There’s another document in the Boriswatch in-tray this evening, namely a report from TfL of the bendy bus replacement consultations undertaken, and the news is not good for Boris, in fact it’s seriously embarrassing. Not only is debendifications bad for the bank balance, it’s in direct opposition to the expressed views of the boroughs on the route, contrary to Boris’s professed intention of working better with the boroughs.
Boroughs:
Three boroughs plus the City of London responded to the consultation – Hackney, Camden and the City opposed the plans, while even Westminster (yes, that Westminster, true-blue Boris-adoring former home of Sir Simon Milton and Kit Malthouse) opposed debendification of the 507 and 521, while being the only borough to back the conversion of the 38. Lambeth and Southwark didn’t respond for whatever reason, despite having affected routes on their patches.
MP:
The only MP who responded, Labour’s Emily Thornberry, didn’t give an opinion. The rest either weren’t consulted or didn’t bother replying.
GLA:
The only responses seem to have come from Jennette Arnold, Val Shawcross and Jenny Jones, all unsurprisingly opposed. The lack of backing from Boris’s own party is interesting here – Kit ‘Fly Me To Sheerness’ Malthouse (Westminster) and Brian ‘The Taxi’ Coleman (Camden) represent affected areas, yet nary a peep was heard from them in support of the boss. Labour’s John ‘Boris Basher’ Biggs (City) was also silent. As usual, transport is an issue for the ladies in British politics.
Councillors:
Five responses, all Labour councillors, and a mixed bag here – two of the four Hackney councillors who responded came out in favour of debendifying the 38, while the other two opposed it, and David Malley from Lambeth opposed the plans for the 507 and 521.
Others:
London Travelwatch as we’ve seen opposed it, as did Guys and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, if the plans led to reduced speed, capacity and accessibility. Various local groups, most of which I’ve never heard of, mostly backed Boris, although even here there were some who said ‘OK for the 38, but leave the 507 and 521 alone’.
Conclusion:
The policy costs more. It takes money away from other projects. It doesn’t make the service safer, or increase capacity. It is overwhelmingly opposed by the councils along the routes. It is not supported at consulation even by Boris’s own party, none of whom spoke up for it except for Westminster council, and even they think the 507 and 521 plans are wrong-headed. In fact, absolutely no one thinks that the 507 and 521 should be debendified apart from the Bendy Jihadists, yet the Mayor is blind and stubborn as ever:
“Many Londoners, particularly cyclists, see the awkward elongated bulk of the bendy bus as unsuitable for the city’s streets,”
What will it take to get it into Boris’s head that there’s no massive public support for these plans? Who’s he listening to? Does he seriously expect to get away with contradicting the consultations undertaken by the organisation he chairs?
Tags: 5 Comments
5 responses so far ↓
It was an election pledge. Boris is stuck with it, and so are you. Get over it.
When – for good or ill – consultation responses were what determined his policy on the congestion charge extension removal.
Keep the bendy buses! Now even better as a whole bunch of them have atheist ads on the side.
Andrew Heenan – was one of Boris’s manifesto commitments not also to listen to the views of Londoners through consultation? Or did that only apply to the WEZ, where he thought the consultation would give the answer that he wanted?
Possibly the most irritating part of all this is the insistence by Boris that he’s doing this in the name of cyclists. As someone who cycles into Central London most working days I can tell him that I am far more concerned by cuts to funding of LCN+ and motorbikes/scooters in bus lanes than I am about any perceived danger from bendy buses. However, Boris has conveniently forgotten about how committed he is to cycling in these instances as it’s politically expedient to do so. Perhaps if Boris was a bit more up-to-speed with the rules of the road generally (red lights etc.) he might not have quite such a problem with other vehicles.
Yes, Andrew, that was an election pledge, but so was working with the boroughs, not imposing a Stalinist, rev-left, dictatorial edict on them.
Would you like to balance your view by explaining how destroying the bendy bus is a more important election pledge over the commitment to local democracy?