Why haven't we delivered another London Bus Initiative?

A perspective from Mary Haverland

Look at the CV of almost any transport planner who worked in London in the early 2000s and you'll find one project in common: the London Bus Initiative (LBI). I had only just arrived in the UK and was still early in my career. At the time, I had no idea how unusual the program was. I assumed this was simply how bus priority projects were delivered. It took me years, and a lot of Australian transport projects, to realise how wrong I was. Nearly 30 years into my career, I still haven't worked on a public transport program that was as holistic, coordinated and effective as the LBI.

The initial London Bus Initiative covered 27 high-frequency bus routes across London and was delivered between 2000 and 2003. It was subsequently expanded through LBI2 and the wider BusPlus program, creating a rolling pipeline of corridor improvements that eventually extended to more than 40 additional strategic bus routes across the city.

Its objectives were simple: grow patronage, improve the passenger experience and make buses a ‘mode of choice’ rather than just a ‘mode of necessity’. It was introduced during a period of major reform in London's transport system, alongside the creation of Transport for London and under the leadership of Ken Livingstone as London's first Mayor. Rather than delivering isolated projects, the LBI looked at entire corridors, crossing borough boundaries and bringing together transport authorities, councils, bus operators and the police. That sounds obvious now, but at the time it was a very different way of thinking about public transport.

Many bus priority programs I've worked on since have followed a familiar pattern: a glossy vision of a landmark station or futuristic new bus fleet unveiled with great fanfare. Yet when the dust settles, the reality is often a bus lane here, a stop upgrade there and perhaps a signal change, if funding allows. The LBI approached things differently. It was more strategic, the objectives were clear, and the outcomes were agreed before planning and design commenced.

Most bus priority projects I have worked on in Australia since have started with an objective that improvements should not negatively impact general traffic. The LBI effectively worked from the opposite assumption. If buses moved more people using less road space, then buses should be prioritised over general traffic. The question wasn't how to avoid affecting traffic, the question was how to prioritise public transport and make public transport journeys better. That philosophy shaped everything.

It was reflected in the infrastructure itself. In busy activity centres, bus stops were often designed as ‘bus boarders’ or ‘build-outs’. These allowed buses to stop within the traffic lane rather than weaving in and out of the kerb. Passengers could board more quickly, bus travel times improved, and valuable kerb space was used more efficiently. Anyone working in transport today knows just how contested kerb space has become, balancing loading, pick-up and drop-off activities, parking, waiting space, outdoor dining and public realm improvements. The LBI recognised this challenge decades ago.

Consultation wasn't treated as a statutory hurdle at the end of the process. It occurred in stages. Communities were first introduced to the program and its broader objectives. Then discussions focused on how individual routes would be affected. Only later did consultation move to the specific impacts on streets, properties or journeys. By the time changes appeared outside somebody's front door, they already understood why they were happening.

The program also recognised that infrastructure alone wasn't enough. Bus driver training formed part of the package because there was little point investing millions in bus priority if the customer experience didn't improve.

Most importantly, the LBI understood something that transport planners often talk about but don't always deliver. Most bus passengers are pedestrians before they become bus passengers and after they get off the bus. As a result, the program included pedestrian crossing upgrades, improved waiting environments and cycling facilities along entire routes. Access to the bus stop was treated as part of the journey, not somebody else's responsibility.

Technology and enforcement were also built in from the beginning. Signal priority, bus jump lanes and camera enforcement helped ensure that priority measures actually worked. The program recognised that there is little value building bus priority if it is gradually surrendered through poor compliance and weak enforcement.

But the LBI wasn't solely about infrastructure and enforcement. It also recognised that better bus services require better vehicles and committed operators. The fleet itself improved, with higher standards for vehicles and emissions performance. These weren't aspirational goals sitting in a strategy document. They were embedded in delivery.

One of the features that impressed me most was the alignment between infrastructure investment and operator commitments. Through quality partnership arrangements, authorities invested in the corridor while operators committed to service and vehicle standards. It was a genuine partnership, with responsibilities on both sides rather than a one-way flow of funding or the endless criticism of operators when performance targets weren't achieved. The investment and the accountability sat together.

Individually, none of these initiatives was revolutionary. Together, they were transformative. The crossings helped people reach the stops. The bus lanes improved travel times. The cameras protected the bus lanes. The operator agreements supported service quality. Every element reinforced the others. It was genuinely integrated transport planning.

What also stands out to me is how efficiently the program was delivered. The LBI wasn't a one-off project that spent years cycling through business cases, funding reviews and changing political priorities. It established a clear pipeline of work that continued through subsequent investment programs and corridor improvements. This continuity mattered for the success of the LBI program.

Transport for London, the boroughs, bus operators and the consulting teams supporting delivery all knew what they were working towards. Knowledge accumulated rather than being lost between projects. Relationships matured. Lessons from one corridor informed the next. The consistency of the program gave everyone confidence to invest in people, systems and long-term improvements. Too often in Australia we start and stop, rebrand and reset. The LBI demonstrated the value of sustained investment delivered through a clear and consistent program of work.

The results were significant. Patronage on the LBI corridors increased by almost 22 per cent. Waiting times fell and reliability improved, even as congestion elsewhere in London was increasing. The broader context is important too. By 2011, London bus patronage had increased by around 60 per cent compared with 2000 levels, reaching almost 2.3 billion passenger journeys each year.

The LBI wasn't solely responsible for that growth. Governance reform, service improvements, ticketing changes and sustained investment all played a role. But the initiative helped establish a corridor-based, whole-of-journey approach that became a defining feature of London's bus network over the following decade.

When I look at Australian cities today, I often wonder what would happen if we showed the same level of ambition?

What if…

…our starting point was that buses move people more efficiently, connect communities to opportunity and therefore deserve priority?

…consultation focused first on building understanding of why change is needed before debating the details of how it should happen?

…every corridor was planned as a complete journey from front door to destination, including footpaths, crossings, waiting environments and connections to other modes?
…priority measures were backed by meaningful enforcement?

…public investment and operator obligations were clearly linked?

…fleet modernisation was delivered through firm commitments and agreed timeframes, rather than being left to aspiration?

We spend a lot of time talking about mode shift, productivity, housing and economic growth, transport disadvantage and sustainability. The LBI reminds me that these outcomes rarely come from isolated projects. They come from integrated programs with a clear purpose, sustained investment and the courage to prioritise public transport.

Many things from my London years can quietly fade in the photo album. The fashion. The lunchtime beers. Probably a few hairstyles. But the ambition of the London Bus Initiative will stay with me throughout my career. Twenty-five years later, it remains the best example I've seen of what can be achieved when buses are treated not as the leftover user of road space, but as city-shaping infrastructure.

We often talk about mode shift, productivity, housing and economic growth, transport disadvantage and sustainability as though they are separate challenges. The LBI showed they can be tackled together when there is a clear vision, sustained investment and the courage to prioritise public transport. I think it's time we started thinking that way again.

If you worked in transport during the LBI era, what lessons do you think are worth bringing back?