Cold Reception for Artics

Comment on the end of the Routemaster continues to fill a large number of blogs. Most are sad, many grudgingly accepting, some angry, but only a few have anything good to say about London’s new Mercedes Citaro articulated bus replacements. Few Londoners will recall that these were phased in as Routemaster replacements as long ago as January 2003. Some will erroneously think that artics replaced the RM on the last “proper” route, Arriva’s 159.

After three years, are the artics living up to expectations? Bloggers don’t think so. If bloggers reflect public opinion, TfL has miscalculated the reaction to modernising its transport in central London. However, three years is a long time and surely passengers must inevitably by now have begun to accept artics, probably without thinking too much about it. You certainly can’t go back and you can’t disregard low floor easy access, safety, reduced maintenance overhead and crew costs.

Let’s face it, if the bus was invented today rather than 100 years ago, you wouldn’t get away with a design like a Routemaster open rear platform.

TfL said publicly that artics would reduce boarding times. In May 2005, the Advertising Standards Authority thought otherwise. Perhaps this is at the root of why people dislike the Citaro.

With three wide, stanchion-less doors and as the first of London’s buses to go cashless, boarding times should’ve reduced. The ASA felt that boarding times were the same as the RM (at least it wasn’t more), though conceded dwell times were shorter for artics, but only when loading 10 or more passengers.

However, the ASA agreed with TfL that the artics were more comfortable (legroom, seat space and squab). This assumes you can get a seat (there are some 23 fewer compared to the Routemaster).

As an aside, the central London-wide cashless initiative on all buses, from autumn 2003, was designed to speed boarding all round, by 10 per cent.

More on Routemaster