Artic Warning

Just when Boris thought he was on a winner by decreeing the banning of bendy buses comes a warning from the Labour-controlled London assembly that such moves would cause misery for passengers.

It’s great to see debate in the public arena about bus services even if it needs rationalising. It’s also interesting that London is the only place where there’s consultation of this nature as, elsewhere, decisions are largely taken commercially.

The argument is between whether artics are suitable & appropriate for London’s needs & streets; or whether bendies offer an efficient & real solution in carrying peak-time, accessible crush loads.

The inevitable extra buses replacing bendies would increase carbon emissions & staff costs and force those unwilling to climb stairs upto the upper deck, it’s claimed. Deckers particularly foster anti-social behaviour. Moreover, a cocktail of double deck and rigid single deck replacements would reduce the available number of seats and increase boarding times.

Yet, Londoners resent bendies and they love their double decks, especially old Routemasters. They like seats, not standing space. They like fare-play (sic, forgive the pun) and resent those who use the Citaros ostensibly for free because of the number of entrances. Londoners point to the number of cyclists killed by artics. This figure is actually zero but cycle-unfriendly bendies seem to be stuck in Londoners’ psyche. They point to inappropriate use of roadspace when, in reality, a bendy might just save roadspace by offering a frequent, fast, queue-busting alternative to the car. And artics are rather more manoeuvrable than the layman tends to think.

But at the end of the day, will rational arguments come into it? The artic played its part in a closely fought mayoral election. It’s a manifesto commitment. Every other city in Britain manages to cope (almost) without articulated buses. Why not London?