London Buses Discussion

[Robertj21a]

When the London Mayor visited Wrightbus as Ballymena last week, it was stated in press release that there are already 750 electric buses in London. 30 Electroliners buses (already ordered by Abellio) will be delivered by October for route 111 Kingston-Heathrow by October.

Mayor visits Northern Ireland bus factory, highlights TfL funding risk

Mayor highlights risk to jobs across the country if TfL isn’t properly funded with visit to Northern Ireland bus factory

www.london.gov.uk

By October should be about 880 electric (and hydrogen) buses, as routes 295 and 226 are due to transfer to RATP in October and gain electric buses too. This will take RATP electric fleet to 304

GoAhead will have about 300 electric buses (routes 132, 119, 264 get BYD ADL E400EVs and route 358 is getting Irizar e-tram)

Abellio will have most variety with its 132 buses, having opted for Caetano e-city, BYD ADL E400EV, Wrightbus electroliners, and some short 8.7m Switch (Optare) metrocities for route 322

The other about 150 electric buses are with the remaining Operators (Arriva, Metroline, Stagecoach), none of which will have reached 100 zero emission buses in their London fleets.

A couple of prototypes are due, Metroline is getting a Volvo BZL with MCV body, and GoAhead is getting a short 10.3m BYD ADL E400EV which apparently has only 20 seats downstairs (less than shortest single decks in London)

Until TfL sort out their funding, it appears all bus tenders involving new buses are on hold. Based on routes out to tender with buses which will be 10 years old, there is around 140 new buses needed (although few might get buses from cuts to other routes).

Surely, many more routes still need to get further cuts, which will free up quite a large number of more vehicles ?

 

[traji00]

Outcome of the 1/168/188 restructuring:

Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we consulted on proposed changes to bus routes 1, 168 and 188.

A total of 343 people responded to the consultation.

After carefully considering all responses and feedback received, we have decided to proceed with the following:

• Merging routes 1 and 168, creating a new route for the local network operating between Hampstead Heath and Canada Water
• Renumbering the new route as ‘route 1’
• Rerouting the 188 so that it terminates at Tottenham Court Road

These changes are expected to come into effect in September 2023.

For further details and to view our consultation report, please visit: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/routes-1-168-188

Outcome of the 21/143/263/271 restructuring:

Between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022, we consulted on proposed changes to bus routes 21, 143, 263 and 271.

A total of 1,520 people responded to the consultation.

Following careful consideration of consultation responses, we have revised the proposals to reduce the impact on passengers.

Route 143 will remain on its current routeing, helping to retain direct links to Highgate Village and Whittington Hospital. This also means a common bus stop for two routes (143 and 263) will be retained at Archway for trips via Highgate Hill. Route 234 will be extended from Highgate Wood to Archway via Archway Road instead of route 143, retaining links currently provided by route 263.

We intend to proceed with the revised proposals, which are set out below:

• Withdraw route 271 between Highgate Village and Moorgate, Finsbury Square
• Introduce a new night service, N271, between North Finchley Bus Station and Moorgate, Finsbury Square
• Restructure route 21 so that it runs between Holloway, Nags Head and Lewisham
• Restructure route 263 so that it runs via Highgate Village instead of Archway Road
• Extend route 234 from Highgate Wood to Archway via Archway Road

We will also introduce additional southbound buses on routes 76 and 141 during peak morning hours to help ensure there is sufficient capacity provided at Newington Green and on Southgate Road and Baring Street.

We have decided not to proceed with the introduction of new school route, 620, as route 143 will continue to operate on its existing route, continuing to provide service to schools along the route.

We anticipate these changes will be introduced in early 2023, but this may be subject to change.

For further details and to view our consultation report, please visit: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/routes-21-143-263-271

 

[NorthKent1989]

I see the 180 is being pointlessly changed from the 14th May, it will no longer serve Lewisham but North Greenwich and is being extended to Erith, why they couldn’t extend the 469 as a CrossRail feeder route I’ll never know but way to go TfL for cutting a busy trunk route for a link that’s 2 decades past it’s sell by date.

Crossrail related bus changes to soon begin as opening approaches - Murky Depths

Bus service changes due to Crossrail are set to begin soon as the line readies for open. One change is diverting the 180 from Lewisham to North Greenwich with 472 extension to Abbey Wood also planned.

www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk

 

[Mikey C]

I see the 180 is being pointlessly changed from the 14th May, it will no longer serve Lewisham but North Greenwich and is being extended to Erith, why they couldn’t extend the 469 as a CrossRail feeder route I’ll never know but way to go TfL for cutting a busy trunk route for a link that’s 2 decades past it’s sell by date.

Crossrail related bus changes to soon begin as opening approaches - Murky Depths

Bus service changes due to Crossrail are set to begin soon as the line readies for open. One change is diverting the 180 from Lewisham to North Greenwich with 472 extension to Abbey Wood also planned.

www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk

Slightly odd to send an additional route to North Greenwich as a result of Crossrail opening, a rail service which doesn't serve North Greenwich, Greenwich or Lewisham

 

[Edsmith]

Slightly odd to send an additional route to North Greenwich as a result of Crossrail opening, a rail service which doesn't serve North Greenwich, Greenwich or Lewisham

I was under the impression that the reason for the 129 and 180 change is that buses will no longer be able to terminate in Greenwich town centre when the one way system is removed?

 

[NorthKent1989]

I was under the impression that the reason for the 129 and 180 change is that buses will no longer be able to terminate in Greenwich town centre when the one way system is removed?

They could have still extended the 129 beyond Lewisham to Catford, without reducing capacity between Woolwich & Greenwich and breaking vital, long-standing links rather than the 180 duplicating the 472, such a short sighted change seeing as the 177 won’t be increased in frequency either, meaning the 177 will now be absolutely rammed between Plumstead and Greenwich.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2022 ==

Slightly odd to send an additional route to North Greenwich as a result of Crossrail opening, a rail service which doesn't serve North Greenwich, Greenwich or Lewisham

Exactly this, the new 180 changes basically duplicates the 472, and very few locals support this change.

I feel that TfL have not properly thought this through, just like when they cut back routes 53 & 171 citing “CrossRail” being the reason.

 

[Edsmith]

They could have still extended the 129 beyond Lewisham to Catford, without reducing capacity between Woolwich & Greenwich and breaking vital, long-standing links rather than the 180 duplicating the 472, such a short sighted change seeing as the 177 won’t be increased in frequency either, meaning the 177 will now be absolutely rammed between Plumstead and Greenwich.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Mar 2022 ==



Exactly this, the new 180 changes basically duplicates the 472, and very few locals support this change.

I feel that TfL have not properly thought this through, just like when they cut back routes 53 & 171 citing “CrossRail” being the reason.

I don't see how Catford comes into it? Two routes between Greenwich and Lewisham would be wasteful and I think the 472 is being reduced? The 54 and 122 are generally quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham.

What has Crossrail got to do with the 53 and 171? They were both changed in 2019 because of falling demand.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don't see how Catford comes into it? Two routes between Greenwich and Lewisham would be wasteful and I think the 472 is being reduced? The 54 and 122 are generally quicker between Woolwich and Lewisham.

What has Crossrail got to do with the 53 and 171? They were both changed in 2019 because of falling demand.

CrossRail was cited as being the reason for the future falling demand at the time even though it was no where near opening this applied more to the 53 than the 171, but was still a short sighted change nonetheless.

Yes the 472 is being reduced but all they’ve done is halved the capacity along the Woolwich to Greenwich corridor which even with both the 177 & 180 running can be very busy, the Greenwich one way system non-withstanding, it’s still a pointless change that will overload the 177, TfL have stolen from one person to pay another person.

The 54 is quicker from Woolwich to Lewisham but the 122 is slower than both the 180 & 54, it always gets caught up in A205 traffic and is more circuitous, but my point is that long standing links are being broken for little to no reason.

I only said to extend the 129 to Catford as an example of where else to extend the route.

 

[Edsmith]

CrossRail was cited as being the reason for the future falling demand at the time even though it was no where near opening this applied more to the 53 than the 171, but was still a short sighted change nonetheless.

Yes the 472 is being reduced but all they’ve done is halved the capacity along the Woolwich to Greenwich corridor which even with both the 177 & 180 running can be very busy, the Greenwich one way system non-withstanding, it’s still a pointless change that will overload the 177, TfL have stolen from one person to pay another person.

The 54 is quicker from Woolwich to Lewisham but the 122 is slower than both the 180 & 54, it always gets caught up in A205 traffic and is more circuitous, but my point is that long standing links are being broken for little to no reason.

I only said to extend the 129 to Catford as an example of where else to extend the route.

Even pre covid bus usage in Central London has been declining for various reasons and inevitably there are going to be reductions.

I realise that there are pros and cons about the 180 change but with buses no longer able to terminate in Greenwich there aren't many other options.

 

[johncrossley]

The days of running direct buses for historical reasons is over. That is a legacy of needing to pay when changing buses. One route per road is the ultimate goal. Overlapping routes can only be justified if the demand on that road section is higher or if the road system necessitates it. There needs to be care taken to make changing buses easier, altering the road network as appropriate.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Even pre covid bus usage in Central London has been declining for various reasons and inevitably there are going to be reductions.

I realise that there are pros and cons about the 180 change but with buses no longer able to terminate in Greenwich there aren't many other options.

More cons than pros to be honest.

The days of running direct buses for historical reasons is over. That is a legacy of needing to pay when changing buses. One route per road is the ultimate goal. Overlapping routes can only be justified if the demand on that road section is higher or if the road system necessitates it. There needs to be care taken to make changing buses easier, altering the road network as appropriate.

But does that mean there should be reduced capacity? Having lived in this neck of the woods my whole life I think there are some changes that are unnecessary

 

[johncrossley]

But does that mean there should be reduced capacity?

Ideally you match the capacity to the demand. That's easier when you don't have overlapping routes. With one route per road you can alter the frequency as required and as resources allow. When you are running lots of direct buses you inevitably end up with excess capacity on some sections of route. That means wasted resource that could have been used elsewhere where a frequency increase would be useful.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Ideally you match the capacity to the demand. That's easier when you don't have overlapping routes. With one route per road you can alter the frequency as required and as resources allow. When you are running lots of direct buses you inevitably end up with excess capacity on some sections of route. That means wasted resource that could have been used elsewhere where a frequency increase would be useful.

Then adding the 180 to NG will surely over excess of capacity between NG & Woolwich, there’s already two routes that do this via Charlton add the 486 from Charlton and that’s three, the 180 will make four routes.

 

[Mikey C]

Then adding the 180 to NG will surely over excess of capacity between NG & Woolwich, there’s already two routes that do this via Charlton add the 486 from Charlton and that’s three, the 180 will make four routes.

Yes it seems curious to have so much capacity serving North Greenwich and the "Ikea" retail park from Charlton. It's as if TfL want to utilise that bus lane on the peninsula built for the Millennium Dome, leaving the Woolwich Road quieter for cyclists on the new and empty cycle path there.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yes it seems curious to have so much capacity serving North Greenwich and the "Ikea" retail park from Charlton. It's as if TfL want to utilise that bus lane on the peninsula built for the Millennium Dome.

If it’s the bus lane I think you’re talking about, that was converted into a duel carriageway a few years ago and is no longer a bus lane.

I recall it was built in anticipation of the now cancelled Greenwich Waterfront Tram/Trolley bus scheme.

It does seem that linking Erith to North Greenwich when CrossRail will be next door is a move that should have occurred twenty years ago.

CrossRail’s benefits is that it’ll take the load off the eastern end of the Jubilee line.

leaving the Woolwich Road quieter for cyclists on the new and empty cycle path there.

Ah yes, that much lauded, controversial bike lane that is basically empty east of of the Woolwich Flyover

 

[AlbertBeale]

The days of running direct buses for historical reasons is over. That is a legacy of needing to pay when changing buses. One route per road is the ultimate goal. Overlapping routes can only be justified if the demand on that road section is higher or if the road system necessitates it. There needs to be care taken to make changing buses easier, altering the road network as appropriate.

The problem with introducing changes which mean people need to change buses is not only - or primarily - to do with ticketing (especially given daily caps, concessions, etc). The main problem is that it slows down journeys (passengers' journeys, even if not buses' journeys - the two are often confused), and makes it much harder to travel if you have mobility problems or a heavy load to carry. It's a significant deterrent to bus use, and impacts especially on the most vulnerable.

Buses aren't like some kind of set of moving pavements where you just step seamlessly from one to the other when you get to a junction; they involve people who might not be in perfect health having to stand [have you tried sitting comfortably for any period on a seat at a London bus stop?] in bad weather, often having had to walk a couple of hundred yards between stops, struggling to hold on to bags of shopping, and so on.

And the increased end-to-end journey time for non-mobility-impaired passengers is of course exacerbated by the removal of the hop-on-hop-off option to change routes between stops (with the closure of rear doors).

Many public transport changes seem to be made by planners who only understand services from a top-down point of view, and have little idea what it's like to be an elderly, vulnerable person whose journeys are being made more challenging.

 

[NorthKent1989]

The problem with introducing changes which mean people need to change buses is not only - or primarily - to do with ticketing (especially given daily caps, concessions, etc). The main problem is that it slows down journeys (passengers' journeys, even if not buses' journeys - the two are often confused), and makes it much harder to travel if you have mobility problems or a heavy load to carry. It's a significant deterrent to bus use, and impacts especially on the most vulnerable.

And the increased end-to-end journey time for non-mobility-impaired passengers is of course exacerbated by the removal of the hop-on-hop-off option to change routes between stops (with the closure of rear doors).

Many public transport changes seem to be made by planners who only understand services from a top-down point of view, and have little idea what it's like to be an elderly, vulnerable person whose journeys are being made more challenging.

Exactly this point.

And the interchange between this restructured 180 and the 129 is rather awkward and involves crossing a road, usually when they alter a route like the 180 they usually split it but have a lengthy overlap to provide a interchange, Charlton loses a vital, regular link to Lewisham in which the alternatives are either the 380 which runs on the residential streets rather the main road or the half hourly Lewisham train which is more expensive and less frequent.

This 180 change seems rather crayonista too me, I struggle to believe that North Greenwich will still be a major draw for those east of Charlton once CrossRail has been fully inaugurated.

If anything there should be more routes from Blackheath/Eltham/Lewisham to North Greenwich since those areas won’t get the benefit of CrossRail.

 

[mb88]

If it’s the bus lane I think you’re talking about, that was converted into a duel carriageway a few years ago and is no longer a bus lane.

That contra flow bus lane was an accident waiting to happen. Many a time whilst driving the 161 I nearly came head on with cars travelling down the bus lane under the mistaken impression that it was a dual carriageway.

 

[MotCO]

Ah yes, that much lauded, controversial bike lane that is basically empty east of of the Woolwich Flyover

Aren't all cycle lanes empty?

 

[NorthKent1989]

That contra flow bus lane was an accident waiting to happen. Many a time whilst driving the 161 I nearly came head on with cars travelling down the bus lane under the mistaken impression that it was a dual carriageway.

I actually saw a near miss on that bus lane once myself, better to have converted it to a dual carriageway.

Aren't all cycle lanes empty?

Pretty much, they seem to be only popular in central London.

 

[johncrossley]

The problem with introducing changes which mean people need to change buses is not only - or primarily - to do with ticketing (especially given daily caps, concessions, etc). The main problem is that it slows down journeys (passengers' journeys, even if not buses' journeys - the two are often confused), and makes it much harder to travel if you have mobility problems or a heavy load to carry. It's a significant deterrent to bus use, and impacts especially on the most vulnerable.

But it isn't possible to provide a direct service from every stop to every other stop in London, or even in your borough. Even with the traditional London bus network, changing was inevitable for many if not most possible journey pairs. The key is to make changing as easy as possible, redesigning road layouts if necessary. In big cities outside the UK changing seems to be the norm and it is accepted that you can't get good public transport mode share if people only use direct buses.

 

[NorthKent1989]

But it isn't possible to provide a direct service from every stop to every other stop in London, or even in your borough. Even with the traditional London bus network, changing was inevitable for many if not most possible journey pairs. The key is to make changing as easy as possible, redesigning road layouts if necessary. In big cities outside the UK changing seems to be the norm and it is accepted that you can't get good public transport mode share if people only use direct buses.

The 180 does a good job now at connecting places along the Woolwich-Charlton-Greenwich corridor already though, I can get changes if they make sense or have a good place to interchange to carry on a journey but this breaks links unnecessarily.

 

[Mikey C]

If it’s the bus lane I think you’re talking about, that was converted into a duel carriageway a few years ago and is no longer a bus lane.

I recall it was built in anticipation of the now cancelled Greenwich Waterfront Tram/Trolley bus scheme.

It's no longer a separate bus route, but the capacity is still the same as one lane of the dual carriageway each way is a permanent bus lane, and it's a very quiet route for traffic anyway

 

[Snow1964]

Some more London bus tender results have been published today.

Arriva have retained 149 with new routemaster for 5 years

All others are 7 years, with a considerable number marked TBC for vehicles (existing fleet too old to be kept, but presumably new vehicles not authorised yet due to TfL funding woes)

Metroline West retained 187, 487
Metroline retained 297, 384
HCT group retained W5

London General (GoAhead Group) retained 80, 93, 151, 154, 163, 164, and gained 91, 470, N97

Full details including contract dates, in news pages on link

LOTS Home Page

www.lots.org.uk

 

[Busaholic]

The days of running direct buses for historical reasons is over.

Those days were over decades ago. What we are talking about here is retaining a direct route that, not so long ago, had to have its frequency increased because passengers were being left behind. The need is still there, but TfL are not prepared to admit they are wrong.

 

[Mikey C]

All others are 7 years, with a considerable number marked TBC for vehicles (existing fleet too old to be kept, but presumably new vehicles not authorised yet due to TfL funding woes)

Things are starting to come to a head really with the aging fleet. Metroline as I've mentioned here before have a very old fleet of E200s which won't be suitable for fleet renewals.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Those days were over decades ago. What we are talking about here is retaining a direct route that, not so long ago, had to have its frequency increased because passengers were being left behind. The need is still there, but TfL are not prepared to admit they are wrong.

Not to mention that the 177 won’t have its frequency increased either despite it soon being the sole route between Woolwich and Greenwich, so the 177 will be majorly overcrowded soon, TfL are being stubborn about this but the local MP has been pretty useless on this issue as well, more people are against this than there are people who are for these changes going ahead.

 

[Edsmith]

The 180 does a good job now at connecting places along the Woolwich-Charlton-Greenwich corridor already though, I can get changes if they make sense or have a good place to interchange to carry on a journey but this breaks links unnecessarily.

On a positive note the change will give a direct link from Plumstead High Street to North Greenwich rather than the indirect 422. The alternative would be to curtail the 180 in Woolwich.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Mar 2022 ==

But it isn't possible to provide a direct service from every stop to every other stop in London, or even in your borough. Even with the traditional London bus network, changing was inevitable for many if not most possible journey pairs. The key is to make changing as easy as possible, redesigning road layouts if necessary. In big cities outside the UK changing seems to be the norm and it is accepted that you can't get good public transport mode share if people only use direct buses.

Exactly and changing buses should be as acceptable as changing tube lines.

 

[NorthKent1989]

On a positive note the change will give a direct link from Plumstead High Street to North Greenwich rather than the indirect 422. The alternative would be to curtail the 180 in Woolwich.

I mean the 472 is on the other end of the high street, Plumstead has gone twenty years without needing such a link, while Abbey Wood loses a link to Greenwich & Lewisham mean while CrossRail is opening in nearby Woolwich and Abbey Wood, North Greeneich won’t be that big a draw anymore once CrossRail opens.

Why curtail the 180 in Woolwich? As @Busaholic said the 180 had to have its frequency increased because it’s a busy route that connects east of the borough to the west plus Lewisham, and it’s continually busy along with the 177, to halve the capacity on that section to duplicate a link is lunacy.

 

[Edsmith]

I mean the 472 is on the other end of the high street, Plumstead has gone twenty years without needing such a link, while Abbey Wood loses a link to Greenwich & Lewisham mean while CrossRail is opening in nearby Woolwich and Abbey Wood, North Greeneich won’t be that big a draw anymore once CrossRail opens.

Why curtail the 180 in Woolwich? As @Busaholic said the 180 had to have its frequency increased because it’s a busy route that connects east of the borough to the west plus Lewisham, and it’s continually busy along with the 177, to halve the capacity on that section to duplicate a link is lunacy.

Curtailing the 180 in Woolwich is probably the only other option to it going to North Greenwich? It's not going to be possible for buses to terminate in Greenwich town centre anymore so I can't really see much alternative to the 129 and 180 change.