Today is the last day that bendy buses will work route 38, one end of which (as you may have noticed) is a bus stop by Clapton Pond. Route 38 is the third to be de-bendified (following the 507 and 521) but the first long-haul one, terminating as it does at far-off Victoria. I'm a bit sad that they are going: not hugely so because it's daft to get too worked up about any kind of bus, but I'll miss their novelty shape and the smooth ride they provide.
You'll be familiar with the arguments about them. Traditionalists, many cyclists and Ken Livingstone-haters dislike them for not being double-deckers (especially for not being Routemasters), for being hard to overtake and for being Ken Livingstone's idea. Admirers point to their high capacity and the fact that their replacements - double-deckers in the case of route 38 - will take longer to load because of having fewer doors, and be more numerous in order to maintain capacity. Both factors seem bound to add to road congestion at least to some degree, especially in the centre of town.
There's also the question of cost - a particularly important one in view of Transport for London's financial woes. All buses need replacing eventually, but Boris Johnson's anti-bendy policy means that these are being replaced sooner than would have otherwise been necessary, resulting in TfL having to pay more to the bus operating companies. Those higher contrast costs would have been higher still had the London Mayor not been persuaded by TfL to only de-bendify when contracts came up for renewal rather than purging the whole lot straight away.
Of course, the one thing almost everyone agrees about bendys is that their having three sets of doors make fare-dodging a cinch. A recent written answer (you might have to click twice) to a question by London Assembly member Valerie Shawcross about the cost of de-commissioning bendys - or, to be formal, "articulated buses" - factored in an anticipated increase in revenue resulting from less fare-dodging in future. Is this projection exaggerated? Shawcross thinks so. Would money have been better spent on providing more inspectors? I don't know, because I've yet to do the maths. Maybe someone else has.
These debates will rumble on and time will provide the best test of them. My one firm opinion is that there are more important things to get worked up about, whichever side of the argument you're on. But I'll still mark the bendys' passing from Lower Clapton Road with a small sigh.
Recent Comments