This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. London Transport Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connect Project was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Transport for London. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Do we need a note about Peter Hendy and Tim O' Toole, (Manager Directors for Surface Transport and the Underground, respectivly), who were awarded the CBE in the New Year's Honours list?

Also, a few employees were also awarded the MBE, I think. This was all because of the work done on July 7th

Dave

P.S - A mention of the controversy surrounding the route master, and its removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.152.38 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kk - I'm gonna go ahead with adding this stuff, so there :D Moubiness — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, TFL's responsibility for non-tube railways in London is minimal. I understand it can only advise rail-operators. This may change as urban rail such as parts of Silverlink Metro are transferred to the mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following paragraph:

There is a separate division of the underground for PPP contract purposes: JNP, BCV and SSL (Sub Surface Lines). JNP is as above, but the Waterloo & City line is included in BCV instead of SSL.

on the grounds that it is incoherent. It says there is a (singular) separate division, but then seems to talk to talk about division of responsibility between multiple entities. If I understood what it was trying to say I would correct it, but I don't so I'm moving it here so someone who does can rework it and reinsert it. -- Chris j wood 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are JNP, BCV and SSL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs) 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The maintenance and upgrading of the London Underground Network is carried out by different companies. Tube Lines in responsible for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines (JNP), Metronet BCV is responsible for the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria Lines (BCV) as well as the Waterloo and City Line, whilst Metronet SSL (sub surface lines) is responsible for the District, Hammersmith and City, Metropolitan, Circle and East London lines. DavidB601 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A major recent area of contention with TfL seems to be how they are responding to cyclists and pedestrians, with articles in mainstream media, blogs and campaigns. The most recent of these is the Blackfriars bridge situation. This page (or relevant subpages) really needs some info about it. a starting source: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The languages used on the Transport for London website, aside from English, are: Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Italian, Polish, Eastern Punjabi, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, and Urdu - It also has a more limited Japanese website

Here are language edition Wikipedias which do not yet have articles about TfL:

• Arabic
• Bengali
• Greek
• Gujarati Done
• Tamil Done
• Turkish Done
• Urdu Done

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you'll find many people with a sufficiently high understanding of more than one or two of those languages, so it might be worth sending a request to their respective equivalents of WP:RA. To save looking them up, they're: ar:ويكيبيديا:مقالات مقترحة; bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:অনুরোধের খাতা; el:Βικιπαίδεια:Προτεινόμενα θέματα; (gu:); ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:கோரப்படும் கட்டுரைகள்; tr:Vikipedi:Madde istekleri; (ur:). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! I'll check these pages out. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website, TfL is organised into "three units, each with responsibility for different aspects of the organisation: Surface Transport, Rail and Underground, Crossrail". I think London Rail no longer exists, and Crossrail is separate. Maybe this needs to be updated? Cnbrb (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I'm inclined to consolidate the 3 sections on mobile contactless payment methods into the 'contactless payment' section. Mobile contactless payments work in a very similar manner to contactless cards, and it's bulky and possibly confusing to have 3 sections for something that could be covered in a few lines. If anyone has any objections, let me know! Tomtiger11 (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tomtiger11 done! Let me know what you think - every provider having its own section looked very odd. Turini2 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• London bus with Covid-19 central door entry.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about a infobox photo similar to Transport in London with various TfL modes (Tube, New Routemaster, DLR, Overground train, Santander Cycle, Legible London etc)? This would be in addition to the map that's currently used. The Transport in London photo is a bit dull, but also has modes that aren't TfL - such as airports and National Rail. Thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A TfL page (which makes no reference to the [[Windsor House, London]] presence on the date of transfer from 55 Broadway https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/culture-and-heritage/art-and-design/station-architecture/broadway#:~:text=The%20last%20of%20the%20TfL,Park%2C%20Stratford%20in%20East%20London. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackiespeel not sure why you're talking about Windsor House - but I have added that reference to the 55 Broadway page where it best belongs. Turini2 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the latter page 'The eighteen-storey tower was previously occupied solely by staff from Transport for London but they have since left the building.' Jackiespeel (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! Turini2 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to my areas of research - others are likely to know more. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tangetial your tangential area of research I'm starting to wonder if we need an architecture of TfL article given the huge number of buildings they have either commissioned or occupied. The station architecture is beautiful in place, but later buildings are just plain awful - for example 15 Penton Street], the former public carriage offices where taxis got inspected (and condemned) and taxi drivers had to do the (dreaded) knowledge test - and it still serves TfL as the Boris Bikes HQ. It's too ugly to even be given the term brutalist and it's even worse inside than out - but at least it's interesting. Sadly today they're in too many dull glass offices like the aforementioned Endeavour Square, Pier Walk and Palestra. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London Wiki can be used for OR purposes, and probably some of the London transport equivalents likewise. (They are on what was formerly Wikia and is now Fandom - even if factual, and there is going to be a move to MediaWiki 1.39 'for those for whom this has significance'.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - @Patar knight correctly points out that the current short description (Local government body responsible for the transport system in Greater London) fails WP:SDLENGTH, WP:SDDUPLICATE. However I reverted their suggested description (English public transport authority) as its factually incorrect given TfL is not just public transport.

Anyone got any suggestions on a better, more succinct description? Turini2 (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does "transport authority in London" cover it well enough? I've put the examples of similar bodies below.

• MTA - Public transportation organization in New York
• RATP - French public transport operator
• TfNSW - Statutory authority of the New South Wales Government

Turini2 (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "English transport authority" would be best. "in London" isn't necessary because London is in the title, so it's more useful to specify the country to explicitly differentiate it from London Transit. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected, I have changed it to this for now. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a short description about their slogan? The slogan is as follows: See it Say it Sorted. DoraTheMora (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a TfL slogan, it's an campaign by the British Transport Police. Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah bu they didn't say the meaning DoraTheMora (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoraTheMora: See the official webpage for the campaign. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamji231 I look forward to your reply. Turini2 (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I would like to propose adding a short, neutrally-worded subsection summarising several well-reported instances in 2024 where TfL removed unauthorised murals from its property. These events received coverage from reliable sources including the BBC, City A.M., East London Lines, Yahoo News UK, and TfL’s own FOI disclosures.

The intention is not to create a controversy section, but to document notable, verifiable events involving TfL’s management of property and public art, consistent with how similar subjects are covered on other transport-related pages.

Below is the draft text for discussion:

Artistic Expression and Public Mural Controversies

In March 2024, Transport for London (TfL) ordered the removal of an “Israel–Gaza peace mural” painted on its building opposite Old Street station in London. The mural, created by the charity Circle of Toys, depicted an Israeli girl and a Palestinian girl holding each other’s flags, symbolising peace and unity between the two peoples amid the backdrop of the October 7 attacks. Sixteen days after its unveiling, the mural was defaced with a pro-Palestinian message painted in red over it. To prevent further “antisocial behaviour”, TfL ordered its removal, as it had not been authorised, and urged the charity to explore alternative locations.^[1]

In April 2024, TfL removed a mural titled "Triassic Tolworth Aquarium" from beneath the Tolworth Roundabout subway in Surbiton. The mural, commissioned by the not-for-profit group We Are Community Brain and painted by the artist collective WeAreSkyHigh, depicted colourful aquatic creatures and prehistoric marine life intended to brighten the underpass. Despite being a local favourite, TfL removed the artwork overnight, citing concerns about its unauthorised nature.^[2]

In December 2024, TfL ordered the removal of a mural by Banksy from a railway bridge over Brick Lane. The artwork, featuring three monkeys, was considered “unauthorised”, and TfL stated that it could encourage trespassing and other “antisocial” behaviour.^[3]

Thank you. Gamji231 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the inclusion of this section. To include every single mural / artwork removed by TfL that makes the news in the article … I’d consider that to be coverage of passing events, breaking Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. It’s an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

TfL removes unauthorised murals and street art all the time – three examples that gained substantial worldwide news coverage would be removal of works by the street artist Banksy – from a wall in 2007 (Iconic Banksy image painted over) , and from the inside of a tube train (Banksy Tube graffiti: Cleaners 'unaware it was by artist’) and (as you reference) from a bridge in 2024. (Brick Lane Banksy destroyed by TfL due to risk of 'anti-social activity’).

These three examples above are in the List of works by Banksy that have been damaged or destroyed and referenced in the Banksy article – I consider that's the best place for them to live. The “Israel–Gaza peace mural" should probably be in a relevant article to the Gaza war, and potentially in the Old Street article. The Tolworth roundabout mural... probably isn't worth including in the encyclopedia, given that even Tolworth Junction doesn't have an article about it. Turini2 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If the mural wasn't authorised to begin with, their removal is warranted. People are allowed to be upset about it, just as they are allowed to be ambivalent. Seasider53 (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:NOTNEWS rejection from me. Three murals being removed by an organisation that owns 270+ stations and goodness knows how many other facilities in London simply isn't notable. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]