Questions over scrapping of bendy buses on three routes
December 5, 2008 by Staff · 30 Comments
Bendy buses on two routes (507 and 521) are to be replaced with single deck, 12 metre buses when contracts for the bendy buses end next summer. Buses on a third route (38) will be replaced by double deckers from next autumn.
City Hall says the move delivers on Boris Johnson’s election promises to scrap the bendy buses, which Johnson says are “completely unsuitable for the city’s streets”. Critics are questioning the impact on costs and pollution as additional buses will be need to be laid on to meet peak demand and ensure capacity is maintained.
Green Party Assembly Member Darren Johnson said the Mayor “has given no information on the impact that all these extra buses will have on air quality, congestion, CO2 and cost” despite a number of requests. Mr Johnson said there was currently “a Freedom of Information request to bring the environmental costs of this into the public domain.”
The AM accused Mayor Johnson of spending public money “on a gimmicky idea which will actually make things even worse for asthma sufferers and other people with respiratory problems.”
Sharon Grant, chair of passenger watchdog London TravelWatch, said the body “believes that the use of the bendy buses on routes like the 521, 507 and 38 has overwhelming advantages, in terms of accessibility, effective use of limited road space, and minimising time spent at stops.”
Grant called on TfL “to publish the figures involved, so everyone can judge whether it represents value for money or not.”
“London TravelWatch has seen no evidence that points to the need to replace bendy buses on these routes, and unless TfL can provide evidence to the contrary, we will continue to argue that it is a backwards step for transport users in terms of accessibility, capacity and congestion, which does not appear to represent value for money.”
Thank God, about time. Get these cattle trucks off the streets. And take the corrupt and incompetent ‘London Travelwatch’ with them.
BoJo is increasing the number of buses on these routes so he can claim ‘another’ delivered election promise but refuses to reveal the costs of this political stunt.
We can safely assume it’s dearer than the bendy buses were.
Crna Legija? Classy. To think some people used to accuse Ken Livingstone of anti-semitism.
On bendies, they’ll definitely cost more to replace (but we don’t know how much). Value for money and accountability there, then.
Love them or hate them they have a bad safety record. They have burst into flames, run over pedestrians and been involved in numerous RTA’s. Surely its better to have more height and less width.
Conductors could pay for them selves by stopping the freebie riders and aid shorter travel times.
Or is it just about the money?
I thought Ken privatised the busses, how come new ones are going to cost us money.
Surely a private company with shareholders should buy their own new busses.
If the new TX4 Taxi had been banned Cab Drivers would have to buy their own replacement. What makes busses different?
What TFL and Boris should be looking at is reducing the amount of empty busses that plaque the centre of London, causing off peak congestion.
How come London’s Taxi’s don’t receive subsidised fuel the same as London’s buses.
“I thought Ken privatised the busses”
Hi Jason
The privatisation of the buses was a consequence of the 1984 London Regional Transport Act which created the Central Government-controlled London Regional Transport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_London_bus_services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Regional_Transport
current cost of lost revenue from bendy bus free riders (tfl admit about 7% of passengers travel free on bendy bus routes..) is about £60m a year.. so the “extra” cost of more conventional buses that travel watch keep on bleating about is cancelled out by the increased revenue from making sure everyone is paying!
It’s not buses that run over pedestrians, it’s bus drivers.
London Travelwatch are supposed to represent the views of passengers and motorists, but they have an unfortunate tendency to revert to the providers’ interests if they don’t have strong leadership from their board.
Regardless of the varied opinions on bendies, their current support for them appears to be based entirely on arguments from the providers’ viewpoint. Or perhaps they see a role for these particular services as bendy ‘hertage routes’…
“current cost of lost revenue from bendy bus free riders (tfl admit about 7% of passengers travel free on bendy bus routes..) is about £60m a year”
No it isn’t. Which invalidates your argument.
Introducing conventional buses does no eliminate fare evasion. Which invalidates your argument.
Finally, there’s the usual point that Boris is first debendifying the routes with less evasion than the average across the network, which invalidates it again – the four routes we know are higher are due for replacement in 2010/11, so you should be arguing against last week’s decision if you want to stay consistent.
Conclusion: the announcement last week was not related to fare evasion and the extra cost will not be covered by extra fares.
“they have a bad safety record.”
No they don’t. Seriously debunked over many months:
The fires were unrelated to bendiness, so are inadmissable as evidence – put heat and fuel near each other and occasionally they’ll burn when you don’t want them to. They were related to the Citaro G design, but you’re arguing that widebody airliners are unsafe because of the 1970s DC-10 crashes, which is obvious nonsense.
The collisions, when expressed properly as per passenger capacity carried, are less than conventional buses (Boris’s own figures recently). The figures commonly in the public domain are misleading unless you understand both statistics and how London’s buses operate.
No cyclists have been killed by bendies, contrary to what Boris and others have said (which begs the question why he said it).
Two people have been killed this year as an indirect result of buses with ‘more height’ – one by a double decker knocking a branch off a tree, the other being thrown through the top deck window. Should we ban double-deckers, or do the reasonable thing and say it’s very sad and obviously rotten luck, but that’s life?
This is a very good example of why every politician should change his / her mind once they get into power.
It’s all well and good Boris jumping on the ‘ban bendy bandwagon’ whilst canvassing for votes – but the reality is that carrying out this move will cost Londoners extra.
I don’t need massaged TFL figures to know that 1 bendy replaced by 2 single deckers means:
a) More fuel
b) More maintenance
c) More wages (2 drivers instead of one)
d) (a little) more congestion
e) More tax and insurance? (presuming buses have to pay like everyone else)
f) Less sense.
It also makes me laugh how people can talk about bendy buses ‘catching fire all over the place’ , ‘killing cyclists’ and ‘allowing criminals to travel for free’.
As the post above from Tom shows these are tabloid drawn facts (which include the Evening Standard – a big compaigner) as a few isolated incidents has conviced the stupid that removing the bendy buses will make us all safer.
Absolute claptrap – the danger to Londoners is not the obvious big red bus we can all see, but actually the poisonous fumes and poor air quality that we can’t.
CONGRATULATIONS LONDON – you are now officially being run by ‘Jeremy Clarkson politics’ where we live in the unfounded belief that public transport is for the poor (and therefore doesn’t mattter) and the rich will continue to drive their cars until we all choke to death in the fumes produced by such short sightedness.
The number of fare evaders and people killed on London overground trains is proportionately much higher than bendy buses as well as rush hour crowding being below the standards for EU cattle transport.
…..so by current logic – when do we get rid of them then?
Tawkin,
Spoken like a true journalist, for the Guardian that is.
What makes your paper any better than the Standard?
Your examples come off the top of your head, rather than TFL and give a false perspective.
Bendy buses are a danger to other road users, even poor ones.
That’s why they were banned in Las Vegas and replaced by Double Decker’s. The congestion on the strip improved by 7% according to the Las Vegas Sun.
Every Lorry driver knows that articulated vehicles are more unstable than a rigid chasse’.
But why let the truth get in the way of your argument.
Have you ever considered asking the drivers of the bendy buses what they think about the vehicle they drive?
Thomas,
The last time I went to vegas (2 years ago) they were still operating bendy buses on the strip – so I don’t know where you got your tabloid facts from – oh yes, the Las vegas Sun. You’re also talking about a 5 lane road where numerous traffic reduction schemes have been applied, not just the removal of bendy buses – it’s hardly a comparison to this situation.
You failed to respond to the most fundamental and undisputed fact which is the replacement of the bendy on these routes will create more congestion and cost more money – from an administration that promised to reduce both.
I wouldn’t mind if they were replaced with double deckers – but they haven’t been. Instead they are replacing them with single decker buses which are only marginally shorter than the existing bendy buses.
Also, the stability of an articulated vehicle isn’t an issue in central London where the average speed of traffic is less than 8 miles an hour – but as a taxi driver you should know that fact already.
This whole idea is to appease the simple minded who think the biggest problem in London is the type of bus that’s being used. Sadly by the time you all realise this is simply a publicity stunt to make Boris look good it will be too late. The real issues that need addressing are once again brushed over with short term ’shiny things’ which the public loves to be distracted by. Meanwhile the serious long term problems remain and in fact get worse – and that’s the truth, sadly most people don’t have the vision to see beyond next week – let alone the next 30 years.
I cycle, so I should be all for the removal of ‘dangerous’ bendy buses – but I put logical sense before my own personal self interests – which seems to be a rareity in this town.
We hate the bendy bus that goes past our house – it goes so fast it makes our whole house shake – we never had that problem with the double deckers that used to operate the same route — so I am gutted that our route the No 18 is not one of the ones planned to be scrapped — any chance it might be in future and if so when — it cannot be soon enough as far as myself and my neighbours are concerned – please can we have a double decker back
Tawkin I go to Vegas twice a year with my other business, your info is out of touch, like most of your posts. What is wrong with the Las Vegas Sun, its not quite the Guardian I know but it is informative. Why should you dictate what transport we use, when you don’t use buses or tubes yourself. You do not have a clue what real working people want or need. stick to your bike and be very careful of them bendy’s at junctions.
TawkinSenz
This whole idea is to appease the simple minded who think the biggest problem in London is the type of bus that’s being used.
So now you think we are all simple minded.
The biggest problem in London is nutters on bikes causing accidents all over the place and blaming everyone else. Get an oyster card mate and see how the other, simple minded people live in the real world.
Thomas,
How exactly am I dictating the transport Londoners use? I use every single method of transport in London (Bus, Tube, Bike, Car, Walk) so I actually do know what I’m talking about. I also don’t make transport policy – so dictating it would be a little difficult. I also am a ‘real working person’ who commutes every single day into central London – so everything you have assumed so far is incorrect.
Finally – I don’t read the Guardian, in fact I don’t read any paper – which is why my head isn’t full of some reporters opinion which I simply regurgitate as my own.
It’s clear you still think bendy buses are a danger to cyclists – although it would appear you don’t ride a bike in London – so how do you know that? Ah ha – you read it in the paper…..
Jason,
I wasn’t implying that people who use public transport are simple minded. I am talking about the number of voters in London who actually think bendy buses are dangerous and a hazard to the public and other road users – so much so they voted for the current mayor on that basis.
There is no evidence for this belief whatsoever, and yet many people in London belive this to be true.
In Europe they use bendy buses everywhere, especially in the cities where there are narrow streets (Venice, Rome, Brussels, Amsterdam etc.) – and strangely they’re not pulling them off the streets at ‘great public cost’. They are perfect for these environments where high sided vehicles and long fixed base buses struggle to get round corners without damaging the kerb.
The simple minded are those who believe the media scaremongering without any experience of their own.
The true cost of removing bendy buses is not immediately visible – but I will remind you of that when you’re on here in 2 years time moaning about how much your council tax has gone up to pay for it all.
I have to laugh at your comment about cyclists causing accidents all over the place. Here’s a piece of factual history for you – red lights were introduced after the motor car was – due to the number of accidents they caused. Bikes were around long before that and did not need such policing.
If you’re looking for the cause of accidents then you are targetting the wrong road user.
Point of order – council tax doesn’t pay for buses, that comes out of central government grant and fare income.
Your *fares* will go up, of course, at RPI+1%, but we already knew that.
thomasthetaxi – I got the night bus home last night. Ten people standing on the top deck. Hardly unused, is it?
Tom,
I am a night cab driver and I see empty bus after empty bus.I do see the odd full one at week ends but this sight is very rear. I see congestion caused by empty buses at 2-3-4 am. Just because the odd bus may be full its no indication that you need to double their numbers.
Twakin.
It is a fact that accidents have been caused by drivers trying to avoid cyclists jumping the lights, but when you are blinkered you probably don’t realise the devastation left in your wake. Also the police have commented on the growing amount of accidents caused by rickshaw bikes. Or do you not recognise these death traps as cyclists?
Jason,
Rickshaws – not the motorised ones – which are the ones the police are cracking down on – they are motorised vehicles.
I realise it’s a popular belief that cyclists jumping red lights has caused an increase in accidents – but there isn’t actually any evidence for it.
With regard to the buses – all I am saying is that as the people who fund it all we have been:
1) Charged for the initial consultation into Bendy buses
2) Charged for implementing bendy buses
3) Charged for consultation on removing the bendy buses
4) Charged for actually removing the bendy buses (because we wil make a loss on selling them)
5) Charged for the replacement for bedny buses.
My overall point is that a lot of money has been wasted on the implementation and removal of bendy buses in London. The removal of them seems to be a knee jerk reaction based on a few media fuelled rumours – and not any physical evidence as to the desperate need to get rid of them.
This is not what I expect from a ‘value for money’ mayorship – which is what the selling point of Boris was.
“but there isn’t actually any evidence for it.”
Cyclist road deaths are down, and down sharply if you consider the increase in cycling (it was this that first clued me in to the Boris lie about ‘many cyclists killed every year [by bendy buses]‘). That’s what rebalancing the city in favour of people not in cars does.
Tawkin I do see your financial point, but my argument is that the congestion in central London now is mostly caused by buses. It just seems more sensible to choose shorter ones, preferably double deckers and inside the congestion charge zone the bus lanes should be taken away. Why should motorists have to pay to become second fiddle to buses.
Tom you are just as guilty of massaging the figures as you claim Boris is. The actual number of Cyclist deaths are not down, unless you play with the figures.
Try telling the family of the women killed today in Regent Street how safe bendy buses are.
“The actual number of Cyclist deaths are not down, unless you play with the figures.”
Out with them then. Let’s see your unspun numbers.
I’m not sure you necessarily understand statistics anyway, Jason, but here goes – cycling is up 91% in London (2000-2008), the actual number of cyclists killed on the roads fluctuates from year to year around 15-20, and yes it is increasing, but not by 91%.
This tells you a couple of things – first, cycling’s more dangerous than other forms of transport, second, the *rate* of deaths has reduced, but the large increase in cycling offsets this. You can’t look at deaths in isolation from the amount of cycling done.
As for bendies, they are involved in more collisions (figures from Boris) than other types of bus, but not enough more to make their replacement by 59% more smaller buses safer in respect of collisions. Hence *replacing* bendies *increases* the number of collisions involving buses, and whatever reasoning there is behind the bendy jihad cannot be linked to increases in safety. It’s not rocket science, but it does require more mathematical appreciation than I suspect you possess, as anyone sane looking at, say, a strategy to reduce the cyclist death statistics wouldn’t start by banning bendy buses. Lorries, perhaps, but not buses.
It doesn’t matter if I can add up or not, I am out there on the street at night 48-60 hours a week stuck in unnecessary traffic congestion at 2-3-4 o/c in the morning.
I have seen cyclist knock down in unprecedented numbers over the pass few years. Not everyone is killed and not everyone reports the incident, especially the drivers, the old saying about statistics and lies come to mind.
One of the biggest danger from these monsters is at junctions were their backs stick out over the junction causing dangerous hazards.
Up is the way forward not length.
Good news though, Boris has announced today the introduction of a fabulous, futuristic new design Route Master.
It seems to have upset the Labour contingent on the Assembly, but they get upset if Boris just turns up for work.
This fabulous new bus is £50,000 more than a conventional double decker, but you have to blame the environmentalists and Green party activists for the extra money spent to make the buses better for the environment, they want cleaner more efficient engines and these come at a cost. Although they will not see it that way and will still complain!
I think leading architects Foster and Partners and design firm Capoco Design are to be congratulated on a truly iconic bus fit for 21st Century London
Jason & Tom,
You both make valid points regarding the safety of the bendies.
The truth is nobody actually knows for certain. The spun figures and exaggerated stories from the gossipy world of the media means that actually establishing the truth is near impossible.
For that reason I would sugget that the removal of the Bendies has been done without enough prior investigation. The cost of this will be huge – and of course well hidden from public view.
If there is a rule the GLA and the mayor need to stick to it’s:
“If it’s not REALLY broken – then it doesn’t need fixing”.
Maybe Boris et al need to concentrate on what is most desperately not working first.
How about the signals on the tube for a start. These seem to have been going wrong for the same reasons since I was a child. I’ve even seen ex-TFL staff write up their short-comings, and still they’re in place..
“How about the signals on the tube for a start. These seem to have been going wrong for the same reasons since I was a child. I’ve even seen ex-TFL staff write up their short-comings, and still they’re in place..”
No, leave things as they are there – there’s a long-term project to replace all tube signalling with modern distance to go/moving block signalling anyway, and interfering with it would just delay things. The Victoria line and Jubilee line are first to switch over, IIRC in 2009. The new systems are much like the ones on the DLR, which should be much more reliable.
If you want to speed it up, urge Boris to concentrate on sorting out Metronet, who are doing a lot of the work.
“Try telling the family of the women killed today in Regent Street how safe bendy buses are.”
This turned out to be a pedestrian injury, so the relevance to cyclist deaths is moot. She was stable in hospital last time I heard, so Jason, I think you need to check your facts as well as your maths, mate, before indulging in scaremongery.
“Not everyone is killed and not everyone reports the incident,”
You’re floundering. This only makes sense if people don’t report bendy bus collisions at a different rate to double decker collisions. I’d suspect, given the hysteria, that the opposite would be true. I think it’s time to give up on this, Jason.
Give up why?
I made 1 mistake. I assumed the lady was killed , (I didn’t say she was a cyclist), because the police closed off one side of Regent street for 12 hours. There seem’s to be a media black out at the request of TFL when a bendy bus is involved in a death or serious accident.
The met police didn’t have a clue how to handle the traffic, it was a complete fiasco. They should all be made to go back to Hendon to learn about traffic management.
You had the luxury of posting your comment 5 days after the event, when they had time to dumb the story down.
Still even if she wasn’t on a bike it still brings into question the safety of the bendy bus. Which also brings into line my statement that not everyone is killed!
Cyclist or pedestrians an accident is still an accident.
In the past twenty years I have been clipped by many buses, as are my colleagues, which don’t bother to stop. This type of incident is increasing at an alarming rate!
To take their number and try to report the incident is as hard as trying to get Westminster Council to stop victimising cabs dropping off passengers on double yellow lines and cash machines. But I digress.
Still its nice to know that you think pedestrian casualties are unimportant.
Can’t see the point of removing bendy buses from bus routes 507 and 521. These two routes are the survivors of the Red Arrow concept originally introduced in 1966. The idea was to provide the swift and safe movement of passengers on identified heavily-trafficked sections of route. The bendy buses are the ultimate development in operational efficiency and cost effectiveness of achieving this aim. As for the possibility of incorporating open platforms on the 12m single deck buses which are to replace them, that’s just about bordering on the ludicrously inept, in my opinion. I do agree that bendy bus operation probably does make it more hazardous for the cyclists who share the road with them. However, I feel that this is more due to the sloppiness, arrogance and lack of skill amongst most modern-day cyclists compared with their counterparts of a few decades ago, rather than the presence of the bendy buses themselves! No cycle clips, no toe clips, no proper lights, no road sense…..no idea.
I agree with Bob Turner’s comments on bendy buses on the 507 and 521. His comments about cyclists is a good description of Boris the worst Mayor of London.