing. At least one intensive comprehensive service in the form of the 96, and two other decent services. And they don’t have to contribute a thing, unlike Surrey CC who I believe contribute to the 465.
Charging TfL to use the Fastrack Busway seems counterproductive to me.

 

[Thirteen]

Has anyone seen or ridden SL7's BD11 bus?

 

[Mark L]

LOTS (Lots.org.uk) has reported the latest tender awards for routes 190, 222, 481, 639, 670, E1 and U10. All remain with their current operator.

What is interesting is that a number of awards* are for 7 years, despite using existing hybrid buses - I thought only awards for EVs were for 7 years.

* Tenders for routes 222, 481, 639, 670, and E1

The contracts for the 222 and 481 are for five and three years respectively. The aspiration for a 100% ZE fleet by 2030 has been formally dropped. It’s now 60% by 2030 with the rest following as soon as practicable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2026 ==

I do wonder if KCC realise how much they are getting for nothing. At least one intensive comprehensive service in the form of the 96, and two other decent services. And they don’t have to contribute a thing, unlike Surrey CC who I believe contribute to the 465.
Charging TfL to use the Fastrack Busway seems counterproductive to me.

Surrey is the only neighbouring authority to support TfL services. It provides funding to support the 216 between Ashford Hospital and Staines, the 166 between Banstead and Epsom Hospital and the 465 south of Leatherhead.

I suspect the current leadership of KCC doesn’t give two hoots about the maintenance of TfL services in the county. As far as the sections east of Dartford town centre go there are at least alternative services available (albeit with lower frequencies and higher fares). Perhaps if TfL stands its ground it might focus the minds of those who want some outer London boroughs to leave Greater London.

 

[duncombec]

I do wonder if KCC realise how much they are getting for nothing. At least one intensive comprehensive service in the form of the 96, and two other decent services. And they don’t have to contribute a thing, unlike Surrey CC who I believe contribute to the 465.
Charging TfL to use the Fastrack Busway seems counterproductive to me.

Hmm...

The 465 is the only service to some villages in Surrey, as well as providing a link northwards from Leatherhead (and stopping the service from terminating at Woodbridge Tesco). By contrast the London bus routes offer very little in the way of services that aren't already covered in some way or another by Kent routes - basically just a wiggle around West Dartford on the 492, and a certain degree of early/late service. Added to which, TfL's £1.75 fare (funded in the long run by London taxpayers) notably undercuts the £3 fare in Kent, thus arguably making the Kent service less popular, to the detriment of the Kent service, in comparison.

Wasn't it TfL who asked/demanded to use the busway? If they don't want to pay for the 96, there is nothing to stop them reverting to the previous route via the main road, as used by the 428. I don't really see it as any different to bus station departure charges in the grand scheme of things. If, as is claimed in the GreenwichWire article, the funding will pay towards resurfacing, arguably TfL will benefit from those costs... much as they could claim Surrey benefits for the 465 by its very provision? Without making light of TfL's financial position, which is known to be somewhat shaky (albeit little different from many other local authorities nowadays) it does seem a little bit like it is happy to charge other areas when they benefit from TfL provision, but isn't happy about being charged by others when TfL benefit from theirs.

And a nice, albeit nameless, reference to presumably this forum in the GreenwichWire article (although not sure where they got the update from, as there are still no minutes to Tuesday's meeting on the Dartford BC website).

 

[londonbridge]

Have searched and can’t find this anywhere so mods please delete or move to a more appropriate location if necessary if it’s already being discussed.

Tomorrow, June 13th, the London Bus Museum are running heritage vehicles on the 213 between 10:00 and 17:00

Route 213 Heritage Day - London Bus Museum

www.londonbusmuseum.com

Ride free on old buses in service on London bus route 213 between Kingston and Sutton ~ 13th June 2026!​

Bus route 213 has been running between Kingston and Sutton since 1921 – that’s 105 years – serving Norbiton Station, Coombe Lane, Traps Lane, New Malden, Worcester Park, North Cheam and Cheam .
On Saturday 13th June 2026 between 1000 and 1700, the London Bus Museum will be running free heritage buses dating from the 1950s to 1970s alongside the normal daily service on route 213.
Open-platform buses with real conductors will run between Kingston and Sutton Garage. Buses serve all route 213 bus stops - no need to book, just turn up at a route 213 bus stop and put out your hand!
Buses being used will mostly be the iconic Routemaster, dating from the late 1950s and 1960s, and their predecessor the RT-type, which in the 1950s formed the largest standardised bus fleet in the world, together with some special buses. Some buses are from the Museum’s collection, others provided by other owners. And it’s all free!

 

[700007]

Part of the problem is likely to be TfL's one-size-fits-all approach to timetable planning. By that I mean, all routes must always operate end to end (yes, there are some limited exceptions, but the overall point stands); Sunday evenings have the same frequency & last bus as all other days; not to mention the tendency to tack an out-boundary extension on to a useful suburban route, so that the beyond London part operates more frequently than would a similar commercial bus.

So, in these 3 instances, does the 96 really need to run every 15 minutes every evening all the way to Bluewater? Does the last 428 really need to run all the way and is a half-hourly service really justified on a Sunday late evening? The last 492 arrives at Bluewater past 01:00 - how many people are using it beyond Crayford? I don't know if Kent CC make a contribution to these routes, but the service level is surely very much higher than any other supported services.

I have long said that whilst from a customer perspective TfL's 'ideologically' driven timetable planning for much of the London bus network is good, in this economy and climate it simply isn't sustainable. Not every route should run to virtually 1am, not every route needs as you say full workings, some routes to be honest shouldn't really run on Sundays either. Increasingly as of late there even seems to be a drive for earlier and more frequent buses on Sunday mornings. A lot of savings could be made by starting the day network a bit later on weekends and finishing a bit earlier on Sundays (with heavily thinned out frequencies after 10pm on a Sunday).

That said on a separate note I am a believer that the 96 would benefit from being 24 hours between Woolwich and at least Dartford just because of how incredibly busy the day service is. Overnight buses aren't needed at Bluewater as such (and I believe Fastrack already serves it overnight) and FT probably is enough to cope with demand at the hospital. If connections could be timetabled at Dartford for an incoming 96 to connect well with an N and vice versa, probably would do well.

 

[londonbridge]

Couldnt see what had happened but some sort of police incident in Kingston with the road taped off and no right turn at Fairfield bus station/Aldi local. SL7 had to turn left, right and then right again and past Banquet records to get back on route.

 

[Mattplans]

I've come across a facebook post by a Kent councillor that will interest some (by Cllr Drew Swinerd). I've quoted it below but the real gem is in the replies and there are a lot of varying views (and Sadiq Khan bashing) but it does represent the issue at hand well.

There's also been a change.org petition with a compelling Speech, at least partially written by AI. This is a petition made out to TfL which is all very well and good, but it should be being made out to KCC who are the ones imposing the costs on the service. If the service is withdrawn, it won't benefit anyone. It is well used and healthily patronised by both Londoners and Kent-ers.

I think some are failing to grasp (among their quarrels about how Sadiq Khan has kept London Buses at an unprofitable rate and how fare evasion is supposedly so high it is affecting income) that the priority for London Buses is Londoners and their journeys within London. KCC may very well be biting the hand that feeds them. Some accounts I have seen (although I cannot speak firsthand to this effect) is that the alternative bus services are single decker and unreliable. Residents of Dartford don't seem to appreciate what they have. They will travel into London using Oyster cards for work, change for the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood and the DLR at Woolwich Arsenal and Greenwich, or perhaps use the London Underground further in. Then on return to Kent they will continue to benefit from the London integrated fares. They will benefit from bus capping and potentially travelcards if they are wise. Yet there doesn't seem to be a huge lobby against KCC on this matter. They seem to be forgetting that TfL is under no obligation to serve Kent. They will be worse off if the service is withdrawn, and so will Londoners.

Not sure who KCC think they are to be charging a fee for the road when they don't contribute to the service, especially when Surrey make contributions to their routes.
I wonder if KCC stand to benefit at all from this? If the service is withdrawn and passengers use alternative Kent buses which charge higher rates, that would be good for Kent? But some will no doubt resign to car usage. Especially if the alternatives are so far inferior like I have heard. I will agree that it doesn't seem entirely necessary to withdraw the 428 and 492 when they don't use the fastrack bus lane. Definitely coupling one issue in with another, especially considering previous failed attempts to curtail/withdraw those services.

On the topic of fare evasion, I imagine it is negligble. But what % of evasion will be from Kent youths claiming to have lost their passes wben they are not entitled to free travel passes in the same way young people in LB Bexley and Greenwich will be??

Cllr Drew Swinerd said:​

There appears to be a fair bit of commotion over news emerging of Transport for London (TfL) threatening to scale back or discontinue the 96, 428 and 492 services to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater. At the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board on 3 March it was noted by the KCC Fastrack Development Manager that discussions had been held with TfL about plans to this effect.

These three bus routes are vital in servicing our community in West Hill. They enable us to reach Crayford, Bexley, the hospital and Bluewater with ease. However, bus services need to be paid for and so do roads - and this gets to the heart of the matter.
What has happened is that Kent County Council (KCC) has asked for an increase in the fee for TfL to use the Fastrack bus lane. Given that the last time the fee changed was apparently in 2017, this is not wholly unreasonable. Costs shall have gone up since then and if TfL does not pay then the money must be found from Kent taxpayers.
For their part, TfL have said that an increase of the fee would 'impact the financial sustainability of the service' it offers in respect of the 96, 428 and 492. It notes that it does not get funding to run the routes from KCC or Dartford Borough Council.
Into all this has stepped the Member of Parliament, Jim Dickson. In a letter to the Leader of KCC he has railed against the proposed increase of the fee for TfL to use the Fastrack lanes. He characterised TfL has having been 'forced' to consider the changes because of the proposed fee increase, which they have called a 'Bus Tax'.
Yet I cannot help but think that there is a degree of theatricality about TfL's reaction. As we have seen on the matter of the Phantom Bus Stop of Spital Street, TfL are not particularly easy to deal with. Nor are the buses free of charge. They are well used.
What we are witnessing is an effective negotiation conducted in public, with TfL using threats in respect of the 96, 428 and 492 to put pressure on KCC; and KCC pointing to increased costs to put pressure on TfL.
What matters most is that TfL and KCC work together for the good of people in Dartford - and West Hill in particular. Like many, my wife does not drive and so relies on these routes to get to Bluewater and to Crayford. I also use them if we are going to Bluewater and I plan to drink... anyway, the important point to emphasise is that life would get harder for many residents if these buses were less frequent or were not run at all. I think that a lot of posturing is going on and TfL and KCC will hopefully reach a new settlement that is a fair one and which will enable the 96, 428 and 492 to continue as they are.

Change.org said:​

The Issue​

For many years, the 96, 428, and 492 bus routes have been an incredibly important part of our daily lives here in our community. They are not just numbers; they represent convenience, accessibility, and connectivity for hundreds of residents who rely on them to get to work, school, healthcare facilities, and essential services every day. It's more than just about transportation—it's about maintaining the heartbeat of our neighbourhood.
These bus routes are lifelines, especially for those without alternative means of transport, including the elderly, students, and low-income families. Cutting them would mean isolation for some, economic hardships for others, and a collective disruption of our daily routines. It's hard to imagine how drastically our lives would change if we lose these essential services.
If we loose these 3 buses. It means people without jobs, children can’t get to school, people who can’t go shopping and etc… and also meaning having to pay for more expensive bus fares for outer London companies. When our fares are cheap at £1.75, also getting free travel with freedom passes, concession cards and discounts supplied from TfL.
According to local transportation studies and community feedback, these routes are highly utilized and have been pivotal in reducing traffic congestion and carbon emissions in the area. Removing them would likely increase private car usage and add to environmental degradation, counteracting efforts to promote sustainable transit solutions.
We need to protect these bus routes from being cut. The local council and transport authorities must recognize their social value and work with the community to find alternative solutions that do not jeopardize essential service routes. Investments can be made in optimizing the schedule and enhancing the frequency rather than eliminating them altogether.
Together, we can make a difference. Support our community and sign this petition to save the 96, 428, and 492 bus routes. Let your voice be heard and help preserve the convenience and connectivity these routes provide for us all.
With all the signatures. Hopefully I can prove something to TfL and a local mp. The difference these buses make to our lives.

 

[duncombec]

I've come across a facebook post by a Kent councillor that will interest some (by Cllr Drew Swinerd). I've quoted it below but the real gem is in the replies and there are a lot of varying views (and Sadiq Khan bashing) but it does represent the issue at hand well.

It is a very well written post - Cllr Swinerd is a conservative Councillor on Dartford BC, so can afford to be relatively 'calm' as he's on the ruling party of DBC, sitting between a Labour Mayor of London and a Reform Kent. The comments are indeed of interest, with quite a majority suggesting noone is forcing TfL to use the Fastrack buslanes: they can revert to London Road as they used to, and in any case, only the 96 use them: the 428 and 492 being lumped in together is a red herring, as you mention at the end of your post.

There's also been a change.org petition with a compelling Speech, at least partially written by AI. This is a petition made out to TfL which is all very well and good, but it should be being made out to KCC who are the ones imposing the costs on the service. If the service is withdrawn, it won't benefit anyone. It is well used and healthily patronised by both Londoners and Kent-ers.

No, it should be made out to TfL, who are the ones allegedly proposing the cut. Let's not forget there has still been no formal consultation announced by TfL [indeed, it doesn't seem as though any have been announced since Meridian Water in January?], and would seemingly be none the wiser had it not been picked out of the minutes of a relatively obscure council committee. TfL also do not need to cut the service if they don't want to pay the fees; they revert to using the regular roads. Other alternatives have been suggested in the posts above, such as thinning the frequency in less popular hours.

I think some are failing to grasp (among their quarrels about how Sadiq Khan has kept London Buses at an unprofitable rate and how fare evasion is supposedly so high it is affecting income) that the priority for London Buses is Londoners and their journeys within London.

No, I think we're grasping it very well. Nobody is forcing TfL to keep the fares at £1.75 if the buses are as unprofitable as they claim. It's not as though Londoners don't use the buses between "Zone 6" and Bluewater in their hundreds, or to work at Darent Valley Hospital. They too would be disadvantaged - arguably more than Kent residents.

KCC may very well be biting the hand that feeds them.

No: TfL fares significantly undercut Kent ones, and as explained in previous replies, with the exception of a few roads in Dartford (which KCC have apparently already secured an outline expression of interest from another operator) and the very early/late services, they offer little that isn't already there one way or another.

Some accounts I have seen (although I cannot speak firsthand to this effect) is that the alternative bus services are single decker and unreliable.

Everyone will tell you they have the world's worst bus service... there are multiple examples in this forum alone! Not sure what being single-decker has to do with anything; they always have been... including whilst the 428 still was.

Residents of Dartford don't seem to appreciate what they have. They will travel into London using Oyster cards for work, change for the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood and the DLR at Woolwich Arsenal and Greenwich, or perhaps use the London Underground further in. Then on return to Kent they will continue to benefit from the London integrated fares. They will benefit from bus capping and potentially travelcards if they are wise. Yet there doesn't seem to be a huge lobby against KCC on this matter.

Because KCC aren't allegedly threatening to withdraw their bus service. In the limited Kent-based items I've heard, the general sense is "good, London should pay their fair share".

They seem to be forgetting that TfL is under no obligation to serve Kent. They will be worse off if the service is withdrawn, and so will Londoners.

Correct. TfL is also under no obligation to use the Fastrack bus lanes on the 96, which it argued heavily on favour of being allowed to do so. I suspect the loss to Londoners will be higher than that to Kent residents.

Not sure who KCC think they are to be charging a fee for the road when they don't contribute to the service, especially when Surrey make contributions to their routes.

KCC can charge what they like, because it's in Kent! It is, as I suggested above, no different to a bus station departure fee, or for a specific TfL example, an LSP application/change/renewal. Not sure who TfL think they are expecting to keep their fees at 2017 levels.

I wonder if KCC stand to benefit at all from this? If the service is withdrawn and passengers use alternative Kent buses which charge higher rates, that would be good for Kent?

Probably.

But some will no doubt resign to car usage.

I doubt people are that tempted by a £1.75 bus fare (over a £3 bus fare) to use their cars. Especially as the TfL routes in question are of limited use for the wider area, so anyone changing buses is already likely to have a suitable ticket. Granted there may be a few in some areas who would make a short hop, but if you're travelling from Gravesend to Dartford, or Temple Hill to the Hospital - you're not going to pay one fare locally then another on TfL, when you could just do it either as a through journey or a Multibus ticket.

Especially if the alternatives are so far inferior like I have heard.

I've heard TfL buses are full of feral kids who ride around all day causing mayhem. Doesn't mean that's accurate either.

On the topic of fare evasion, I imagine it is negligble. But what % of evasion will be from Kent youths claiming to have lost their passes wben they are not entitled to free travel passes in the same way young people in LB Bexley and Greenwich will be??

Could easily be a lower percentage of Kent users than London ones, could easily be higher.

As explained in previous replies, and again here: Only the 96 uses the FT bus lanes, and doesn't have to. It hasn't yet announced a formal consultation that it will. I have been a little 'short' in some of my replies to you here, but your post was very London-centric, with a slight taste that Kent residents should be grateful and accept whatever TfL decides is law. As I said in post #4341, "it does seem a little bit like [TfL] is happy to charge other areas when they benefit from TfL provision, but isn't happy about being charged by others when TfL benefit from theirs.

 

[aron2smith]

I think some are failing to grasp (among their quarrels about how Sadiq Khan has kept London Buses at an unprofitable rate and how fare evasion is supposedly so high it is affecting income) that the priority for London Buses is Londoners and their journeys within London. KCC may very well be biting the hand that feeds them. Some accounts I have seen (although I cannot speak firsthand to this effect) is that the alternative bus services are single decker and unreliable. Residents of Dartford don't seem to appreciate what they have. They will travel into London using Oyster cards for work, change for the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood and the DLR at Woolwich Arsenal and Greenwich, or perhaps use the London Underground further in. Then on return to Kent they will continue to benefit from the London integrated fares. They will benefit from bus capping and potentially travelcards if they are wise. Yet there doesn't seem to be a huge lobby against KCC on this matter. They seem to be forgetting that TfL is under no obligation to serve Kent. They will be worse off if the service is withdrawn, and so will Londoners.

To me it is a ridiculous situation and shows something is deeply wrong with the way our country's government is structured and the right wing seemingly being keen disruptors really doesn't help. Instead of being responsive to what towns (and cities) exist as well as their future development, instead almost everyone is fighting over their own patch, as I say it's ridiculous. I would say Dartford is lucky to have 3 London bus routes but that's an example of policy and services being rightly responsive to place. Dartford always had London buses. No one can meaningfully tell Dartford apart from Bexley or Crayford or Erith. It's an area like so many around London where the built up area doesn't neatly align with the council area. In Dartford and SE London's case, it's more or less continuous to Gravesend, further filled in by the Ebbsfleet development. How Kent the County can have the interests of people in this area and act like it's the same as those in other parts of Kent is also ridiculous.

An argument really ought to be made that TFL and Kent Fastrack should be far more integrated, especially on fares, sharing of infrastructure etc. Go Ahead run in both areas from the same garage!

And the argument that London is only what was decided in the 60s and sod everything outside is also deeply unsatisfactory. London and the surrounding areas heavily impact each other in a complex number of ways. So I agree Londoners and Kent people would both be a lot worse off from this. There are many towns and villages just beyond Greater London that once had red London buses and clearly still hurt socially and economically from losing them. The town gets either left behind or over-congested or people simply stop visiting, Waltham Abbey is a perfect example of that and these sort of communities have relatives in London or vice versa, same with businesses. Epping shows the opposite end of this where it's a successful town but traffic is a constant problem as buses don't really fill in the gap left by the tube.

Not sure who KCC think they are to be charging a fee for the road when they don't contribute to the service, especially when Surrey make contributions to their routes.
I wonder if KCC stand to benefit at all from this? If the service is withdrawn and passengers use alternative Kent buses which charge higher rates, that would be good for Kent? But some will no doubt resign to car usage. Especially if the alternatives are so far inferior like I have heard. I will agree that it doesn't seem entirely necessary to withdraw the 428 and 492 when they don't use the fastrack bus lane. Definitely coupling one issue in with another, especially considering previous failed attempts to curtail/withdraw those services.

A strong agree here. The different authorities really should be working together for the benefit of locals and visitors.

 

[Mattplans]

It is a very well written post

Agreed.

TfL also do not need to cut the service if they don't want to pay the fees; they revert to using the regular roads.

Which takes longer and are deathly congested. It might require raising the PVR. At a time when London Buses are already being stripped to its' bones, it's simply not going to happen.

Not sure what being single-decker has to do with anything;

A single decker bus has less capacity than a double decker.

they always have been... including whilst the 428 still was.

the 428 was a single decker. It is now a double decker. A double decker bus holds more capacity than a single decker.

I doubt people are that tempted by a £1.75 bus fare (over a £3 bus fare) to use their cars

TfL fares significantly undercut Kent ones

A reduction in bus capacity between Dartford and Bluewater might? and the incumbent buses which we have already established are smaller and less capacious than the London Buses, clearly means that there will be less comfortable journeys on the incumbent Kent buses. That's a pretty compelling reason travel by car instead?

Not to mention the less frequent timetable and less buses available for use? I'd hate to imagine all the current 96, 428 and 492 passengers squeezed into a single bus? A look at bustimes.org will tell you that there's a 96 about every 5-7 mins on a weekday. Kent simply cannot match that capacity nor should it be expected to. If you are arguing that the withdrawal of bus services between Dartford and Gravesend wouldn't cause an (at the very least, modest) increase in car usage I'd wager you are definitely incorrect.

Your claim that TfL fares undercut Kent ones rests on the assumption that all users of the TfL buses could be users of the Kent buses. How are you so sure this is the case? Will it be after the aggressive reduction in capacity?

Only the 96 uses the FT bus lanes, and doesn't have to.

On a normal day, there are already a lot of curtailments to this service. Whether the congested route is on the Woolwich or Dartford side I can't say - I am not a user of this bus. What I do know is that there's a clear desire to provide a better journey for passengers which should be welcomed by KCC.

And besides - how can we be so sure Kent won't charge TfL for other roads as well?

Everyone will tell you they have the world's worst bus service

Yet, somehow, I imagine travellers between Dartford and Bluewater will tell you that TfL offers a superior service (by almost every metric)

Without making light of TfL's financial position, which is known to be somewhat shaky (albeit little different from many other local authorities nowadays) it does seem a little bit like it is happy to charge other areas when they benefit from TfL provision, but isn't happy about being charged by others when TfL benefit from theirs.

So do London Buses stand at Bluewater for free?

My post may have been "london centric" but it was a realist perspective.

The ideal outcome here for passengers is for things to continue to operate the way they have been. If the service is withdrawn, it will be to the detriment of both Kent and Greater London. We'll read every other week in the News Shopper about how old Grandma from Bexley isn't able to access DVH. But they will get by: they'll make use of their Freedom Pass which is accepted at Dartford station. And whether you want to admit it or not, there will be a huge reduction in capacity between Dartford and Bluewater. Working families will be squeezed even further by KCC proposals to increase school bus passes by 26%. The buses in question pass in the region of Kent schools.

I'd be surprised if KCC manages to squeeze anything out of TfL in an economy where TfL seem to have decided the best course of action is to withdraw as many buses as practically possible. This issue will simply give TfL the excuse it has been looking for to axe the services that cross the border. That doesn't benefit any party.

Who does KCC act for? Reform is already experiencing a steady decline in support. They don't need another issue where they'll ultimately be blamed and the people of Kent will be worse off. In this context, it doesn't matter what happens to Greater Londoners. That's why I think this is a non-starter. If KCC force TFL's hand and they respond by withdrawing services into Kent, it won't be pretty.

I would say Dartford is lucky to have 3 London bus routes but that's an example of policy and services being rightly responsive to place. Dartford always had London buses. No one can meaningfully tell Dartford apart from Bexley or Crayford or Erith.

Agreed. In any case, Dartford has more meaningful urban city-like developments than can be seen in some parts of LB Bexley. This arbitary boundary means nothing, especially to locals, and it's sad to see it rearing its' head through yet again in a situation where neither party stands to make a tangible gain. Bluewater means as much to Bexley and Greenwich as Westfield Stratford means to its' locality. The same goes for Brent Cross and the surrounding areas of NW London.

 

[talldave]

Why do the new blue/white/black displays on electric buses only show the time when the bus is stopping? It's illogical!

My guess is the person doing the software forgot to invert the font colour of the time when the bus isn't stopping, so it's showing as black text on a black background?

 

[Railguy1]

Anyone know why several info waiting time displays at bus stops in the Pinner/North Harrow area are no longer working?

It’s been fixed after about at least half a year or more.