Paul Terry wrote:
In message , David of Broadway
writes

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/cen_bus.pdf

That's more along the lines of what I'm looking for, although I'd like
to see a proper map, superimposed on a street map.

While I agree in principle, it would simply not be possible in central
London where there can be as many 15 routes (plus night buses) passing
along one street. Either the map would have to be enormous, or there
would have to be considerable topographical distortion to fit in the
number of differently coloured lines. The alternative is the style of
the quadrant maps which you say (and I agree) are not all that clear.

True. I was neglecting what might be termed the Oxford Street factor.
We don't have anything close to that in NYC.

I'd still be interested in seeing a London bus map in NYC style, but as
a practical matter it would probably be a dismal failure for this
reason. Oh well.

Good point -- the bus route network is much denser in London than in
NYC. I wonder why that is.

Partly historic reasons - London's early adoption of railways and tubes
resulted in an infrastructure that is difficult and expensive to adapt
to modern needs, so buses were an important adjunct to the transport
system from the late 19th-century onwards (in fact, many of the more
tortuous routes still follow the lines of 19th-century horse-bus routes).

Partly demographic reasons - In 1880 NYC's population was only just over
1.2m whereas London's was already three times that size. With little
room for new roads or new railways, buses and trams were the only solution.

Partly social reasons - traditionally, buses provided a cheap form of
transport and the network was taken under state control at an early
stage. Today, it is still a highly regulated network and (as Paul C
rightly states in this group) benefits from a "virtuous circle" in which
high frequencies make it popular, and so generate more and more traffic.

Partly environmental reasons - only today the London Congestion Zone has
been expanded, making it prohibitively expensive (when combined with car
parking charges) for most of us to drive into Central London. Thus there
is a strong demand for public transport, of which buses form an
important part.

Interesting points.

If I might suggest some additional (though related) reasons:

Although London's rail network has pretty wide coverage, it has limited
capacity in comparison to NYC's. Our trains are wider and longer and
most of our major trunk lines (and some of the minor ones, too) have
four tracks. Given how crowded our trains get, if we had to give up our
express tracks and shorten and narrow the trains, the buses would become
a lot more popular, by necessity.

Also, most NYC neighborhoods not near the subway developed in the
automotive age. Most people in those neighborhoods use their cars for
all of their trips except into Manhattan. In those neighborhoods, the
only major demand for bus service is to the nearest subway station.
(And to nearby schools.) From what I've read here, London has a lot of
local travel by bus outside the central area.

(I'm a car owner, living 8 miles from the centre of London - but I would
almost always go into that centre by railway or bus + tube: taking the
car usually makes no economic sense.)

I'm a reverse commuter, living in Manhattan but working at the south end
of Brooklyn. I'm also a car owner, but I generally leave mine at work,
since it's simply not worth the hassle or expense of driving on a
regular basis. Besides, it's difficult to get work done while behind
the wheel of a car, while I'm generally quite productive during my 45
minutes on the B train.

Of course, we don't have a congestion charge here. Yet.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA