TfL propose new bus-only road in Thamesmead
Plans for a new bus-only road in north Thamesmead have been unveiled by Transport for London.
Consultation documents show a link road only available to buses on Barnham Drive. Two bus stops would be located on the route alongside cycle lanes.
It’ll also help improve links for pedestrians and cyclists with a link to Newmarsh Road. No buses currently head between points either side with only the small, single decker 380 getting close serving homes to the west though that then heads south to terminate at Belmarsh so it seems unlikely to continue through unless it drops Belmarsh as a destination.
Long planned
It’s clear the potential road has long been planned with short stumps of road (both named Bentham Drive as if it wasn’t clear enough) located either side of the proposed route. It crosses what would once have been the approach to the Thames Gateway bridge.
Construction of the road would allow buses to use a different route between Thamesmead and Woolwich as opposed to Central Way and Western Way. That would bring buses closer to some existing housing though serving a limited amount of homes of existing homes.
It would also serve future housing in this area though it’s not exactly that close to where many would be built.
With an upcoming Bus Rapid Transit proposed this new road may be used for that, but the Transit part of the name suggests it’d take the dual carriageways with dedicated bus lanes rather than narrower streets either side of the new road. Mind you this is TfL we’re talking about.
Service changes for Thamesmead hasn’t been great in the recent past. When Superloop route SL3 was announced it wasn’t even head to Thamesmead. After some asked what they’re playing at that obvious mistake was rectified.
When SL11 was revealed it was stated that it’d replace the exciting popular 472 bus route in its entirety which reduces buses calling at stops across Thamesmead. In east Thamesmead some stops will see buses per hour halve from early 2026. TfL didn’t change that.
A decision which ensure new homes now completing in south Thamesmead will also see a net reduction from early 2026. It’s quite odd odd to hear TfL talk of wanting to improve Thamesmead’s transport links then cut services stopping in east and south Thamesmead.
As for the new road let’s also hope badly parked cars either side are tackled, as this is pretty common.
It’s a key reason reason to think any new link wouldn’t be used for the Rapid Transit scheme.
DLR
See also the DLR. Lots of talk about helping Thamesmead with that while cutting buses. The new road is someway from many of the proposed areas of new housing due for the town. Perhaps a junction would be built in future off the new road heading further north.
Though the road may come in use before any other transport infrastructure as an existing planning strategy (snappily named the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Opportunity Area) permits 5,000 new homes to be built with sufficient bus services, 8,000 including the proposed Bus Rapid Transit project and an additional 7,500 with the DLR.
Yep, the expensive tunnel under the Thames for one solitary DLR station in the north of Thamesmead only permits an extra 7,500 extra homes.
Of course Peabody being Peabody they havn’t drawn up any sort of masterplan for north Thamesmead to stagger building plots based on when public transport arrives. The Bus Rapid Transit which was supposed to arrive in 2026 would have arrived when Peabody hadn’t started a single home – or even submitted any application to do so.
Now the BRT s delayed to 2029. It’s still doubtful Peabody would complete a single home by then. Will they have build much of note if the DLR arrives?
Abbey Wood
Just look at south Thamesmead and Abbey Wood. The Elizabeth line had been in planning and construction for years and opened in 2022. Most Peabody plots remain vacant despite taking control of development plots twelve years ago.
It’s a tall order expecting them to achieve much of note with or without the DLR. More time spent lobbying than actually building.
As for total homes enabled by the entire DLR extension, 25,000 homes are mentioned though at least 10,000 of those are for the area around Beckton Riverside (or the old gas works where a station makes huge sense).
As stated before on this site, such vast cost to permit just 7,500 homes seems misplaced given finance is limited. In an ideal world? Sure. In a world where only one project a generation or two gets funding? No.
Costs for the DLR tunnel needed to reach Thamesmead from Beckton could instead fund light rail running across Thamesmead both to Abbey Wood and Woolwich stations serving most corners of sprawling Thamesmead rather than one stop in the north of town remote from many parts.
Given the expense of the DLR tunnel and Thamesmead station, those funds could also instead permit the light rail/tram to extend west from Woolwich through planned areas of major housebuilding in Charlton (8,000 homes with a public transport spine road planned) and Greenwich peninsula (25,000 homes) leading to North Greenwich Jubilee line.
The spine road can be seen in the above image from the roundabout near a rebuilt Woolwich estate currently under construction on the right of the image heading through the site to Bugsby’s Way leading to Greenwich peninsula.
To the east a route would run to Belvedere and Erith from south Thamesmead’s new homes where a combined 14,000 homes are possible according to Bexley Council’s Growth Strategy. 2,000 are already in planning.
Bexley keep requesting the DLR to Thamesmead then heads to Belvedere to assist but that seems a very long shot.
Finding money beyond the £1.6bn Thamesmead extension cost wouldn’t be easy in this financially constrained environment. Then there’s the issue of the DLR not having on-street running so a tunnel or viaduct are required beyond Thamesmead to Belvedere. Expensive and not an appealing prospect if located on a viaduct above ground running through residential areas.
It’s possible, but not ideal.
Changes
The situation with forthcoming house continues to evolve strengthening the case for a tram network serving south east London growth areas. Greenwich Council’s Local Plan draft just revealed sees a possible major estate rebuild in west Woolwich on a spot that’ll require a bus to reach Woolwich station for some.
Other states earmarked include one in west Thamesmead which is again not close the future DLR given how large Thamesmead is as a town.
Most future residents would be heading to Woolwich from the site given how far away the solitary proposed DLR station is.
Buses not enough
All those developments could help fund the potential tram network to shift mass amounts of people beyond what double-deckers alone will achieve.
Not only would it serve tens of thousands of homes, it would also enable the extra 7,500 homes in north Thamesmead beyond what buses alone could provide thus permitting mass housing in Thamesmead.
If Greenwich council, Mayor and government are intent on pushing ahead with the tunnel and north Thamesmead station for 7,500 homes they better have a good plan for the many, many more homes proposed in Erith, Belvedere, Abbey Wood, Thamesmead, Plumstead, Woolwich, Charlton and Greenwich.
So far there doesn’t really seem much of anything except £23 million for a limited Bus Rapid Transit running three years late.
It’d be quite a nonsense to spend vast sums for one Thamesmead station (with the need for a tunnel below the Thames being a sizable chunk) and little elsewhere.
River crossing
Which gets us to the argument of cross-river links. The trouble with the DLR plan is it connects Thamesmead to nowhere of much importance north of the river. If it was Barking station with c2c rail, London Overground and tube lines? Sure. It doesn’t.
It heads to Beckton. No real onward connections possible save buses but not trains.
The first connection of note would be Custom House – yet people in Thamesmead could quickly head to Abbey Wood or Woolwich in five minutes on a tram, connect to the Elizabeth line and reach Custom House in six minutes from Abbey Wood or three from Woolwich.
So no great loss losing that cross river link via the DLR. It’d be no quicker for almost everyone.
Bus road
Back to the TfL bus-only road now under consultation and while welcome this is also quite small-scale stuff given housing proposed, much like TfL’s consultation revealed earlier this week on other Thamesmead roads.
With the DLR set to swallow vast amounts of cash due to the requirement of a tunnel under the Thames, other areas seem in line for crumbs despite vast potential housebuilding totals.
It will be a nice improvement on foot and cycle though but the bus element seems all pretty small scale in terms of improvement potential.
It’s a bit of a head-scratcher. Residents have long been asking for the route to be opened up to slash travel times to the retail park, and this is a huge win for those of us walking or cycling. The car drivers however will be less pleased and they probably have some justification. The bus-only lane obviously implies a bus route will be redirected along the lane, otherwise why the expense and effort, but will it be the 380, 244, or something new? The 380 doesn’t need to serve Belmarsh anymore, the 472/SL is a better option there, but diverting it to the retail park along the new bus-lane while good for some residents removes a bus service for 2-3 other stops. The newly double -deckered 244 could be a strong option, really only removing a single stop from Princess Alice which is served by the 472/SL. I could even see it replacing the 380 entirely if they wanted to save money, albeit reducing service. It would be a better option for the vast majority of West Thamesmead residents, there would be some losers but really only an extra 2-3 minutes walk. They’d also need to tackle the parking issue that regularly blocks the 380. Finally, if we’re allowed to dream, I always thought that was the best route for a tram service to run to maximise passenger numbers: retail park then along Barnham then run down the side of the canal through West Thamesmead and out the Western Way. There’s technical issues, but that’s allowed in daydreams!
Oh, the other head-scratcher around why only a bus lane? The car traffic would be minimal, the only reason to make it bus-only was if they expected a very high volume of buses which a 244 or 380 every 10 minutes is not. It implies it will be part of the BRT, but that makes no sense as the run from Barnham to Princess Alice is very narrow in places with no room for expansion and rife with bad parking. So why only buses? It makes no sense.
I could imagine TFL could make a new bus station next to the DLR station for the routes that terminate next to the leisure centre and the 380 will be diverted to terminate at Thamesmead.
But it seems like TFL are going for the 244 as confirmed in their page to be diverted which is welcome for direct services. Do note the route is getting double deckers and new electric buses.
Raymond – The 244 does look the most likely candidate. Double deckers are already running I saw last week. I covered it back in May and it’s certainly needed.
https://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2025/06/13/busy-bus-route-serving-elizabeth-line-stations-to-see-double-deckers/
They can get extremely crowded and it’ll help the 333-home development beside the Royal Arsenal canal aka Broadcaster canal.
The decision to skip Belmarsh stop G does make it look likely to switch. Seems a bit odd to skip it sometime before the new road is built? I also note on the TfL bus change page some service reductions on other routes.
John – Yep it’ll be a big improvement on foot or bike. At the moment it looks like it’s the 244 is most plausible to head through it.
With the SL11 replacing the 472 it’s somewhat of a shame the 472 couldn’t have been altered but retained alongside the SL11 rather than cut wholesale. Some changes could have seen it head through this new road perhaps between Thamesmead and Woolwich, or via Nathan Way to serve 2,000 new homes at Lombard Square.
At the other end of the route it could have gone to Lewisham to restore the lost connection between Charlton and Lewisham when the 180 was altered. A shocker Greenwich council just went along with the cut rather than make any meaningful suggestions on how a retained 472 could be viable and serve new housing and restore recently lost links.
This proposal makes no sense at all. Unless some changes ate proposed to local bus routes.
Route 380 coukd possibly be extended from Belmarsh to Abbey Wood or Thamesmead Town Centre with SL11 Abbey Wiod to North Greenwich stopping at Belmarsh in both directions.
Route 380 cannot be withdrawn as provides an essential link to Lewisham Town Centre for the Thamesmead area since route 180 was re-routed away from Lewisham and re-routed to North Greenwich Station..
The area also loses the 472 from January 2026 when route 472 is withdrawn despite a lot of opposition from local people..
So TFL will have an expensive consultation then do what they want anyway. This is the problem TFL and Local politicians are not listening to local people..
Extending the 380 to Abbey Wood would bring back the original destination. That was a painfully slow route.