The Capoco Routemaster RMXL here
Whether you are pro-Routemaster or pro-artic, I trust that you share one thing in common: isn’t it good to see the bus service taking the political central stage for a change? Buses somehow never surface at election times to the top of the political agenda. But they have the propensity to do so in London, in the dog fight between London mayoral candidates Livingstone and Johnson.
Johnson wishes to phase artics out and Routemasters in. Redolent of the 1960s, Johnson in September las year referred to the RM as ‘one of the miracles of London’. Artics remain unpopular and Johnson, by backing a reincarnated green Routemaster could be on winner. He certainly enjoyed much press coverage at the launch this week of his transport manifesto.
The cost of success is high. Literally. It depends what you read but Livingstone reckons the introduction of 600 Neo-Routemasters to replace 337 bendy buses (offering like-for-like capacity) would cost £600mil; whereas Johnson feels his £8mil for conductors is a mere drop in the ocean, the benefits well outweighing the costs, especially when consultants cost TfL £120mil p.a. Livingstone believes the £8mil to be about a tenth of the true cost of conductors.
This blog is above politics and supports neither candidate. What’s interesting is how both candidates wish for improvements to bus services. Livingstone has invested in frequency and vehicle quality. Johnson wants to trump this with a London-specific solution.
Friday, 7 March 2008
On the Agenda
And, yes, it’s likely only to happen in such style in London, where post-congestion charge politics have a real influence in a regulated environment. Or could it happen elsewhere? Would some enterprising politician in Bournemouth decide to seek the reintroduction of trolleybuses, as a green alternative? Or perhaps even a Bournemouth monorail? Oh, some politician did come up with that one...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
OK, I admit I'm cynical about politicians - you have probably already noticed from my other posts - but these costings really do look like fairy stories.
Livingstone says £600m for 600 'neo-Routemasters' - that's £1m per bus. That's got to be more than a 'slight exaggeration'. Then there's Johnson's figure of £8m for the conductors. At a guess, 600 buses would require 1200 conductors, and, assuming each conductor costs the employer £30000 p.a., you'd get a total of £36m p.a. Very rough estimates, I know, but I reckon my figures are nearer than those of the politicians.
Whether you would really need to replace the artics with almost double the number of 'neo-Routemasters' (or any other type of double decker, for that matter) is debatable. As I understand it, the artics rely on squeezing standing passengers in at 4 per square meter to achieve their stated capacity. That's sardine-tin standard accomodation, and not exactly very tempting to a motorist who has been 'encouraged' out of his car by the congestion charge. I would seriously question how often the artics actually operate at their maximum capacity.
For that reason, I would certainly favour replacing the artics with double deckers, but is it too much to ask that politicians do their homework properly and debate the issue on the basis of realistic cost projections?The cynic in me says it probably is.
Ah but isn't Livingstone quoting "lifetime" figures? ie Not just the capital expenditure per vehicle, but finance and depreciation over xyears, plus the cost of x years extra fuel and maintenance, plus the additional labour costs (both 300 drivers and 600 conductors) over the x years too?
I agree with you more or less on the conductor wagebill except, looking at London's long hours of operation, over 6 to 7 days operation it's probably nearer two and three quarter conductors per bus...what would a London conductors annual wages be nowdays?
Additionally of course you'ld need to add at least 15% employment costs...and this may be a tad on the low side for London operation...
I'm not a huge lover of bendi buses, on the grounds of their operation outside suitable infrastructure...but I hardly think going back to a 1950s conductor bus is the answer to 21st century problems...still, at least it's opening up a debate...
I guess you're probably right about the conductor wagebill - my figures were very much a rough guess 'back of an envelope' estimate. I'll have to think about the 'lifetime' figures that you suggest Livingstone is quoting - my 'off the cuff' thought is that £1m per bus would be too low in that case.
I do also agree that a return to conductor operation is extremely unlikely - as far as I am aware, in recent years, London operators have had serious difficulties finding enough people to have one crew member on the bus, let alone two. However, I would still suggest that a double-decker of some form is the appropriate tool for London.
Perhaps the most useful features of the Routemaster design that any new design needs would be the dimensions, and the weight. I wonder if modern double deckers are simply too long and wide for London? In that respect, of course, the artics have the advantage, insofar as each section is relatively short, and therefore, manoeuverable. But they still don't have enough seats to my mind.
While I don't particularly support artics the replacement of them all does seem ridiculous, especially with some politically-created expensive new-generation Routemaster, which, face it, won't ever be the same as a real one.
It will have to fit in for all the new guidelines, so - why not buy an Eclipse Gemini instead?
Going back to this issue of the 'lifetime costs', I don't think £1m per bus would anywhere near cover it. Even using my conservative (small 'c') estimates, with 2 employees per bus (OPO; 2 shifts per day per bus) at £30000 p.a. each, that would give £900000 over 15 years. Using Cogidubnus' estimate of 2.75 shifts per bus per day, and allowing a probably more realistic £40000 p.a. for the cost of one employee in London, then the £1m per bus would be reached shortly after 9 years. And that's before you have paid for the bus or put any fuel in it!
I seem to recall that this RMXL is supposed to be an hybrid - are they really so expensive? Otherwise, I'm afraid I still think this is just politicians plucking figures out of thin air!
Ah yes rc169, but being an "honest" politician, I suspect he's only counting the ADDITIONAL cost of the RMs - so from your figures you'd need to deduct the "lifetime" costs of the existing Bendis and their drivers...
Fun isn't it...to think some people do it for a living!
The 'unpopular' bendi quote may or may not be correct - on their initial Red Arrow services they swallow huge numbers of commuters by using all 3 doors, and convey them quickly to the workplaces. Are they really unpopular? Do all those alleged free loaders also regard them as unpopular?
I actually believe that their unpopularity is mainly with groups who never actually use them !!
There is some more detail on the dispute between Livingstone and Johnson about the cost of conductors and 'neo-Routemasters' here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/07
/london08.boris?gusrc=rss&feed=politics
(If the link doesn't work, the text is:-
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008
/mar/07
/london08.boris?gusrc=rss&feed=politics")
As the original post says, it does seem to depend what you read - the Guardian report quotes some different figures, notably that Livingstone claimed that "..the total cost of introducing a new-style Routemaster fleet would be £110m."
My criticism of artics is that the standard of passenger comfort is unacceptable when they carry a full load of 'up to 149' (TfL figure from the Guardian report). No doubt the artics are the most cost effective way of moving 149 people - presumably that's why TfL specify them. Having lived and worked in the area where most of London's artics were built, I'm familiar with them, and if they only have a seated load, they are OK for an average length journey (although the area near the articulation is inevitably dark and uncomfortable). But then with only a seated load they are definitely not cost effective, given the extra weight and complexity of the turntable and third axle.
As Volvo bus driver points out, on short routes such as the Red Arrow services, the discomfort is probably tolerated, but, as I understand it, TfL also specifies artics for some longer routes in London, and in those cases, I still maintain that they are not suitable.
Post a Comment