We wonder whether renowned consultant Colin Buchanan & Partners has slit its own throat, so far as London’s concerned.
In order to promote the sort of cosy relationship that applies between any client and consultant, it’s usually in the consultant’s interest to tell you what you want to hear. Package it in an easily digestible format (called an executive summary) and provide a sound business model with quick wins that you can immediately transfer to the white heat of operations but never present an argument against the client’s best interests.
Of course, I refer to Buchanan’s response to a public consultation on London’s transport strategy and not a study commission. Some of what the consultant says about London bus operation will nonetheless be hard to digest. Buchanan favours:
- A reduction in the number of buses terminating in the central business districts. This implies unpopular transfer between bus and rail, or more walking.
- TfL should retain articulated buses, on busy and heavily trafficked routes. This rails against a clear mayoral electoral pledge.
- The development of a new bus for London (a Routemaster 2) squanders scarce resources. Ditto the election pledge.
- The operation of a NB4L would be expensive to crew. Ditto.
- You’d think a full-scale review of the bus network to include expresses and orbitals would get a tick. Yet, reductions in the network now seem inevitable but will come at a time when population and demand are both increasing.
Does this mean the glut of ex-London artics will dry up? No. This leaves a problem especially for Arriva, who hasn’t leased but bought its bendies. Arriva needs to cascade them on. Liverpool’s already taking 23 and expect other subsidiaries—even the most unlikely—to find new homes for some. Or try to. Meanwhile, should Arriva’s consortium win the bid to operate in Malta, a number of Citaros will find their way to the Mediterranean.
The point Buchanan could’ve asked was, does London need a bespoke new bus design, anyway? Existing double (and single) decks have proved their worth in the capital, indicating that a special design isn’t strictly necessary. Whether it will ever get to articulate this viewpoint will depend upon whether or not there’s future work for Buchanan in the capital.
10 comments:
To answer your general question it depends on whether you think consultants should be saying what their client wants to hear or what needs to be said. Perhaps because there is no client in this case the latter is important.
I have not had the advantage of being able to read this particular Buchanan piece. However, from your summary I find myself largely in agreement with him.
Why do buses need to terminate in Central London? Before the split up and privatisation of London's buses there was a network that could cope with through running. It was not perfect and there were problems with traffic delays, but it did not produce the Oxford Street "wall of red" or routes being operated according to which West End street was available as a stand. I am sure that it is not impossible to rearrange things so that effective through routes can be introduced again.
The insistence by the Mayor of getting rid of articulated buses and introducing a new bespoke London bus does seem to be particularly at odds with TfL's financial situation. Despite being an election pledge (and how many Londoners really voted for those policies in particular?)he should be brave enough to say that they can't be afforded at the moment and join the list of other projects that will have to wait until there is enough money.
You and the first anonymous contributor seem to be interpreting the phrase "reduction in the number of buses terminating in the central business districts" rather differently. You suggest that it means buses would be generally regarded as feeders to rail-based services - a model often found in Germany, and other mainland European countries, where there are more tramway and underground railway systems. This system undoubtedly does work well in some situations, and it may in some cases be the most cost-effective approach, but I do sometimes suspect a 'grass is greener on the other side' aspect to some British enthusiasm for such systems. As you say, it does imply more frequent changes between modes, which are known to be unpopular in the UK, and which do not always work as well as intended.
The first anonymous contributor, on the other hand, suggests that less buses terminating in the centre means more through routes, which might actually reduce the number of changes that passengers are required to make in order to complete their journey. Not having sight of the Buchanan response, I cannot say which of the two was intended, but there is a clear difference!
Whilst I accept that the cost of the 'new bus for London' may well be unaffordable, I remain sceptical about the use of artics. The capacity figures quoted naturally favour the artic in terms of use of road space, but they don't say anything about the comfort of the passengers who form that 'capacity'. More than two-thirds of the people on the double decker can have a seat, whereas on the artic it is only one-third who will have that privilege. I also remain sceptical as to whether the artics often run at their full capacity in any case.
Artics are, of course, more widely used in mainland Europe - partly because of the low bridge issue; and, where the bus routes are often feeders to rail-based services, the bus journeys are shorter, and the discomfort is presumably more acceptable. The trams and U-Bahns, etc, also tend to rely on 'sardine-tin' type loading to achieve their capacity as well, but the ride is generally smoother - leading to a higher level of acceptability.
Asking British passengers to accept that level of discomfort for longer journeys on buses does seem to be something of a tall order - and one wonders if the consultants ever travel on those buses before making their recommendations? Then again, one could probably say that about politicians as well. On the whole, I am inclined to think the best solution would be to find suitable short but busy routes to use the artics on to avoid premature disposal of them, but, for goodness sake TfL, don't bring in any more!
Anonymous @ 0735 again.
Having now had the opportunity to read Buchanan I feel it is worth commenting again.
http://www.colinbuchanan.com/uploads/cms/files/152bcc4d-3393-4738-80e2-d4739194c1d6.pdf
His overall view seems to be a plea for a much more integrated system as a whole, taking a greater view of transport in London other than just buses and trains.
I would suggest that my original interpretation is in line with his view regarding Central London bus termminals and congestion.
Articulated buses are like Marmite. I happen to like them but I accept that others don't. I do feel that the road engineering necessary to make them work properly was not thought through and that the culture of bus priority, not just in terms of bus lanes but also of simple things like giving way, has not been absorbed by London.
RC169, during your travels in London last year did you not observe how many people chose to stand even when seats were available? This applies to all buses, and not just for a journey of a few stops. It is a particular problem with double deck vehicles as the exit and the way upstairs are blocked. People getting on further along the route then assume the bus is full upstairs and add to the blockage downstairs. Although I have not make a detailed study I have the distinct feeling that the use of straight staircases rather than curved has increased the reluctance of people to use them. The number of seats accessible to all, and not just to those who are able or prepared to climb the stairs of a double decker, is much greater on an artic.
Radial routes on which there is heavy traffic, such as 25, 149, 207 and 436, as well as short intensive routes like 507 and 521 are ideal for artics. I feel that there is possibly less case for the 38 and 73 due to the nature of the roads they traverse.
What is important now is what, if any, notice is taken by the Mayor to the responses to MTS, and if there is evidence that he is going in the wrong direction is he prepared to change course.
Given the scope of technology we now have, could not the display inside the lower saloon of each red decker state the number of free seats remaining upstairs ?
Whilst the youngsters may enjoy trying to mess up the system between stops, it may avoid all the 'Up the stairs to have a look, then come back downstairs again' muddles and blockages which occur...the ones that consultants never experience in their taxis and posh limos, that is !
Anonymous@0735 and 1018 - thanks for the link to the response. I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation of the comments about the number of buses terminating in Central London, particularly given that they refer in the same paragraph to express buses. However, I think they could have made their point more clearly. I note also that they favour the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street, which must surely have implications for some services crossing central London, although I cannot predict exactly what the effects would be. For the passengers, I would think it would be an inconvenience, and it would require very careful planning to close such a major artery to buses and still improve the service.
I would agree with you about people standing when seats are available. I suppose I am used to that, as it is quite common in Germany, but as I mentioned before, most journeys are shorter. Perhaps it happens because there isn't a conductor shouting 'move on down the bus, please'! Our experience of the artics was principally on the 18, and we made several journeys of 30 minutes plus on that route, which to my mind is a long time to have to stand. However, I cannot say what proportion of the users of that route make such long journeys. Of course, if there was an express bus, as suggested by Buchanan, running over such a route then the parallel 'all stops' services would probably be ideal candidates for artics. However, the suggestion regarding express services does seem rather like a plea for the return of 'Green Line' in its old format - an interesting idea, but I wonder how practical it is?
"A reduction in the number of buses terminating in the central business districts. This implies unpopular transfer between bus and rail, or more walking." Is the last sentence really a result of the previous one?
Surely it's the congestion caused by central termini that is the problem, and one of the reasons rail is developing crosscity routes.
Re: artics - as I read it, Colin Buchanan were particularly talking about the 507/521 routes, where the artic replacements are single deckers with even fewer seats than the artics had.
I'm afraid I do not see how the bendies saved road space, given the illustration in the article, when I calculate the passengers/meter length
"I'm afraid I do not see how the bendies saved road space"
They did on the 507 and 521, since the replacements were 12m Citaros. If you do the maths you find the result was fewer seats and more metres of bus.
Tom said...
"They did on the 507 and 521, since the replacements were 12m Citaros. If you do the maths you find the result was fewer seats and more metres of bus."
The problem seems to be that the rigid Citaros used on the 507 have only 21 seats, so that the number of seats per metre would be less than with the artic version (49 seats). The more conventional two-door Citaros would have about 35 seats, but I suppose it is worth remembering that the AEC Swifts used when the Red Arrow routes started in the late 1960s also had only 25 seats.
Post a Comment