Category: Transport

Blog Nation: what would I like to see discussed

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Sunny ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ Hundal is organising a follow-up to 2008’s successful ‘Blog Nation’ event. Details over at Liberal Conspiracy, but Sunny asks what we’d like to discuss; below the fold, then, are some thoughts.

In terms of logistics, I would make three suggestions. Given the layout, it’s important that each table isn’t talking amongst itself thereby making so much noise that you can’t hear the speaker. Secondly, there are two breakout rooms. I would like to see the two used for an hour each for anyone to stand up a present an idea for five minutes. Thirdly, I’d like to see it recorded and ideally live streamed. Certainly, the plenary sessions could be on uStream or BlogTV.

Continue reading “Blog Nation: what would I like to see discussed” →

River of Gilligan’s dreams

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Andrew Gilligan has an interesting article in today’s London Evening Standard, trailing a PolEx report that won’t be available until tomorrow, suggesting that a highly effective boat service could be set up for £30m. I will look for the report tomorrow, but in the meantime I make three points.

Firstly, Gilligan says

Yet this would be no ordinary service. It would never be stopped by traffic or points failures.

That may be true, and it is some time since the Thames froze. However, the Thames is a tidal river. A very tidal river, it moves at speeds of up to 8 knots. Moreover, the tides do not occur at the same time every day. Altogether, this means that the Thames is fundamentally unreliable for timekeeping purposes as, from the point of view of the commuter, you have to leave at a different time each day to get to work on time and may well have a variable amount of hanging around (or extra work). If the Thames Barrier, in this or a future incarnation, is permanently raised and the Thames is no longer tidal, this could change.

Secondly, Mr Gilligan makes a somewhat simplistic analysis of cost/benefit for buses and tube extensions. Certainly, the numbers might be, prima facie, better for the river but it does not consider at all how well served riverside locations already are against the relative lack of provision in other areas.

Thirdly, Mr Gilligan, when not continuing his obsession with standing outside on moving vehicles 1 makes an interesting admission:

Boris has sometimes been accused of lacking a big idea, an equivalent of Ken Livingstone’s congestion charge — something people can point to and say: “He did that.” I think a new TfL riverbus could be it.

I was rather under the impression that the New Routemaster was meant to be the big idea. Maybe Gilligan has gone off it, or realised that it’s either not going to happen or, if it does, will be suboptimal value for money.

I would add Mr Gilligan needs to be a bit more careful about his sweeping statements.

You only have to try it once to know why. In the morning rush hour, the traffic in Greenwich inches round the one-way system. The trains are slow and crowded. On the river, charging upstream at 30 knots (35mph), we are the fastest thing in a five-mile radius.

AsPolitical Animal and Boris Watch point out on Twitter, within five miles of Greenwich are trains (60mph), the Jubilee line (50mph), High Speed One (140mph) and City Airport (takeoff speed for a STOL aircraft ~160mph, although they don’t make many stops in London) (here, here and here).

xD.

1 – “On the open rear deck of the Cyclone Clipper, two newcomers to the service are grinning to themselves at the sudden surge of speed, and the glorious, if rapidly receding, views of the Royal Naval College. Inside, the more seasoned passengers have settled down with their laptops. There is a small buffet, and on the way home you can even get a massage.” I wonder how many people would be standing outside in today’s inclement weather.

We hate to say we told you so…

Posted on by David Landon Cole

On some routes, bendy buses are a good idea. Despite it being relatively quiet because of the school holidays, people want the bendies back on the 507.

But we did. Repeatedly.

I rather doubt this will have much electoral impact as lots of the people on the 507 are coming from outside the Greater London area.

In other bus news, which I hadn’t heard about, East Thames Buses has been sold to Go Ahead. Both the sale and the fact that the only news outlets which carried the story, other than Mayorwatch, seem to have been Socialist Worker and Investors’ Chronicle, neither of which I read, bothers me.

Bendy buses – answers to FOI requests

Posted on by David Landon Cole

TfL have responded to my Freedom of Information requests about bendy buses, specifically the 507 and 521 routes. The questions and their responses follow below the fold, but the key points are:

  • The proposed replacements for 18m bendy buses are 12m single deckers. Operators have been asked to submit bids for 12m single deckers and 18m articulated.
  • There has been no public consultation on the change; there has been stakeholder consultation. As most people on the 507 and 521 come from outside geographic stakeholder areas (that’s why they arrive at Victoria, London Bridge and Waterloo), it seems likely their views will not be taken on board.
  • Only 1% of passengers on the 507 and 521 use paper tickets bought from roadside machines.

xD.

Update: Many thanks to the excellent Dave Hill for writing about this at his blog over at The Guardian.

Continue reading “Bendy buses – answers to FOI requests” →

Mayor Johnson, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bendy bus

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The 507 (Wikipedia, TfL) and 521 (Wikipedia, TfL) are going to be the first London bus routes to have the bendy bus removed. This is going to make my commute into work longer. Bendy buses have attracted a lot of opprobrium; read on to find out why they’re actually a really good idea.

Graphic of a bendy bus

The 507 and 521 are the last of the Red Arrow routes that were set up in the mid-Sixties to deal with short, high-density, commuter journeys. The idea was twofold; increase bus capacity and, crucially, the speed with which people could board and alight from the bus, thereby increasing route capacity and decreasing journey time. Obviously, it takes more time to use a double-decker; there’s only one exit door and passengers can’t go up and down the stairs at the same time; in any case, people taking short journeys are less likely to go up the stairs, leading to overcrowding downstairs. The solution was to move to a single-decker bus with less seats but more standing room and to allow people to leave by the front door as well.

The 507 and 521 routes haven’t changed in their requirements since the Sixties. Both run between major termini that are close together; in the 507’s case, Waterloo and Victoria and, in the 521’s, Waterloo and London Bridge. More importantly, they go through places where lots of commuters want to go; the 521 goes past Holborn, St Paul’s and Monument (all areas with lots of offices that people who come in by train to Waterloo and London Bridge want to reach) and the 507 goes up Horseferry Road. That’s significant because I board the bus at Horseferry Road but also because the buses, in both directions, practically empty in the morning on the Horseferry Road stops as lots of civil servants go to work in the area; conversely, the buses fill up in the evening peak and empty at the termini.

The bendy buses are ideal for these routes. They can accomodate a lot of people, who can board and alight quickly and in large numbers, travelling over short distances. The ideal would probably be a tram but these are costly to install and there are other priorities, not least the Cross River Tram and, of course, Crossrail. The bendy buses are an ideal solution. The alternative that we are going to have is the double-decker. I like double-deckers, but they’re not appropriate for these routes. I’m sure a lot of people who take traditional double-deckers in the morning rush from major rail stations will be familiar with the long boarding times as everyone clambers on in the one place. You can usually find a seat upstairs (hence the iBus announcement: “Seats are available on the Upper Deck”) as many people are only going a few stops and don’t want to have to fight up and down the stairs. On the 507 and 521 routes, that will be worsened by everyone wanting to leave the bus over two or three stops.

A particular issue for the 521 is the Strand Underpass. It connects the northern end of Waterloo Bridge directly to the top of Kingsway. Originally built for trams, it is not high enough for double-deckers. Presumably, the 521 will have to be diverted round the Aldwych and up Kingsway. These are two busy roads that will become further congested and will delay the 521.

Some of the arguments against the bendy bus are also rubbish. The big one is that there’s lots of fare evasion; I’m sure that’s true on some routes. On the 507 and 521 – the first routes to have bendies removed – just about everyone is using a major rail terminus. They’re probably going to have a Travelcard already – which includes London buses.

Bendy buses aren’t appropriate for every route. The 36, for instance, isn’t ideal for going across Cambridge Circus. That doesn’t mean they’re not appropriate for any route. Unfortunately, bus policy – not necessarily the most fascinating of issues – is being decided by little more than tabloid prejudice.

I’ll see you in the queue.

xD.

Update: Peezedtee weighs in and, in fact, weighed in back in March.