London’s iconic red buses, long the lifeblood of the city’s transport network, are now caught in a slow-moving crisis that threatens to paralyze urban mobility and derail long-term environmental ambitions. An alarming and sustained decline in average bus speeds is triggering a cascade of severe consequences, from a significant drop in passenger numbers to mounting financial pressure on Transport for London (TfL). This slowdown is not merely an inconvenience for commuters; it represents a systemic failure that is creating a vicious cycle of reduced revenue, increased operational costs, and a public turning away from a vital service. As the capital grapples with congestion, urban planning decisions, and the future of its public transit, the data, expert testimony, and political discourse all point to an urgent need for decisive intervention before the damage becomes irreversible and the city’s transport goals slip out of reach.
The Statistical Reality of a System in Decline
The foundation of London’s bus crisis is laid bare in stark statistical terms, revealing a network struggling under the weight of its own inefficiency. Data obtained by City Hall for the 2024/25 period shows that the average speed of a London bus has dropped to a mere 9.17 miles per hour, a substantial decrease from the 10.27 mph average recorded just four years prior. More recent figures from October paint an even grimmer picture, with the mean speed dipping further to 9.06 mph. This operational slowdown has had a direct and measurable impact on passenger volume. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, annual passenger numbers have fallen, decreasing from 1.869 billion to 1.842 billion. TfL’s own “Travel in London” report confirms this trend, showing a 1.5% decline in bus journeys. This contraction is particularly troubling as it stands in sharp contrast to the growth seen elsewhere on the network, where the London Underground experienced a 3% increase in journeys and the Elizabeth Line saw a remarkable 10% rise, indicating a clear shift in commuter preference away from the slowing bus service.
The quantifiable consequences of this decline extend deep into the city’s financial and environmental planning, creating a damaging feedback loop that is becoming increasingly difficult to escape. Michael Roberts, chief executive of the consumer watchdog London TravelWatch, outlined how slower journeys lead to reduced patronage, which in turn means less fare revenue for TfL. Simultaneously, the operational costs for the transport body increase because more vehicles and drivers are required to maintain the same frequency of service over these longer, congested routes. This financial pressure ultimately compromises TfL’s ability to invest in the broader transport network. Roberts highlighted a critical finding that for every 10% reduction in journey speeds, there is a corresponding 6% reduction in demand. This trend poses a direct threat to the mayor’s ambitious target of having 80% of all trips in London made by sustainable methods by 2041. To meet this goal, London TravelWatch calculates that a 40% increase in bus journeys is necessary, a trajectory completely at odds with the current decline. The potential benefits of a reversal are immense: a mere 1 mph increase in average bus speed could save TfL up to £200 million per year and generate an additional £85 million in revenue.
Expert Perspectives and Contested Causes
Those on the front lines of the bus network offer a bleak assessment of the situation, linking the statistical decline directly to the lived experience of navigating the city’s gridlocked streets. Paul Lynch, the managing director of Stagecoach London, conveyed a stark on-the-ground perspective, noting that the “endless traffic” has worsened to such a degree that a 40-year veteran of London bus operations described it as “the worst he has ever seen.” Lynch unequivocally identified these deteriorating conditions as the primary driver of falling passenger numbers, arguing that the service is becoming fundamentally less attractive and reliable for customers. While overarching traffic congestion is the immediate culprit, a more specific and contentious factor has been identified by some industry insiders: the implementation of new infrastructure designed to promote active travel. Kevan Stagg, chair of the Unite London and Eastern Passenger Committee, pointed to what he termed “own goals” in urban planning, where road-narrowing measures intended to create more space for pedestrians and segregated cycle lanes have often left insufficient room for large vehicles like buses to maneuver or safely overtake cyclists.
This sentiment has been echoed at the highest levels of government, adding a political dimension to the debate over urban design and transport priorities. During a recent House of Lords debate, Lord Moylan, a former TfL board member, stated unequivocally that “much cycle infrastructure that has been installed has inhibited bus journeys.” This view was corroborated by Transport Minister Lord Hendy, a former transport commissioner, who acknowledged that designs implemented under his own watch did, on some occasions, reduce bus service speeds. However, Lord Hendy’s proposed solution is not to halt such projects but to significantly improve their execution. He advocated for empowering local transport authorities with the necessary funding, authority, and, crucially, the training to design infrastructure that benefits cyclists “without being too much of a detriment to other traffic, especially buses.” The complexity of the issue is further illustrated by its geographical variance; the slowest speeds, averaging under 7 mph, are heavily concentrated in the central boroughs of the City of London, Camden, and Westminster, while outer boroughs such as Bexley, Hillingdon, and Havering experience the highest average speeds, all exceeding 11 mph.
Systemic Flaws and Proposed Interventions
Adding another layer of complexity to the crisis, some critics have highlighted a potential systemic flaw in TfL’s operational contracts that may inadvertently contribute to the problem. Bus safety campaigner Tom Kearney noted that bus operators are financially incentivized to meet strict timetable targets but not for their safety performance. Kearney suggested this contractual structure implies that TfL has long prioritized punctuality and operator profits over the safety and welfare of its drivers and the public, potentially creating an environment where operational pressures overshadow other critical considerations. In response to the escalating crisis, TfL has pledged to implement its ‘Bus Action Plan,’ a comprehensive strategy with several key initiatives aimed directly at speeding up journeys across the capital. This plan includes the creation of 25 kilometers of new, dedicated bus lanes, the upgrading of 1,900 traffic signals to give buses priority at intersections, and making 85 kilometers of existing bus lanes operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure more consistent and reliable service.
The worsening conditions on London’s bus network had captured the full attention of the city’s political oversight bodies, prompting a formal inquiry into the causes and potential solutions. The London Assembly’s transport committee, chaired by Elly Baker, described the evidence presented by operators and experts as a “real eye-opener,” signaling a newfound political urgency to address the issue. Acknowledging that TfL had been consistently missing its own journey time targets since the 2022/23 period, Baker affirmed the committee’s firm commitment to developing a series of “strong recommendations” for the mayor. The goal of this intervention was to help shorten journey times for all Londoners and, crucially, to reverse the damaging trends that threatened the viability of one of the city’s most essential public services. The committee’s focus signaled that the crisis was no longer just an operational matter for TfL but a pressing political challenge that required a coordinated and effective response to restore confidence and functionality to the bus network.
