The tour bus heritage route things? A - you can't just jump off and on. There is someone there to stop you. B - you pay for the tour, why jump off? C - the regs don't actually kick in until something like 2015, or was it 13? I can't remember, anyway Ken was trying to get something sorted with some run in time before it was too late.
I don't understand the nostalgia for the old Routemaster. London for a long time has been behind most other towns where the open platform type buses were phased out in the early '60s. I remember the fuss about the introduction of the then new 'Atlantean' type buses in Torbay where I lived. These rear engined flat fronted buses which became the standard style for buses for most of the country were much longer than the old buses but could carry 73 people. London was just 40 or so years out of date in persisting with open platform buses. Open platform was not something exclusive to London and Routemasters weren't special and different - all buses were like that in the '50s whichever company built them. As for the design and style of the new Routemaster Revisited bus, I am waiting for the announcement of which particular dress designer was responsible for the styling of the bodywork.
The heritage routes are normal routes, run by TFL, using open platform Routemasters, running normal fares. The tour buses are privately run, not using routemasters, and not therefore having any open platform, and charge premium 'tour' fares. There is a DDA accessibility regulation applicable from 2017, however this does not effectively ban even the routemasters provided that there is an equivalent accessible option (which on the heritage routes there are). The replacement routemaster is compliant, regardless of whether the open platform is open or closed. I've never heard of a regulation banning open platforms - but happy to be corrected with a link.
^^^^^^^^^^^^This. They could, if they wished, run all buses as Routemasters, on the basis that they are heritage routes. But that would be shite for disabled people and impractical as the parts are running down. The new bus will have its platform open most of the time, if it doesn't the whole exercise will be utterly pointless.
I'm not convinced. The point of the 'heritage' service on the 9 and 15 routes is that they are supplementary to the basic public service on those routes, hence the heritage routes being bits of 'real' routes, not a separate route of their own. Therefore, they are DDA exempt. I do not believe that bus operators would be allowed to use the "it's a heritage route" argument as a get out for general non-compliance (e.g. running early 1990s buses) with DDA after 2017. I think there is a clause allowing occasional use of heritage buses on something that's not a regular service, but I'd need to go and look up what this means in practice.
The Bendy Bus as an unexpected glimpse into the lives of people living on the street: A short film about the homeless who rode the N29, to sleep somewhere warm and safe. "I've had sixty or seventy on at once." "It could happen to any of us. To you or me." http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/video/2011/dec/09/homeless-on-the-bendy-bus-video
Powerful film, makes me feel shame. How the fuck them politicos can sleep at night whilst allowing a situation such as that to exist is way beyond my comprehension.
only if tempered by actual occupancy per mile. The assumption that buses are always full is so obviously wrong. The difference between the new bus at 10mph and a RM at 13mph is significant on the huge mileage with trivial numbers of passengers.
In terms of pollution, newer vehicles are generally better than old ones, they have particulate filters and just inherently "cleaner" engines than 40 year old ones, surely? And these new buses are "hybrids" so for quite a lot of the time, they are using their electric motors, so not using any diesel at all when in busy traffic. Giles..
The occupancy is further flawed when you take into account that although these will start in London, they'll inevitably end up running out here in the provinces as well, where they'll often only have five people on board.
I put your question into google and found estimates ranging from 9 to 25 on the first page, though I should say that many of the sources seem to have an agenda that cars are more CO2 efficient than buses. I would hope they're cleaner, and I'd also hope they're more fuel efficient. If the figures given are correct (the new bus at 10mpg- which is apparently 15% better than existing hybrids- and 13mpg for a RM) then they're a good deal less efficient.That's rather counter-intuitive isn't it?
I wonder how long it'll be before they start getting plastered with advertising. They won't look quite as cool then. The glass on the back of these buses already look like the middle of a Nike swoosh
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/feb/23/routemaster-london-bus-new entering service next week apparently
Great review and glad to see they've apparently done a good job on it. Quite sad to see the comments at the bottom full of people desperate to see it fail I think £8m for 8 buses including R&D costs is quite remarkable too. I think the bendies were £250k each. I can't wait to have a go on one.
Its a nice looking bus, but sadly the whole scheme is just a massive waste of money, just another Boris vanity scheme such as the bikes, the cable cars and the estuary airport. What we really need to public transport fares to stop being increased all the fucking time.
This design was needed 12 years ago, when London's bus fleet was massively expanded and replaced. Now all routes are operated with new buses, what's the point in a new design? I've come to like that design btw, but I just don't think it's needed now.
The bikes are a vanity scheme? Do they cost money or do they pay for themselves? I always assumed the latter. They were Ken's idea btw, not Boris's.
I still don't get how he can have open platform buses with air conditioning, from an eco pov. Surely it's going to cost a fortune in extra fuel?
Ah ok. So they've been less profitable than expected, and it will take longer to recoup the initial investment. That doesn't make it a failure. As ever in the UK, investments are expected to see returns within two or three years, when what we really need is 10-, 20- and even 30-year investments.
The bikes are a success and the cable car makes good sense. I agree with you on the Estuary airport though.
The bikes have cost the taxpayer a billion quid. A billion quid at a time when transport fares have gone through the roof because we're broke apparently. Don't get me wrong the bikes are good and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that Barclays have forked the bill, but no a billion quid. The bikes are not that good. How much is the cable car going to cost incidentally? Anyway by the time its built bus fares will be beyond £2 and people will be even more fucked than we are now.
No they have not. Read Crispy's link. They cost £79 million to set up, cost £15 million a year to run, and are now just about breaking even. But they're not repaying the initial investment as quickly as had been hoped.
