Valerie Shawcross, the Chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee, must be wondering why she bothers. Here’s the new open, accountable Mayor answering the question I highlighted a couple of days ago about bendy bus replacement capacity:
Q: Contracts for six bendy bus routes are due to expire next year. Can you assure users of these routes that the removal of the bendy buses will not result in a loss of passenger capacity on these routes?
A: Appropriate passenger capacity will continue to be provided for the 3 routes (38, 507, 521) that are due for renewal in 2009.
Er, that’s it. It does confirm what I suspected, that two out of the first three bendy routes up for replacement are those most suited for bendy operation (short, high-density, frequent) - those three routes run out in June 2009. However, the question was whether there will be a *loss* in passenger capacity on these routes, which the answer doesn’t actually preclude. Worrying.
The mystery of the other three routes remains - Shawcross mentions ’six bendy bus routes’ expiring in 2009. Oddly enough, that’s exactly what I posted on here on June 10th 2008. Here are the other three:
12 - this currently expires on 31/07/2009 after five years. However, it’s usual that contracts are extended two years for good performance, which will leave us with the interesting prospect of Boris imminently being forced to extend a bendy route to 2011 because the route’s working well. From his answer, he seems to be expecting this to happen.
25 - already extended to 2011
73 - already extended to 2011
So, to sum up what we now know - next June Boris will phase out bendy buses on two of the most suitable routes for bendy bus operation, without any promise that the current capacity will be maintained or any announcement of what vehicles will be used, except that they won’t be Routemasters of any vintage. Capital stuff, Boris, but what’s this rather abrupt answer to the Lib Dem’s Caroline Pidgeon:
Q: Given the considerable challenge of replacing 388 “bendy” buses with 540 new Routemaster Mark 2 buses before 2012, will you prioritise withdrawing ‘bendies’ from routes involving narrow roads and sharp turns? Can you itemise your objections to operating articulated buses on long straight routes where there is high demand, such as the Old Kent Road, the Mile End Road, and Uxbridge Road?
A: You seem to have misunderstood my commitment- articulated buses will not be directly replaced with 21st Century Routemasters as the process of phasing them out will not necessarily be coterminous with the delivery of a new Routemaster. TfL is planning to replace articulated buses with standard double deckers in line with my manifesto commitment on a route-by-route basis as their contracts come to an end. This is the most cost effective approach to replacing this vehicle type and avoids amending existing contracts with the various operators, which would be a costly exercise. It also ensures that appropriate options for double-deck services can be designed and consulted on before implementation, in the usual way.
This strategy will be revisited when the new design of bus becomes available.
Does someone want to tell him about the 521 and the 12′ 6″ clearance in the Strand Underpass or shall I? Can’t fit any double-decker down that, so are they going to replace bendies with smaller capacity vehicles, then divert them onto alternative routes that take longer, just to inconvenience the Waterloo stockbroker set on their way into town? I think we should be told.
Tags: 6 Comments
6 responses so far ↓
When is this guy going to realise that bendies, in the right circumstances, are exactly the right tool for the job.
Sadly though he was elected on an obvious madate to get rid of them, so he’s got to do it, unless he can delay the replacement until he’s out of office (maximum eight years according to himself).
He wants to get rid of bendies because he genuinely hates them and thinks that London does too, so he’s doing us a favour. Actual considerations of pragmatic transport policy don’t come into it, it’s irrational personal prejudice.
He’s backpedalling slightly from the link between bendy replacement and new Routemaster, but that just drops him into the mire further back - announcing that you’re going to introduce normal double-deckers onto Red Arrow routes (which effectively what came out of Mayor’s Questions last week) just begs the question ‘don’t you understand why Red Arrows were introduced in the 1960s or why they’ve always been single-deck high capacity vehicles?’.
Also, as we’ve said before, at the announced replacement rate there’ll be 50 or so bendies still required daily for the routes franchised recently, so he won’t keep that part of his promise to the electorate, either. Worst of both worlds.
I think some people are possibly getting pro-bendy bus just because Boris is anti-bendy bus (now there’s a phrase I never thought I’d use)
I think they’re totally unsuitable for anywhere in London and downright dangerous - and anyone who’s ever been nearly side-swiped by one will agree. But thinking that doesn’t make Boris right, he’s an idiot and a Tory so obviously, whatever he says, what he actually does will be wrong.
In my opinion on most routes we need more single-decker buses - and yes that costs more money, but hey - why not get rid of some fixers, spinners and consultants - and not throw £40K at turning the website Tory blue?
“I think they’re totally unsuitable for anywhere in London ”
I don’t. They’re eminently suitable for the 207, which runs on the dead straight, dead wide Uxbridge Road and doesn’t go anywhere near central London - the old double deck 207 used to bunch up horribly due to the time-consuming stops. They’re also more suitable than any alternative for the 507 and 521 as mentioned. On other routes you could make a case for running extra double deckers on overlapping routes, but the big question is how to handle the demand generated by both the introduction of bendies and the congestion charge. Remember that at CC launch the Tube was already full and relief is years away, hence the massive expansion in bus services was part of the deal Livingstone offered London in return for supporting CC.
I’d also like to see some proper figures for safety on them as I’m far from convinced by the figures put about by the Boris campaign, which were fundamentally innumerate. Mind you, I’ve never nearly been sideswiped by one - the only place I tend to mingle with them is up Green Lanes way, where a friend lives, and I’ve never felt unsafe sharing roadspace with them.
My main problem with them is that they’re a kind of cheap tram - I’d rather have real trams now we accept that high-frequency high-capacity vehicles are needed in London - apart from anything else this is good for air quality and CO2 reasons, as well as much better at getting people out of cars voluntarily. However, there’s no way on earth Boris is going to build any trams anywhere - even the sensible Crystal Palace extension of Tramlink is looking shaky now.
Is there a readily available off-the-shelf high-capacity single decker?
The Tube just will not cope during the Olympics. The Heathrow end of the Piccadilly Line is already heaving at all hours. Boris is going to have to seriously consider those giant sling-shots. Or whatever he calls them in Latin.
Ballistae?
Actually, transport at the Olympics is the one thing I’m not worried about - everything’s currently well in hand there.
One consequence of this is that the lion’s share of transport investment is in east London, Crossrail and the Underground, which leaves bugger all over for, say, a vanity bus project. It’s very likely that TfL under Boris will run out of cash at some point (it would have done under Ken, too, but that’s neither here nor there) if Crossrail or Tube Lines start having funding issues (caused by high inflation, possibly) or the recession bites the central government grant.
All of which doesn’t bode well for the highly interesting West London Orbital idea, a kind of underground DLR for west and southwest London, running from Surbiton via Kingston, Richmond, Brentford, Ealing and Wembley to Brent Cross. It manages to link all the main rail routes out of London to the west, plus most of the Tube plus Crossrail and because the idea is to have short, frequent trains the stations are much smaller and thus cheaper than Crossrail. I can’t see either main party backing it, though - Boris obviously won’t do big public transport projects and any future Labour leader wouldn’t see affluent Tory-voting west London as a priority, so it’ll fall through the cracks.
Mind you, it goes through Northfields, so perhaps Phil ‘The Blower’ Taylor might be interested in it?