Despite mounting evidence of data manipulation and service failures, Wandsworth’s transport leadership gave Putney’s bus problems the silent treatment at this week’s Passenger Transport Liaison Group meeting.
The meeting included two specific agenda items on Putney buses – “Putney Bus Services: Performance Monitoring” and Upper Richmond Road services – yet generated virtually no discussion about the area’s transport crisis that has been exposed through months of investigation.
This latest non-discussion continues a troubling pattern. Previous investigations have revealed TfL manipulating delay statistics by relocating timing points away from problem areas like Putney Bridge, widespread “curtailments” where buses terminate early to artificially improve punctuality figures, “ghost buses” appearing in apps but never running, and routes like the 14, 22, and 414 ranking among London’s worst performers.
Despite this documented evidence of systemic failure, Transport Cabinet Member Jenny Yates – whose own ward includes Putney – asked no questions and made no comments during the meeting.
Statistical Confusion Exposed
The meeting revealed further evidence of TfL’s deliberate statistical manipulation. Malcolm from Go Ahead buses admitted the official performance indicators “are not indicative of what is actually happening” and that bus operators “get them in a different format” which makes “pretty much all of our routes in Wandsworth… operating as they should be.”
This extraordinary admission suggests TfL presents different statistics to operators than to the public, with the internal version designed to obscure problems. Even the bus operator himself appeared confused by the discrepancy between what he sees operationally and what the official statistics claim.
The complexity and inconsistency of TfL’s statistical presentation appears designed to confuse rather than inform. To cut through this deliberate obfuscation, we have converted the official data into terms that actual bus users can understand:
The Data Reveals Widespread Service Failures
The official Transport for London statistics [pdf] presented to the meeting reveal the scale of Putney’s bus crisis. The data shows how often passengers face delays, long waits, or buses that simply don’t show up:
Timetabled Putney Routes (Q1 2025/26) These routes run to published timetables – passengers expect buses at set times
| Route | % Running Late (5-15 mins) | % Don’t Show Up | % On Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 639 | 23.7% | 3.8% | 62.0% |
| 424 | 22.2% | 8.4% | 63.3% |
| 485 | 19.2% | 8.7% | 66.9% |
Frequent Putney Routes (Q1 2025/26) These routes run every few minutes – passengers expect short waits
| Route | % Risk of 10+ Min Wait | % Risk of 20+ Min Wait | % Get Bus Quickly |
|---|---|---|---|
| 265 | 32.2% | 4.4% | 67.8% |
| 337 | 30.7% | 3.3% | 69.3% |
| 74 | 23.1% | 2.2% | 77.0% |
| 156 | 22.3% | 1.2% | 77.6% |
| 22 | 21.0% | 2.8% | 79.0% |
| 170 | 20.7% | 2.0% | 79.3% |
| 270 | 20.3% | 1.8% | 79.7% |
| 28 | 19.9% | 1.0% | 80.1% |
| 220 | 17.1% | 1.3% | 82.9% |
| 39 | 16.8% | 1.1% | 83.0% |
| 85 | 15.5% | 1.1% | 84.5% |
| 14 | 14.9% | 1.6% | 84.9% |
| 93 | 11.6% | 0.7% | 88.4% |
The worst performers include the 639 route where nearly a quarter of buses run 5-15 minutes late, and the 265 where passengers have a one-in-three chance of waiting over 10 minutes for what should be a frequent service. Yet these damning figures went largely uncommented upon, with only councillors from other areas raising concerns about routes in their own wards.
Admissions of Endemic Problems
The meeting’s most telling moment came when Malcolm from Go Ahead buses acknowledged the 85 route “has been described as the poster for curtailments” – a frank admission that early terminations have been endemic on Putney services. While claiming recent improvements, this confirms what residents have long suspected about manipulated performance data.
It’s important to be clear as well: when the bus companies and councillors talk about “curtailments” what they are actually talking about is buses kicking their passengers off early, forcing them to either wait for another bus or walk home. Apart from being hugely inconvenient, adding delays to thousands of people’s daily lives, and undermining confidence in the bus service, it also has a wide range of human impacts, with one recent commenter pointing out that his elderly mum is now afraid to get buses because she doesn’t know if it will drop her off close to her house.
The contrast is stark: while other councillors actively questioned performance in their areas, Putney’s representatives remained silent despite their constituents facing some of London’s worst bus services. David Tidley from outside Putney showed more concern for the failing 424 route than those supposedly representing the affected area.
This public silence comes despite regular closed-door meetings between council leaders and TfL that have produced no visible improvements. The pattern suggests transport leadership has effectively abandoned efforts to hold TfL accountable, leaving thousands of daily passengers to endure unreliable services while officials look the other way.
For Putney residents dependent on public transport, this institutional indifference has real consequences. Students miss school due to failing school buses, workers face daily uncertainty, and elderly residents become increasingly isolated as services they’ve relied on for decades become unreliable. The meeting’s perfunctory treatment of serious transport failures suggests local leadership has given up on demanding better – a betrayal of residents facing one of London’s worst bus service areas.
Lots of stuff about how bad the buses are (and it’s true) and about the authorities’ feeble reactions (also true), but not a word about the real cause of the probkem: too many bl**dy cars! Without genuine action to restrict car use, services will always have a problem. But who would have the political bravery to confront the car lobby?