On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:13:09 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:36:27 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:


CIG_BIG_CIG wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 4 Nov 2004:


Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

There has been much debate about the rights and wrongs of this policy
with regard to majority vs minority benefits and isn't a single deck
just going to be packed like a sardine tin while an older double deck
wouldn't be.

One might think that a performance penalty should be incurred for
waiting passengers left behind at bus stops, regardless of disability or
otherwise. Difficult to measure though.

That is obviously part of the debate - small buses leaving people
behind, what's the chance of a mobility impaired person actually needing
a low floor bus if a high floor one turned up, a small low floor bus
being so crowded that a mobility impaired person couldn't board even if
they wanted to. As with so many things like this the operator will do
anything to avoid the penalty and the TfL requirement is loose enough to
allow them to escape such if a small bus runs in service.

On the general issue of leaving people behind that can result from all
sorts of issues - late running, traffic congestion, other parallel
routes running late causing overcrowding on a route that may actually be
running perfectly well etc. It's also not helped by TfL's policy of bus
service expansion having been stopped in favour of money being spent of
the Tube. While I can't deny the Tube needs money spent on it I would
love to have seen what sort of bus network we would have got on the most
expansionist of Tf:'s policy options. I suspect we will never know as I
can't see an enlightened bus policy being pursued in the rest of this
Mayoral term or any subsequent one.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!