TfL’s bus cuts cut

Thursday 24th November 2022

After all the hoo-ha in the summer over TfL’s proposed severe cuts to central London’s bus routes reflecting its target to reduce mileage by 4%, better match service provision with reduced numbers travelling, simplify the network and reflect strains on TfL’s struggling finances, it was announced yesterday almost all the proposals “will not go ahead at this time” leaving just a handful of reductions in frequencies on a small number of corridors and effectively only withdrawing four daytime routes in their current forms: routes 11, 16, 507 and 521.

And even then the numbers 11 and 16 are being preserved by “doing a 13/82”.

Just like the 82 was renumbered 13 to stave off the outcry at losing an iconic low numbered route a few years ago, route 332 becomes route 16. It parallels the 16 from Cricklewood along the Edgware Road as far as the Westway/Marylebone Road flyover (the 332 – to be 16 – then continues the short distance to Paddington) and from that junction route 6 parallels the existing 16 to Hyde Park Corner, where it currently turns east to Aldwych, so will instead continue south to Victoria to replace the rest of the 16 with route 23 rerouted at Hyde Park Corner to Aldwych (as it used to do) instead of Hammersmith to replace the 6.

The upshot of all that is a reduction in buses per hour along Edgware Road and Park Lane as well as Knightsbridge and Kensington Road to Hammersmith both of which probably make sense.

Then we have replacements for both the 507 and 521, similar to originally proposed in June which had route 507 extended to Fulham (replacing the 11) but by “doing a 13/82” the 507 is now to be renumbered 11 (Waterloo to Fulham) which will be replaced on its current section of route between Aldwych and Victoria by a diversion of route 26 to Victoria instead of Waterloo and changing route 3 at Lambeth Bridge to run via the 507’s route to Victoria instead of up Millbank and Whitehall to Horse Guards Parade. Route 26 already parallels route 11 between Liverpool Street and Aldwych.

The upshot of all that is a reduction in frequency between Liverpool Street and Aldwych and between Lambeth Bridge and Horse Guards Parade as well as over Waterloo Bridge which probably makes sense.

Route 211 from Hammersmith will divert over Chelsea Bridge to Battersea Power Station instead of through Victoria to Waterloo (now to be covered by the 11) because TfL have got a thing about Battersea Power Station.

The upshot of that is a reduction in frequency along Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria Street and Westminster Bridge which probably makes sense.

Route 521 is replaced as originally proposed by changes to route 59 (diverted to St Bartholomew’s Hospital instead of Euston) and 133 (diverted to Holborn instead of Liverpool Street).

The upshot of all that is a reduction in frequency north of Holborn via Russell Square to Euston and north of the Monument to Liverpool Street both of which probably makes sense.

A couple of very minor route changes to the 77 (its terminal point at Waterloo moves to the taxi rank) and C10 (rerouted between Elephant & Castle and Lambeth Bridge to maintain a link the 507 provides from Waterloo to Horseferry Road) are also going ahead.

These slimmed down cuts will be introduced on an unspecified date in 2023.

It’s good to see common sense prevail, but should it have taken 21,528 responses to TfL’s consultation to achieve this outcome?

It does make you wonder whether TfL’s bus planners are either deeply out of touch with what passengers and stakeholders think about the network with the proposals attracting a record response – such that it’s needed a 369 page report to summarise it all (which must have taken some compiling at further huge cost) or TfL’s strategic thinkers and its political leadership knew what they were doing all along and wanted to create a suitable backdrop for negotiating its coveted “long term funding settlement” with the DfT.

Yesterday’s announcement explains the Mayor has found alternative funding of £25 million from “unallocated Greater London Authority reserves”. Which is nice of him, but it seems odd these “unallocated reserves” have just come to light now rather than in the summer when there was a crying need for funding. Again, one has to wonder whether either TfL staff were being inept in not being aware of these “unallocated reserves” earlier in the year or knew what they were doing all along and wanted to create a suitable backdrop for negotiating its coveted “long term funding settlement” with the DfT.

One final thought on the statement alongside each route that’s not changing – “will not go ahead at this time” – why add the words “at this time”? In view of all the shenanigans over the summer surely it would have been better just to have stated “will not go ahead”. Job done.

It strikes me there’s some unfinished business here which points to further issues in March 2024 when the “long term funding settlement” ends. But I reckon you can only play the ‘drastic cuts if you don’t fund us only to later find unallocated funding reserves so there’s no need for those drastic cuts after all’ card once.

Furthermore “unallocated reserves” have a tendency to run out when used as revenue expenditure. It’s difficult to know how long before that happens – March 2024 anyone?

Finally, two more thoughts….

Whatever happened to the proposed changes to bus routes in Croydon and Sutton consulted on between October and December 2020 and reported back in September 2021? It’s all gone very quiet about those changes.

And in the light of yesterday’s announcement what’s to become of Go-Ahead London’s all electric base for routes 507/521 in Waterloo, converted and equipped at great expense?

Oh the joys of running buses in a regulated franchised regime.

Roger French

Blogging timetable: 06:00 TThS