Forget the recent media and blogosphere furore over the updated London underground system map. After all, it’s only a *map*. Around the corner are difficult decisions for London’s buses. Given that re-regulationists point to the capital as an exemplar, expect London to be subject to exactly the same sort of pressures faced by the rest of us, as we approach the famine years (under whichever government). This in spite of every mayor, before and since direct elections, recognising the importance of London’s surface transport.
There’s little point arguing that the current policy of bendy replacements is off-beam when Londoners in general (as perhaps opposed to London General) aren’t keen on them, even if the £3mil rigid replacements on two of the three downgraded routes allow central boarding, somewhat defeating the argument about fare-dodgers. Nine routes to go.
And TfL has high funding ambitions: There’s Underground upgrades and Crossrail. The capital required for the purchase of the new hybrid Routemaster, given its limited market, well be high, as will the additional revenue to run them (remembering London’s bus wages are rising faster than other costs).
Milking the motorist to strengthen cash flow is unlikely. TfL already promises to withdraw the congestion charge western extension. Any central area increase will be politically unpopular.
Which leaves service cuts, fares increases or tender market adjustments. Competition for tenders is strong, even with a declining number of players (and few new entrants).
Which leaves cuts or fares. London’s fares already need to part-fund and maintain admirable frequency and vehicle upgrades. The network is said to be 40 per cent larger than ten years ago. Many under 18s enjoy free or concessionary travel and everyone over 60 is immune, greatly swelling demand without raising base revenue.
Which leaves cuts. No matter which way you look at it, there’s only two ways to finance a bus service: subsidy or fares. The equation’s simple, even in complex London. If one drops and the other doesn’t compensate, thinning becomes inevitable. TfL is studying its review of bus services and charting out the future direction, one map that may truly cause a greater stir even than the Underground’s.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Mapping out London’s Future
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"There’s little point arguing that the current policy of bendy replacements is off-beam when Londoners in general (as perhaps opposed to London General) aren’t keen on them, even if the £3mil rigid replacements on two of the three downgraded routes allow central boarding, somewhat defeating the argument about fare-dodgers."
Says who? The phrase 'in general' means a majority. When have the majority of Londoners (ie at least 50.01%) said they are not keen on bendybuses? The rest of the world has managed perfectly well with articulated buses so what is the problem in London? Do we hear the residents of other UK towns and cities where they operate making such a fuss?
Because of timing the two routes that were the most unsuitable for conversion back to rigid vehiclaes happened to be the first to be done. What have been the benefits?
At a time when TfL are increasingly staring into a black hole in their financing London can ill afford whims. Apart from additional expenditure what will replacing bendybuses actually achieve? Even the straw-haired gentlemam is quietly acknowleging that his other pet bus project is not realistically getting very far.
Competition on tenders is indeed strong. Already existing companies are creating low cost operating units and newly recruited employees find themselves on lower pay scales. The comments made recently by Peter Batty, Commercial Director Arriva London, over his firms recent tender successes have made it quite clear that the cuts have already started.
The fact that most people use an Oyster rather than pay cash fares will make next January's fare increases easier to put through. Other things such as vehicle spec and service levels will be harder and take longer.
UNFORTUNATELY THE STRAW HATTED ONES PARTY LOOK LIKE COMING TO POWER.THE WHOLE WHOLE STRATEGY WILL BE OUT OF THE WINDOW IN NO TIME ,TO BE FOLOWED BY NO STRATEGY AT ALL.
So far as I'm aware, Londoners actually do like their river Thames - after all it's the reason why the metropolis is where it is. Their views were not sought in the redisigning of the latest Tube map, nor were they treated to draft versions. No, in very much the opposite of the bendy-bus, the new Tube map, with its increased ambiguity is very much off-beam.
Perhaps you should forget the bendy-vs-rigid argument; it is, after all, only a bus!
Yeah but I presume no one can see the Thames while they're on the tube, unless it drips on them so it doesn't matter.
Anonymous #3 - it's a tad difficult to forget about a policy issue (about bus specification) which is likely to cost millions and millions of pounds for no good transport reason.
Assuming there is some money left in the budget for network improvement in future years (there was back in 2008) then I'd rather see that retained for its designated purpose rather than be placed on the policy alter of "death to the bendy bus". It is simply a waste of money to fund the provision of ridiculously high PVRs with new double decks (almost certainly not hybrid ones despite another Mayoral policy saying they should be) and all the extra garage space and drivers.
I can foresee a situation come 2011 or so when fares have to go up, all improvements are scrapped and other bus services are cut just to create the budget to pay for the contractual consequences of removing bendy buses from London. Remember the deadline is now end 2011, not the natural end of each route contract therefore buses, bought new in 2008 for the 453, will be retired after 3 years service. Even in the best of times and the mass push for accessible vehicles under Ken can I recall buses quite that young being thrown out of London.
What would be fun would be to hold a referendum in London and ask "replacing bendy buses will cost £50m - that's 1p on the precept (i'm guessing btw!) - do you wish to pay the £50m price tag or would you prefer they stayed in service and I'd didn't charge you more on your council tax?". At least then we'd see whether people want to pay for a policy that is alleged to be so popular.
Apparently the places that Boris got most votes from were the places where bendy buses don't run.
While obviously the vote wasn't just about bendy buses, it is quite amusing!
"Do we hear the residents of other UK towns and cities where they operate making such a fuss?"
Yes! In York the bendy buses (and even more so the Purple People Eaters) are widely reviled, as they regularly hold up traffic by being unable to squeeze through gaps that a full-size rigid single-decker would get through without batting an eyelid.
Whatever your political stance, perhaps we are now seeing the effects of Londoners electing such a bumbling,and inept individual.
A new Routemaster is hardly a wise move in 2009 is it ?
Let's not forget that London is far larger and important in transport terms than any other city in this country.
Store the Bendys until we have a new mayor,then bring them back to resolve the chaos.
If you enjoy riding on a sweat laden cattle truck with entry the hideous bendy Citaros are fabulous I guess.
Of course they have high capacity, take all the seats out of any bus and you have high capacity.
Yet another accident involving a bendy bus hitting a double decker then ploughing into a block of flats yesterday. It's not just the paying (or non-paying in the case of bendy's) passenger to consider, they are a nightmare for other road users, as everyone knows cyclists are particularly loathsome of them.
We have enough wretched articulated things on the road with HGV's, adding more to London's narrow streets is a nonsense.
People batter on about how every country in europe has bendy's how can they all be wrong and we in the uk are right to have double deckers yada yada.
Chicago have seen the light and got rid of them.
If we need a high capacity bus, the Enviro 500 would be a suitable alternative, and you get a seat.
Sadly the fact the bus building industry is hardly innovative, we are still using separate body and chassis for the majority of vehicles, this technique should have been abandoned years ago.
Don't expect anything exciting technically with any new London bus, all LT's engineering knowledge went up in smoke with Chiswick works.
So you think that the 507 and 521 bendy replacements are better do you? Now they really are cattle trucks, with seats purposely taken out.
How on earth do you know the bendy bus was at fault. From the pictures, it looks like the bendy bus was just pushed onto the pavement by the double decker, so it can't be a problem with the bendy bus can it?
"If we need a high capacity bus, the Enviro 500 would be a suitable alternative, and you get a seat." Yeah right, do you want to try and get a bus that long around anywhere in central London. Bendies bend in the middle. There might be seats, but you'd have to fight you way through the bottom deck to get there.
Sadly there is little real to choose from in todays world of poorly engineered junk.
The EU muppets bang on about having Euro IV engines etc which is rather comical when the things weigh so much it's a wonder they don't end up in the sewer, what's the current fuel economy of a modern vehicle, rubbish is the answer.
The Enviro 500 is a ropey looking vehicle, but is slightly less likely to massacre other road users. They are only a couple of feet longer than a Leyland National.
The current buses as you say are not satisfactory, but to say the Citaro's are the best option is like comparing The Welsh national team to Luxembourg or San Marino.
Still on the bright side it seems one hasn't caught fire for a while, thats impressive isn't it!!
Post a Comment