Let's recall what drives the bendy-haters. There is the heritage argument (bendys replaced the old Routemasters), the safety argument (they imperil cyclists) and the unsuitability argument (they are too long for London's narrow streets). Boris Johnson deployed all these during the election campaign in making his case for a "New Routemaster" to take its predecessor's place. He famously ran into difficulty, though, when pressed on the economics of the policy. Now he's boss of City Hall the hard numbers are being crunched. Other practicalities are also being addressed, both in GLA circles and elsewhere. What direction of travel will result?
Straws in the wind suggest that the mayor and Transport for London boss Peter Hendy have reached a broad agreement that it is politically vital that a New Routemaster exists by the time of the next mayoral election, but that just one such vehicle might have to be enough given the uncertainties involved. Perhaps, too, there is a recognition by Johnson that the absence of a fleet of working New Routemasters on the capital's streets before 2012 would have the consolation that they won't have had to be paid for during the coming years of financial squeeze.
My feeling that The Blond and the commissioner have reached consensus about the economics of the bendy purge – which can begin before the New Routemaster has been born - was strengthened by exchanges between them and that dominant predator dude Steve Norris at last week's TfL board meeting. Norris questioned the speed with which the bendy contaminant was to be cleansed. "They'll be gone by 2015, I believe," said the mayor. This, according to Norris was "an extraordinary length of time," when he knew from discussions with bus operators that "they'd be happy to renegotiate [their contracts] from tomorrow."
Johnson responded first, urging patience: "I am mindful, Steve, of having to be very, very prudent with tax-payers' money." Hendy elaborated: "I think our issue is with value for money, and the one offer we've had [to re-negotiate] so far wasn't anything like what you would get in a different circumstance." It was almost as though the pair were sharing an invisible hymn sheet under the desk. Continued Hendy: "You'll recall that there has been considerable controversy about what this project might cost, and I'm optimistic that I can deliver the mayor's policy in an economical manner. Certainly, there's a great deal of prudence being exercised at this end."
So there. None of this means that complete harmony is ensured between TfL and City Hall: the mayor still hears voices calling for reform and we do not yet know how far his cost-cutting fervour will be satisfied by axing TfL projects mooted under Ken Livingstone. It does, though, enhance the case that Johnson and Hendy have found a way to do business together so far, and that at this stage the mayor is glad of it. It also shines a light on the many complexities of delivering a signature policy that critics see as a vanity project.
Just how unravelled could things get? Transport expert Christian Wolmar and Tom at Boris Watch have been examining research by Travelwatch (pdf), which reveals that replacing bendys with conventional double-deckers on the routes where contracts expire soonest – the 38, 507 and 521 – would create more congestion, make journeys longer and cost more to run. It also indicates that they work extremely well on the long, major routes and that much of the controversy surrounding them was got up for political purposes by "London's Quality Newspaper." None of this bodes well for bendy-haters or cost-cutters. Could it even be that at least some of the "hated" artics will survive?
