Buses that cross the TfL border

[radamfi]

What other stations inside the M25 aren't oyster?

Many SWT stations including

Kempton Park
Upper Halliford
Sunbury
Ashford (Surrey)
Staines
Chertsey
Addlestone
Shepperton
Weybridge
Byfleet & New Haw
Hersham
Walton on Thames
Esher
Hinchley Wood
Claygate
Oxshott
Cobham & Stoke D'Abernon

Also: Radlett, Dartford, Swanley, Denham Golf Club, Denham, Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood

 

[wimbledonpete]

Many SWT stations including

Kempton Park
Upper Halliford
Sunbury
Ashford (Surrey)
Staines
Chertsey
Addlestone
Shepperton
Weybridge
Byfleet & New Haw
Hersham
Walton on Thames
Esher
Hinchley Wood
Claygate
Oxshott
Cobham & Stoke D'Abernon

Also: Radlett, Dartford, Swanley, Denham Golf Club, Denham, Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood

Again, special pleading I know, but Kempton and Esher being just outside the zones is particularly annoying when organising a work night out at the races. "But what do you MEAN I have to queue up for another ticket..."

 

[southern442]

Many SWT stations including

Kempton Park
Upper Halliford
Sunbury
Ashford (Surrey)
Staines
Chertsey
Addlestone
Shepperton
Weybridge
Byfleet & New Haw
Hersham
Walton on Thames
Esher
Hinchley Wood
Claygate
Oxshott
Cobham & Stoke D'Abernon

Also: Radlett, Dartford, Swanley, Denham Golf Club, Denham, Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood

Also Woldingham, Dartford and of course Epsom.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I remember back in the day (about 10/11 years ago) I was studying in Kingston and living in Molesey, which was just on the wrong side of the outer boundary of Zone 6. Luckily, there was a LT-supported bus route (the 411) which ran to within 200yards of my student digs. The fare into Kingston was £1 rather than the then-standard 70p as it was still classed as a cross-boundary service. This was a slight pain, but even closer to my house were two Surrey County Council supported bus routes (the 451 Kingston-Staines and 461 Kingston-Woking) though these each ran only every other hour and the fare into Kingston was a then eye-watering £3!

 

[CatfordCat]

I would've thought that all stations within the M25 should be in the zones.

The M25 and the boundaries of the Greater London Authority (TfL) are not the same - the GLA boundary is pretty much as established in 1965 when the old GLC was formed, and while the M25 existed in various plans at the time, it certainly hadn't started to be built then!

There are certainly bits of the M25 that are some distance outside Greater London; from memory I can't think of any bits of Greater London that go much outside the M25 but there may be some.

There are some stations outside Greater London (Epping springs to mind) that have managed to find their way into zone 6, for reasons I'm not sure of, then there's a few bits outside GLA area that are Oyster-able, e.g. 'zones 7-9' out to Watford / Amersham etc, and then Purfleet - Grays which doesn't seem to be given a zone number.

There are certainly a few extensions to Oyster which would be useful - Dartford is an obvious one (although London 'Freedom pass' is valid on trains to Dartford - and of course Oyster / Travelcard is valid on TfL buses all the way to Bluewater)

I am not sure whether co-operation to do Oyster outside GLA requires co-operation of the train company, local authority, or both.

If you really want confusing, it's worth bearing in mind that the -

City of London
1899 London County Council area (former Inner London Education Authority)
Area covered by London post codes
Area covered by London telephone dialling code
Greater London Authority Area
area inside the M25
pre-2000 Metropolitan Police area
Greater London Urban Area (used for some planning / statistical purposes)

are all different.

The area covered by London Electricity (Board) is probably subtly different as well...

 

[Deerfold]

There are some stations outside Greater London (Epping springs to mind) that have managed to find their way into zone 6, for reasons I'm not sure of, then there's a few bits outside GLA area that are Oyster-able, e.g. 'zones 7-9' out to Watford / Amersham etc, and then Purfleet - Grays which doesn't seem to be given a zone number.

Don't forget Watford Junction now has its own special zone now, rather than being part of 7-9 (though Watford LUL is in Zone 7).

 

[duncanp]

I can possibly see an argument for it to be extended to Epsom, but not Ashtead.

It is a bit odd that Epsom Downs and Tattenham Corner are in Zone 6, and thus able to accept Oyster, but Epsom itself isn't, particularly as there are several TfL bus routes that serve Epsom.

 

[jopsuk]

The descion of which Boroughs to include or not in Greater London does seem to have been quite arbitary- the boundary between the London Borough of Sutton and the Borough of Epsom and Ewell (Surrey) for example runs right down the middle of this street

Edit: seems some of these areas were originally recommended to be included

 

[CatfordCat]

The descion of which Boroughs to include or not in Greater London does seem to have been quite arbitary- the boundary between the London Borough of Sutton and the Borough of Epsom and Ewell (Surrey) for example runs right down the middle of this street

Edit: seems some of these areas were originally recommended to be included

Some of the boroughs that were recommended for inclusion within the GLC made quite a fuss about it, and successfully got left out

 

[jopsuk]

I do wonder if the hoice was put to them now whether (especially the Surrey-but-inside-the-M25 ones) some would choose to join London?

Of course, the M25 isn't at all an even distance from the centre of London (Charing Cross); on the southern side it mainly follows the route of what was to be Ringway 4 whilst in the north it is mainly Ringway 3- the A414 is roughly a section of Ringway 4.

(Ringway 2 is/was to be the North and South Circular with Ringway 1 further in- the East Cross Route, Blackwall Tunnel and out as far as Kidbrooke was all that was built of this)

 

[Zoe]

I do wonder if the hoice was put to them now whether (especially the Surrey-but-inside-the-M25 ones) some would choose to join London?

I'm not sure about that, quite a few people in Romford/Ilford will tell you that they live in Essex and do not want to be associated with London. If they had their way the towns would still be under Essex County Council. Even LBC say "Romford in Essex" or "Orpington in Kent" when the towns get mentioned in their news. It does seem a bit odd that north of the river Romford is in Greater London but places like Watford and Rickmansworth are not. Conversely North Ockenden is beyond the M25 and outside of the urban area but is in Greater London.

If the people in areas currently outside Greater London were asked if they wanted to join then the answer may well be a resounding no even though it could result in cheaper fares and improved evening/Sunday bus frequencies if TfL gained responsibility for the bus services in these areas rather than just the few services which currently run to them from Greater London. Also as far as I know no night buses leave Greater London even though they would provide a useful link to places like Watford which are just beyond the border.

 

[radamfi]

Of course, the best situation would be to have good bus services inside and outside the Greater London boundary. A nationwide per-km fare system like in the Netherlands avoids the problem of some people being just outside the boundary.

 

[Zoe]

Of course, the best situation would be to have good bus services inside and outside the Greater London boundary. A nationwide per-km fare system like in the Netherlands avoids the problem of some people being just outside the boundary.

How would you decide who gets a night bus and who doesn't? Most of Greater London has 24 hour transport thanks to the extensive night bus network but towns just beyond the border miss out. Even within Greater London I'm not sure every night route would be commercially viable so some subsidy would have to be accepted at which point the provision of such a service would likely be left to the local authorities outside Greater London of which may well not be prepared to fund it. Also frequencies in some areas of Greater London could well be much lower in the evening and on Sundays if the routes were left to the free market and again the local authorities may not want to subsidize and so the areas miss out whereas in Greater London it's all decided by TfL rather then left to the boroughs to decide if they want to subsidize a non-profitable service or not.

 

[34D]

Also as far as I know no night buses leave Greater London even though they would provide a useful link to places like Watford which are just beyond the border.

N279 to Waltham Cross?

 

[Zoe]

N279 to Waltham Cross?

Interesting, I wonder what the justification is for running this service beyond Enfield when many other towns just beyond the border do not get a service.

 

[radamfi]

How would you decide who gets a night bus and who doesn't? Most of Greater London has 24 hour transport thanks to the extensive night bus network but towns just beyond the border miss out. Even within Greater London I'm not sure every night route would be commercially viable so some subsidy would have to be accepted at which point the provision of such a service would likely be left to the local authorities outside Greater London of which may well not be prepared to fund it. Also frequencies in some areas of Greater London could well be much lower in the evening and on Sundays if the routes were left to the free market and again the local authorities may not want to subsidize and so the areas miss out whereas in Greater London it's all decided by TfL rather then left to the boroughs to decide if they want to subsidize a non-profitable service or not.

Bus service levels should be decided on the potential demand, not arbitrary lines drawn on a map. There is a continuous urban area stretching beyond the Greater London boundary into Surrey, so there's no sensible reason why service levels shouldn't be much different to areas of Greater London with similar population density. Clearly I am assuming a regulated environment in all areas, not a deregulated one surrounding a regulated one.

It is possible to run night buses outside city boundaries. Amsterdam has 24 hour buses in most of the city 7 days a week, but there are also routes to the surrounding towns of Diemen and Amstelveen, which are not strictly speaking in the city. The wider region has a comprehensive network of night buses at weekends.

Some of it shown at the top right of this map:

http://www.connexxion.nl/data/upload/10-Amstelland_12-13_v2i.pdf (page 2)

 

[Zoe]

Bus service levels should be decided on the potential demand, not arbitrary lines drawn on a map. There is a continuous urban area stretching beyond the Greater London boundary into Surrey, so there's no sensible reason why service levels shouldn't be much different to areas of Greater London with similar population density. Clearly I am assuming a regulated environment in all areas, not a deregulated one surrounding a regulated one.

Who would be resposbile for the regulation though? I'd have thought in theory it would be much easier to just include the entire urban area at least inside the M25 in Greater London and give TfL responsibility. Also if it was done entirely on demand then it's possible that some of the current night buses wouldn't run as they can be quiet at the end of their routes but they do provide an essential service for example to shift workers.

 

[Bishopstone]

There are certainly bits of the M25 that are some distance outside Greater London; from memory I can't think of any bits of Greater London that go much outside the M25 but there may be some.

I believe the only section of Greater London to spread beyond the M25 is that part of Havering around the village of North Ockendon.

I seem to recall that about 15 years ago there was a consultation, which proposed re-aligning the Greater London boundary with the M25 in this area. The change would have moved North Ockendon from the London Borough of Havering to Thurrock Council, re-uniting North and South Ockendon under one local authority.

There was vociferous opposition from the people of North Ockendon, fearing the loss of Travelcard and Freedom Pass acceptance to the village on route 370. This was before the launch of nationwide free bus travel for seniors. Another factor was schooling, where Upminster (Havering) has some great schools but Thurrock less so. The proposal was abandoned, although I'm sure the North Ockendon villagers would claim to live in Essex rather than London: it feels very rural!

 

[radamfi]

Who would be resposbile for the regulation though? I'd have thought in theory it would be much easier to just include the entire urban area at least inside the M25 in Greater London and give TfL responsibility. Also if it was done entirely on demand then it's possible that some of the current night buses wouldn't run as they can be quiet at the end of their routes but they do provide an essential service for example to shift workers.

It would seem logical for TfL to increase its remit to cover the whole urban area, and perhaps maybe into the wider south east, similar to the old LT area before 1970. Even if it didn't, though, there's no reason why services can't be run effectively between different authority areas. Good practice can be seen in Germany where neighbouring PTE-type areas have agreements in border areas where tickets from both regions are accepted.

As for running night buses based on demand, if there's a social case for running lightly used services then that's perfectly acceptable, as long as similar criteria is used everywhere, to avoid a 'postcode lottery'.

 

[Be3G]

Interesting, I wonder what the justification is for running this service beyond Enfield when many other towns just beyond the border do not get a service.

The last available turnaround location before Waltham Cross is Enfield Highway; terminating the N279 there would mean no bus service for roughly the equivalent of the entire zone 6 area of that part of London. Unless, I suppose, the N279 were to follow the 121 (which incidentally doesn't stop running until about 2am) to Enfield Island Village. But then it probably becomes a case of TfL not wanting to face the backlash of taking a night bus service away from the residents of London who'd no longer be served, as a night bus has run along the route to Waltham Cross for many years.

 

[bicbasher]

There are certainly bits of the M25 that are some distance outside Greater London; from memory I can't think of any bits of Greater London that go much outside the M25 but there may be some.

North Ockendon in the London Borough of Havering is outside the M25 ring.

 

[CatfordCat]

The trouble is, it's not "a postcode lottery", it is (in theory at least) democratically elected local authorities for each area, and boundaries have to be drawn somewhere.

(Although a lot of those boundaries follow ancient parish / manorial boundaries, there tends to be a heck of a lot of fuss any time anyone suggests altering them - as in the successful campaign that the likes of Epsom put up in the 60s to stay in Surrey rather than become part of the new GLC.)

The alternative is for Whitehall to take everything over / give local authorities such prescriptive rules that there's no real point in having local authorities.

The media is very good at deriding "postcode lotteries" on the one hand and "stalinist / dead hand of whitehall" on the other.

If the electors of (say) Surrey vote in a council which decides that spending money on bringing bus services to TfL standards isn't a priority, then is it reasonable to ask London council tax payers to pay for improved bus services into Surrey? TfL are fairly broad brush about and don't seek to terminate buses at the boundary, no matter what (in the 'good old days', some corporation operators' services did exactly that)

Similarly, if Surrey did decide to enhance services in the bits of the county that border London, will ratepayers in (say) Haslemere want to pay for that and retain their deregulated level of bus services?

Obviously, powers could be devolved to district council level, but there's no guarantee that those districts would elect councils willing to put funding into bus services, or that those districts would get adequate funding from central government to do so even if they wanted...

Short of full re-regulation of bus services around the country (and I don't see any major political party committing to that) I don't see an easy answer.

 

[Zoe]

(Although a lot of those boundaries follow ancient parish / manorial boundaries, there tends to be a heck of a lot of fuss any time anyone suggests altering them - as in the successful campaign that the likes of Epsom put up in the 60s to stay in Surrey rather than become part of the new GLC.)

I do wonder why the likes of Loughton, Watford, Rickmansworth, Staines, Epsom and Dartford were able to stay outside Greater London when Romford was not even though there is a strong feeling in Romford that the town is still in Essex and as I said in an earlier post even LBC refers to the town as "Romford in Essex" in their news. I've also heard people say that they had no say in joining Greater London back in 1965, it was forced on them and they'd prefer to be under Essex County Council rather than the GLA. In their opinion the London/Essex boundary is at the River Roding or A406 even though before 1965 the boundary was at the River Lea/Lee.

 

[radamfi]

Obviously things are rather difficult without regulation. To a large extent we have to work on the basis of deregulation being abolished otherwise we don't have a debate. It is rather British to assume that because something has been done in 1986 it cannot be changed.

However, in the case of the part of the Greater London Urban Area that is administratively part of Surrey, things are actually relatively favourable.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Urban_Area for the definition of the Greater London Urban Area).

The commercial bus network in Surrey within the M25 collapsed a few years ago so virtually all services in that area are tendered. So the only reason for poor service in this area is a lack of funding. This part of the country has the luxury of not having to wait for deregulation to be abolished.

TfL is funded almost entirely from national taxation, and county councils also receive the bulk of their money from central Government. So local democracy is largely irrelevant. So given a more even distribution of funding from central Goverment, buses in that part of Surrey could be decent.

 

[Zoe]

Obviously things are rather difficult without regulation. To a large extent we have to work on the basis of deregulation being abolished otherwise we don't have a debate. It is rather British to assume that because something has been done in 1986 it cannot be changed.

Although a long way from London, it should be noted that the SNP had bus reregulation as policy back in 2006 but less than a year later when it was getting close to an election they looked like winning the policy was dropped. This was quite strange as I wouldn't have thought the policy would have alienated many voters. The fact that even a party which previously had it as a policy dropped it when it looked like they would get power seems to suggest that there is some significant advantage in keeping the deregulated system although what that is I am not sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The commercial bus network in Surrey within the M25 collapsed a few years ago so virtually all services in that area are tendered. So the only reason for poor service in this area is a lack of funding. This part of the country has the luxury of not having to wait for deregulation to be abolished.

Are these routes tendered by Surrey County Council rather than TfL? If so then I'd have thought that if a commercial operator started running a service then Surrey would have to stop tendering the route. Under the current system I can only see significan improvemts if routes become TfL tendered and some of tendered and I'm not sure if TfL would do this for all the routes in question. Also there are other parts of the London urban area inside the M25 which are outside Greater London and so deregulated and I'm not sure how easy it would be to introduce tendered buses here when there are already commercial operators providing a service even if evening/Sunday frequencies are significantly less than they would be if the areas were in Greater London.

 

[radamfi]

Although a long way from London, it should be noted that the SNP had bus reregulation as policy back in 2006 but less than a year later when it was getting close to an election they looked like winning the policy was dropped. This was quite strange as I wouldn't have thought the policy would have alienated many voters. The fact that even a party which previously had it as a policy dropped it when it looked like they would get power seems to suggest that there is some significant advantage in keeping the deregulated system although what that is I am not sure.

Most people seem to think that SNP dropped the policy because Brian Souter of Stagecoach is a big donor to the party.

A less cynical view is that the deregulated system is probably cheaper for the taxpayer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are these routes tendered by Surrey County Council rather than TfL? If so then I'd have thought that if a commercial operator started running a service then Surrey would have to stop tendering the route. Under the current system I can only see significan improvemts if routes become TfL tendered and some of tendered and I'm not sure if TfL would do this for all the routes in question. Also there are other parts of the London urban area inside the M25 which are outside Greater London and so deregulated and I'm not sure how easy it would be to introduce tendered buses here when there are already commercial operators providing a service even if evening/Sunday frequencies are significantly less than they would be if the areas were in Greater London.

Yes, the routes in Surrey in question are tendered by Surrey County Council. If a commercial operator did start serving this area then the tendered service would usually stop, but it has been some time since the collapse of the commercial market so I think reintroduction of commercial services is unlikely in the short term. If a TfL-quality service was introduced in this area leading to TfL levels of patronage, then a commercial operator may be tempted at that stage.

I agree the other parts of the Greater London Urban Area are a problem, that is why I focus on Surrey as a showcase to demonstrate that it can be done.

 

[Deerfold]

The last available turnaround location before Waltham Cross is Enfield Highway; terminating the N279 there would mean no bus service for roughly the equivalent of the entire zone 6 area of that part of London. Unless, I suppose, the N279 were to follow the 121 (which incidentally doesn't stop running until about 2am) to Enfield Island Village. But then it probably becomes a case of TfL not wanting to face the backlash of taking a night bus service away from the residents of London who'd no longer be served, as a night bus has run along the route to Waltham Cross for many years.

Plus Waltham Cross bus station is run by TfL so is a fairly safe place to have crew changes, mean reliefs, leave buses for a while...

 

[bicbasher]

Surrey County Council part tender TfL Route 465 to Dorking.

 

[Deerfold]

Surrey County Council part tender TfL Route 465 to Dorking.

And service 166 Epsom to Croydon and route 467 Epsom to Hook.

 

[bicbasher]

And service 166 Epsom to Croydon and route 467 Epsom to Hook.

I believe the Surrey tender for Route 166 is for the 1 journey per hour to and from Epsom General Hospital which were commercial operations under Epsom Buses with the shorter journeys coming under the TfL tender.