Forum Topic

London Bus Drivers and TfL

I have just read the front page article on how London bus drivers are faring under TfL. It looks to be a well researched and balanced piece of journalism.At its core is the lack of management and investment by TfL in the bus service.Yet, and yet, TfL are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on building segregated cycle lanes for the (very) few.Talk about getting priorities wrong; so Khan and his side-kick Norman can grandstand to the vocal cycling lobby.TfL have long appeared to be an organisation that is not fit for purpose. Sadly there does not appear to be any saving light in the short to medium term.Will the re-commencement of construction on CS9 be one of the early return to work activities to the detriment of the bus service which moves so many Londoners.I wouldn't bet on it.

David Millar ● 2392d39 Comments

Here we go again.

Ken Munn ● 2392d

And your point is?

David Millar ● 2392d

Why does everything have to come back to CS9?It’s tragic that bus workers are dying however the number of deaths isn’t significantly higher than the general population.  And that’s once you take into account that Covid-19 seems to be having a greater impact on men and those from minority groups - when bus workers tend to be male and from those same ethnic groups. Should TFL do more, yes. Are they trying to do more, yes. And on a side note the construction on CS9 could continue under the current legislation but the Mayor has taken a decision to suspend all non-critical work and I’m sure that the cycling, bus, tube and driving lobby support him.

James Carter ● 2392d

Of all the things that TfL and the government spend money on why is it the comparatively paltry amount on safe cycling infrastrucre that so infuriates you? Why should that be the first expenditure item to be repurposed? Why not, for example, the £1bn Silvertown tunnel? Or why not think about whether the government should be increasing subsidies for safe and effective travel across all non-polluting modes in the capital? It is almost as if you are attempting to use a pandemic crisis and the tragic deaths of TfL workers to further your own agenda against one cycle lane in West London. This pandemic is teaching us that cycling is one of the most effective ways of travelling and social distancing in London. That is why business is booming for bike shops. If anything the case is strengthening for increased investment in cycle infrastructure.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

I think anything not in the pipeline will need some hard thoughts. The next five years will not need new infrastructure but improvements on existing infrastructure that are still balancing on top of the office bin in HQ as priority. I fear more bus routes will be changed if only for a period of time The idea we will need to find more money within TFL for new projects within the next 5 years is laughable. Money and passion for more cycle lanes will never be tolerated for many years to come.

Julian Pavey ● 2392d

Unfortunately as they have got so far with CS9 I fully expect it will go ahead.  If they can give the vanity project HS2 the go-ahead in the present dire economic circumstances, they aren't going to balk at a cycle lane that they have already started building.

Claire Moran ● 2392d

That's the logic of somebody who thinks cycle lanes are vanity projects. In many other places they are considered vital transport infrastructure that deliver a great return on investment for society in getting people moving in a healthy and non-polluting way. They are prioritised over things that people probably believe are more important here, like parking and other car infrastructure. I am hoping that one silver lining from this pandemic will be that it helps us prepare for the next much bigger systemic global crisis and realise that using the biggest balance sheet in the country to fund investment in the whole ecosystem of health and in a carbon zero economy is not vanity but an adbsolute necessity for the sustainability of civilised societies. We have a lot of catching up to do and it is time to leave the luddites behind.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

It's great to see so many family groups braving the once terribly frightening roads to cycle.  Unfortunate that there are still some drivers who break the 20mph limit who deserve to be fined.  Bus design will improve as architecture in the past changed and improved as a result of pandemics.

Philippa Bond ● 2392d

I wonder why TFL seem to be running a normal bus service when the demand is so low.Bus drivers are keeping their engines on when waiting at bus stops until the scheduled departure times which must be costly and causing pollution.I am surprised that they are not introducing middle door entry until next week.

Chris Lucy ● 2392d

Well the E3 is running even lower than a sunday service

Julian Pavey ● 2392d

The reason for my posting was to highlight what I thought was a good piece of journalism regarding TfL running the bus network.And yes I did allow my profound dislike of CS9 to rear its head. On balance probably wrongly, if it has distracted from the very important and serious points raised in the article.Over-arching all is the inability to have a proper holistic debate and approach to the needs of transport (movement of people) in an increasingly crowed landscape.I understand that lobby groups (in all pro/anti forms) will take to the airwaves to make what are mostly narrow arguments favouring the appropriate cause.I have said it before and for the record I'll repeat - I am not anti the increase in cycling, though this is not the time or place to repeat any further specific arguments about CS9.My hope is that in time to come we will be able to stand back and make properly informed judgements on what really is the best way to move people heading towards the mid century.

David Millar ● 2392d

That is very fair David. We can certinly align on the hope for fresh thinking on the future of transport in our city.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

The problem with advocating fresh thinking for travel in London is TfL's financial situation. They already were in significant difficulties because of the Crossrail fiasco and their balance sheet is going to be far far worse by the time this is all over. Whatever your view on CS9 one thing about it that is undeniable is that not only would it cost at least £70 million but, if successful would result in reduced revenue for TfL. I doubt central government will be putting London's transport at the front of the queue for spending when this is all over, particularly with a Labour Mayor. That means some very hard decisions will need to be taken as the main priority will be how to reduce TfL's massive deficit.

Paul Corcoran ● 2392d

"If anything the case is strengthening for increased investment in cycle infrastructure"At the expense of those TfL workers you deem expendable. Talk with any of the bus drivers from the Stamford Brook bus garage as we do every single day. They paint a ghastly picture. Rather than invest in their safety, and that of the millions of Londoners they serve, you'd rather invest in something that only a small minority will use.Listening to the mayor this morning on LBC was interesting. He was going on about ridership and fares evaporating which will only put more of a strain on their entire operation and funding investments. So I'm curious if now you'd find it appropriate to pay a fee to get what you feel you're entitled to? Everyone else has to pay. Shouldn't you?

David Lesniak ● 2392d

Not that it is any of your business but I pay a huge sum of money every year for public services and I am fortunate to be in the privileged position where I am very happy to do so. I would be happy to pay even more to create a more resilient and sustainable society with everything that would entail, of which healthy non-polluting modes of transport in our city is a small but important part. It is incredibly perverse to say that somebody who believes that healthy and environmentally sustainable modes of transport bring value to society deems TfL workers expendable. It really does not merit a response.I know that you and Paul already know that TfL is subsidised by the taxpayer so there is also no need to play your game of pretending that it is a self-financing private company.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

TfL's money comes from  the Government.  The Government having lost several court cases over the dire pollution in this country has chosen to pass the buck on building the cycle lanes and cleaning up pollution onto the Mayor of London.  There are now cleaner buses but the way that business has to be conducted by sub-contracting causes problems.  No different from the sub-contracting of everything else, the race to the bottom in terms of cheapest everything being required means that an awful lot more overseeing of contracts needs to be done.  And if you don't have the workers...

Philippa Bond ● 2392d

TfL is a publicly owned body but that doesn't mean that its expenses are automatically underwritten by the taxpayer. It will typically run a deficit and that will be funded by grants either from the London Assembly or Central Government or by borrowing. Crossrail and coronavirus means that its operating deficit will be huge for the time being. It said at the start of the crisis that it had the reserves to continue to operate for now but it is bleeding cash at an alarming rate.It can't be assumed the local or national taxpayer will be able to cover these losses as there will be many other calls on this money going forward. Borrowing in uncertain financial markets with a huge deficit already may be expensive if funds were available. Even if grants or loans were forthcoming the chances are that they would come with conditions including a business plan being presented that provided evidence that TfL was operationally sustainable. That would require a some indication that costs were being reduced as much as they possibly could be. Lenders in particular would want to see any investment made as being revenue positive.It may be that the way CS9 is funded that TfL would make no saving now by ditching the project but, if this isn't the case, then I would be very surprised if this or any of the other cycleway projects currently in the pipeline were advanced. This isn't a hope rather an observation.

Paul Corcoran ● 2392d

Paul, your "observation" like Julian's is the logical outcome of a thought process that starts with a view that cycling infrastructure projects are the lowest priority and the most dispensable. There is an equally logical "observation" that this pandemic raises the awareness of society and government to the public health and environmental benefits of the much lower capital cost projects that create sustainable modes of transport that are also much cheaper to maintain. The trade-off is an easy one for TfL as all of its new projects will generate a loss so the loss will be significantly lower with cheaper projects. With a renewed political mandate from the major source of funding to create healthy and environmentally sustainable ways of moving people around London cycle lanes are the priority not a dispensable vanity. Cancelling the £1bn investment into the Silvertown tunnel pays for all of them with money left over, avoids the inevitable embarrassment of yet another major cost overrun and eliminates all of the extra pollution in the city that project would create. It is a perfectly logical no-brainer.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

I think a lot of businesses will have discovered that they can run quite well the way that they are now without the use of a central office, its costs and the stresses of everyone travelling to it.

Philippa Bond ● 2392d

Paul, I am doubly impressed that as well as paying huge amount of tax you seem to have the ability to read minds.In fact the thought process is not that cycling projects per se will be low priority but that non-income generating ones will be. That would include all road projects.The idea that TfL will go ahead with smaller ticket projects because they will lose less money is risible. Every penny will be need to be looked at carefully and £70 million plus is a lot of pennies.I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'a renewed political mandate from the major source of funding' but if the latter is the taxpayer there is a lot less in the kitty than there was a few weeks ago and as far as I can tell what political mandate there is for spending what is left is that it goes to nurses' pay. Transport, particularly transport in London will be way down the list and investment in sustainable transport options seems certain to suffer.

Paul Corcoran ● 2392d

Very good point Philippa

Ken Munn ● 2392d

Paul, I think that the difference between you and I is that I recognise that reasoning that uses assumptions to reach a conclusion is fallible due to its dependence on the experience and belief system of the person doing the thinking. Your thought process is not a mathematical proof and it is also not an observation. It is exactly the same with my reasoning. I reach the opposite conclusion to you because I have a different set of experiences and a different belief system. My conclusion is that the world will be changed by this pandemic and that the value of sustainable transport infrastructure in major cities will be seen to be much greater than it was before. Voters and governments will no longer believe in a small-state austerity mindset that pinches the pennies in the short-term at the far more considerable cost of public health in the long-term. The total real returns on the small-scale projects will be rightly recognised as huge when one factors in the real value of the benefits to public health and society. It has been over 100 years since anybody invested in public transport in London to make money.Pandora's wallet has been opened. The Overton window has shifted. We will probably soon be talking about Universal Basic Income as a sensible and sustainable investment to make our economy more resilient let alone the paltry amounts that you object to being spent on sustainable transport in the one of the wealthiest cities and countries in the world.The other difference between you and I is that I don't think that your reasoning is risible just because I disagree with it. I respect your view and you may well be right, although I sincerely hope that you are not.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

Paulo, I suspect many of us pay huge sums of money every year for public services. Maybe you pay a tick more than others, but that doesn't mean you are special. Although I question why you bring it up because if it wasn't anyone's business, why then mention it? You just made it public knowledge. TfL doesn't have the resources to protect staff in times of crisis. Yet you think they should invest in something that effectively is already in place. Granted the existing road network isn't perfect for cycling, but it does work. Safety for bus and tube staff is now proven to be wholly ineffective. If this virus should boomerang later in the year, as many predict it will, should funding be spent in the meantime on improving existing infrastructure, or should it be used to protect the lives of London bus drivers, to name one subset? I chose that because the mayor likes to wax poetic about his father having been a bus driver yet he can't answer the question if his father was still driving, would he want him to have access to plentiful safety gear adn protocol.And if the mayor mentions lack of revenue, TfL by definition relies on that revenue for funding. Revenue intake is self-financing. Why would they raise revenue when operating costs increase? No different than any hospitality venue raising costs due to an increase in commodity prices whatever their remit. My guess is taxpayers will shoulder increases to rebuild and improve the NHS. That should be job one. But after this economic episode, there is only so much the tax payer can bear so money will be directed toward only the most urgent necessary projects. Alas, poor Paulo, cycling infrastructure will not make the list. I'm surprised HS2 did. But it creates thousands of long-term jobs after an economic downturn and it builds something that doesn't already exist.

David Lesniak ● 2392d

“Everyone else has to pay. Shouldn’t you?” You asked the question you got the answer. Your short-term memory issue is not the only reason why it is pointless having this debate with you. Your comparison with a hospitality venue to explain the economics of a government-subsidised metropolitan transport system whose purpose is to move millions of people around to make one of the richest cities in the world work illustrates what I have been saying to Paul about the limitations of human reasoning. I think that your belief that governments should only invest in the cure in the future and not in prevention when over 90% of deaths from Covid-19 are people with underlying health conditions very sadly caused often by unhealthy lifestyles and obesity is depressing. Like Paul you may be right but I sincerely hope that you are not. I believe that this is a wake up call and I hope that we will heed it in time to prepare for the tsunami that will make this pandemic look like a ripple in a pond. As we have seen governments can show leadership and have the ability to do what is necessary to value what our one has been calling “low-skilled workers”, to create fairer and more equal societies so that more people can choose healthy lifestyles, to make the hard choices required to reduce pollution and stop us breathing filthy air in our cities, to invest in a health system that is not designed to just about manage in a normal flu season. Sustainable transport is just a small and very low cost part of the strategy to make our society more resilient. But one that nevertheless I think is vital.

Paul Campbell ● 2392d

As a mater of fact the Government fares  subsidy to TFL has been cut from £700 million to zero.On another more general point, we always seem to be playing catch-up when it comes to what economists call 'externalities'. It took a long time for 'make the polluters pay' to be understood.  We finally did it with water and have made huge strides towards cleaning up the Thames. We're begining to do so with our air. The estimate is that air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year across the country.  We need a multi-pronged approach on this and Rishi Sunak should be congratulated on removing the tax rebate on red diesel in construction from April 2022. It's often the case that diesel engines on construction sites are left running because the diesel they use is so cheap, a fact I picked up from reading a commentator on ConservativeHome.

David McLoughlin ● 2392d

"Granted the existing road network isn't perfect for cycling, but it does work."Wrong. The current network puts people, except the most committed, off cycling. Perceived danger is, far and away, the reason most people give for not cycling more frequently.

Ken Munn ● 2392d

That's mostly a failure to communicate though.  Cycling is a safe activity.  You are more likely to die (per km travelled) as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.When LCC spend all their time complaining about how dangerous the roads are, it's counterproductive.  I'm not saying that nothing should be done, as I wouldn't be comfortable taking my daughters out one some of the roads around here, but the whole tone of the debate is wrong at the moment.

Al Webber ● 2391d

From what I've read, bus drivers do seem to be more vulnerable to this than the general population.  The question is why that is happening, and that's not so simple.I do wonder if some it is down to air pollution.  Bus drivers are on congested roads full of diesel stink 35 hours per week, more if they do overtime.We know air pollution causes respiratory problems, and they are breathing in more pollution than just about anyone else in the country.I've seen suggestions that the high death rates in Wuhan and Northern Italy are partly caused by air pollution.  Wuhan has very bad air pollution, and parts of Northern Italy have the worst air pollution in Europe - to the point that there were respiratory problems there before COVID 19.London, with all its air pollution, seems to be the worst hit location in the UK.  Is that a coincidence?Some of it is undoubtedly because there are a lot of people in close proximity in big cities like London, and there are a lot of people getting on and off buses.  It would be very difficult to establish all the causes, but I suspect that air pollution will be playing a part in it.The other thing to remember in all this is that air pollution causes 40,000 premature deaths per year in the UK.  The number killed in the UK over the last 15 years by air pollution wil dwarf the eventual toll from COVID 19.  Why is the government not doing more about air pollution?Lastly, changing the subject a bit, a good way to protect yourself and all the transport workers at the moment is to start cycling.  You aren't sharing a bus or tube carriage with a lot of other people.  I know from personal experience that I get a lot less cold/flu type illnesses since I started cycling to work.

Al Webber ● 2391d

Agree completely with the original poster about the article on this site. A very important piece of work done to a very high quality. I saw the Mayor on the TV the following morning and he seemed very shaken. He probably has more to worry about than one negative bit of news coverage but it may not be a total coincidence that within 24 hours the fares on buses were waived.  He did make the point that bus drivers in particular were close to his heart because of his father. However, it seemed to me that he was deflecting somewhat by trying to make the interview about the government's policy on facemasks. He was allowed to talk about that rather than his own area of responsibility. Given the sacrifice made by bus drivers it would be hard to argue that more attention should be paid to this service after the crisis is over. People in Chiswick have rightly been complaining about a 30% reduction in bus frequency on the High Road. It is often overlooked that this also means a 30% reduction in hours for bus drivers and probably resulted in redundancies. The bus service was becoming the cinderella service and locally overcrowding was making it less viable for many people. I don't really understand the argument being put forward by people who claim there won't be a severe cash crunch for TfL after the lockdown is over. The numbers are not ambiguous. There will also be a lot of people pointing out how poor the terms of conditions of bus drivers are compared to tube drivers and how the latter seem to have avoided fatalities during this crisis and had far inferior attendance rates. The tube drivers aren't going to accept pay cuts so bringing bus drivers closer to what they deserve is going to be expensive. Bringing the bus service back up to previous levels will also cost particularly if the low emission bus zones are going to be maintained. Previously a quick expansion of service could have been implemented by the purchase of second hand buses from other fleets but now for many routes brand new electric buses will need to be purchased. Priority number one for TfL will probably be getting Crossrail up and running as quickly as possible due to the financial imperative but buses will rank not far behind. Beyond that I can't really see how anything but basic maintenance can be afforded. Any cycleway project that hasn't commenced is likely to be mothballed. CW9 has had some initial work done and it may be that the funds are already committed but if not it is going to be a lot harder than t used to be  to persuade the Mayor that taking removing bus lanes on Chiswick High Road for a cycle path is a good idea.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2391d

Thanks as ever, Paulo, for insinuating I'm stupid and maligning my memory.I think it's precisely the point that you cannot see the comparison between any commercial endeavour be it hospitality or selling clothes and TfL. If the cost of material goes up, so does the price of the offer. If the cost of labor goes up, so does the price of the offer. When sales are down, there is a problem when trying to pay for operations. TfL has raised fares for any number of reasons, from increased costs in operations, maintenance, upgrading and labour. That funding has to come from somewhere. When it comes from the public, it is transactional. And you feel you are entitled to a free ride on a spiffy new cycle lane because you're better than (fill in the blank) and saving the world. Message received. But what remains missing in your argument is fully subsidized travel for all regardless of mode. That gets you off the hook in terms of public criticism and how money is spent because the offer is then equal to all, not just a few which is the position you find yourself in. If someone could take a free bus or tube ride, then they could avoid driving as well and thus achieve your goal. So where is your support for that option? Or would that loss of revenue mean improved cycling infrastructure couldn't happen. Oh wait. Hang on. That's economics 101.To be fair, you have no clue what I believe government should or should not be doing. When last we checked, asthma is a genetic issue. As can diabetes be. And yes, both can be aggravated by external causes. Ditto obesity. Not to mention perfectly healthy people are dying from Covid-19. You may also want to consider that, unlike you, I was around for another pandemic and by dint of birth belonged to a group thought to be expendable so no investment in cure nor prevention was made. We literally watched people die because the government didn't give a damn. Thankfully that is not the case now so you're spared from trying to square that circle.Lately I've learned local government believes delivering tinned rice pudding is a healthy option, but I can appreciate under the circumstances providing calories is sometimes needed no matter how they are delivered. My initial inquiry to help in this area had to do with providing fresh meals prepared from local venues. But tinned rice pudding it is. So yes, Paulo, I think you and I agree government can and should be doing more to improve public health. Outlawing vaping and smoking could also be a path forward. Neither is genetically predisposed. Both are completely learned behaviors. Your thoughts on that?

David Lesniak ● 2391d

I think it is an absurd idea to make people pay to ride their bikes in London and I am confident that that it has zero chance of ever happening.  I think that the government and the taxpayer should invest to encourage more people to adopt healthy and non-polluting forms of transport and lifestyles. I think that will make our city, population and society more resilient and I think that this, along with many other things that I have mentioned already, is vital. I think it will pay massive dividends in real cost savings in the future and reduce the burden on our health system amongst other productivity gains. I think we should end the merry-go-round of consultations and delays and drive the changes that must happen much quicker. That’s right we should stop asking people like you and just get on with it before it’s too late. Criticise all you like. I am as entitled to my opinions as you are.David McLoughlin has the made the most interesting point on the topic of pollution on this thread: “polluters pay”. I know who the polluters in London are.

Paul Campbell ● 2391d

"I think it will pay massive dividends in real cost savings in the future and reduce the burden on our health system amongst other productivity gains. I think we should end the merry-go-round of consultations and delays and drive the changes that must happen much quicker. That’s right we should stop asking people like you and just get on with it before it’s too late"Imagine the cost savings to the NHS if smoking were abolished. And if vaping were abolished. Or diet soda come to think of it.Note to Paul: the consultations have ended and nobody has asked me anything. Though I'm chuffed to bits you think they should. It shows you care and explains why you're so determined to silence me. I've never understood the obsession, but this shines a light on it. I presume you have a car. So, then, I presume you know yourself to be a polluter. I love that you took that school marm tone with that one, eyes in the back of my head type thing. Wag a finger did you? Priceless.Lastly a simple question: given Tfl and the mayor have accepted their budgetary predicament and severely reduced revenue stream, would you rather see available funds go toward protecting TfL staff with proper PPE or do you think it wiser to protect yourself? Don't bob and weave. It's a simple question.

David Lesniak ● 2390d

It is a funny world you live in where people who ride bikes are pitched against anything that you consider good. Should we be investing in peace in the Middle East or cycling? Should we be eliminating famine in Africa or have some cycling lanes? How about this for your moral maze: should we be giving financial aid to people who are helping to fuel the Type 2 diabetes epidemic in this country or buy PPE for bus drivers? Maybe the world is more complex than your polarised view of it.

Paul Campbell ● 2390d

"I think it is an absurd idea to make people pay to ride their bikes in London and I am confident that that it has zero chance of ever happening."No, it's a great idea, and pedestrians should pay too. All those dedicated pavements.

Ken Munn ● 2390d

Andrew, compared to CrossRail (£18 bn and counting) and the Silvertown Tunnel (£1.2 bn), the cost of cycleways is petty cash. If TfL has to cut costs, the big projects are where the easy wins are.

Ken Munn ● 2390d

That is true but if you have ever worked in an organisation that is under cost cutting pressure it tends not to work like that. I was once at a corporation with a multi-million pound turnover and they removed chocolate biscuits from meeting rooms during a downturn. Crossrail may be their most expensive capital cost but it will be possible to get external debt funding for that if needed because it generates revenue. Other projects, large and small, that don't will find it much more difficult and are likely to be scrapped.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2390d

I am very pleased to note that the observations of Paul Corcoran and Andrew O'Sullivan, while ostensibly logical, have proven to be as wrong as I had hoped a couple of weeks ago. The Mayor and TfL have recognised that cycling infrastructure is even more critical during the current crisis, that it is necessary to absorb displacement from PT to avoid London being choked by cars when some restrictions are relaxed, and that projects need accelerating and expanding instead of mothballed.

Paul Campbell ● 2373d

Whoa whoa we will be entering the 'new normal'. Who knows what longer term impact this will have on travel - working from home, less need for expensive Central London office space etc.Rather than plough ahead and build expensive segregated concrete tracks into the centre why don't we take this opportunity to reflect on what might be sensible transport/movement strategies for the future. Sure, cycling will have a roll, but let's see it holistically (in the round) rather than a cult following for such as CS9.

David Millar ● 2373d

"Cycling will have a roll" is excellent David. I'm stealing that one. Wait till you see TfL's press release today. It is happening faster than you could have imagined. Also who said this today?"Detailed plans to follow to help those people unable to use mass transit. I hope my Hon Friend will agree that we can especially look forward to a new golden age of CYCLING!"

Paul Campbell ● 2373d