Paul Corfield wrote:

I am not aware that there has much of an expansion of bus lanes under
the current regime. In fact aren't several Tory run councils like
Ealing and Barnet scrapping bus lanes so the roads can be full of cars
and bus passengers can be delayed?

No idea about what the councils are doing, but Ealing has been Labour run
since last May.

On 2011\07\02 11:48, Paul Corfield wrote:

There is only one gyratory currently being abolished which is
Tottenham High Road / Hale and that will take until 2014.

Sorry Paul, but Pall Mall / Saint James Street / Piccadilly are
reverting to two way operation tomorrow (Sunday) morning at 8am, and
Russell Square east side is becoming two way very soon (if not already),
which will remove most of the traffic from the other three sides of the
square.

On 2011\07\02 11:48, Paul Corfield wrote:

I am not aware that there has much of an expansion of bus lanes under
the current regime. In fact aren't several Tory run councils like
Ealing and Barnet scrapping bus lanes so the roads can be full of cars
and bus passengers can be delayed?

Barnet got rid of one in East Finchley about 6 years ago, but I'm not
aware of any others. I don't know Ealing well enough to comment.

You are not imagining the documents you have read or the pronouncements you have heard. What you are imagining is that there is some connection between those documents and pronouncements and what is actually being done.

Take the example of traffic lights supposedly being reduced. TfL is currently sabotaging the A12 in Poplar at the junction with Zetland Street by creating an unnecessary new crossroads with - of course, this is TfL - new traffic lights! (For those unfamiliar with London's trunk road network, the A12 in this area is a continuation of the A2, A102 and Blackwall Tunnel. The effect of this new and unnecessary crossroads will be to stop traffic in one of London most important and busiest trunk roads a few hundred yards north of the Blackwall Tunnel. The result will of course be mega-chaos with a large increase in air pollution)

I notice you make the common mistake so popular among regular users of public transport that there is an inevitable conflict of interest between motorists and bus passengers. I also notice that you seem to dislike motorists and seem to assume, quite incorrectly, that motorists dislike bus passengers. In fact bus passengers suffer from the ruination of London's road system as much as anyone else and sometimes more. Car drivers can take an alternative route. Buses have to stick to the prescribed route. An example: Whipps Cross Road which used to be a good road with free-flowing traffic. Then TfL intervened. They gave Waltham Forest Council £500,000 to carry out work that probably cost about £30,000. The pretext? To enhance bus services! The result: traffic on Whipps Cross Road is either stationary or at walking speed for much of the day and the service for bus passengers is now far worse. Don't take my word for it. Take a 257 bus from Stratford Station to Whipps Cross Hospital and see how you like it. And then try the return journey.

Boris Johnson most certainly is not pro motorist and he has not reversed his predecessor's policies. The only people he's working for is cyclists and it is here that he differs from Ken Livingstone. Livingstone was obsessed with buses, and in effect ran London for the benefit of buses as opposed to running buses for the benefit of London. Johnson is obsessed with bikes and does not seem interested in helping anyone who is not a cyclist.

Boris Johnson can be very grateful to the London Labour Party for re-selecting Livingstone as their candidate. If Labour had chosen someone sensible, Boris Johnson would be vulnerable because most motorists in London are very disappointed in him and would like to give him a good kicking, but not at the cost of Livingstone getting back in.

On 2011\06\26 11:01, Paul Corfield wrote:

Other examples are the 227, 203, 232,
285 and 358 - all busy and constrained to single deck operation IIRC.

I believe the 232 has often used double deckers, and route 285 contains
no low bridges that I can find. Not sure about the others.

On 26/06/2011 11:01, Paul Corfield wrote:

the X26 from Kingston to Heathrow.

?? I hope you don't know something I don't, IYSWIM. Still, it wouldn't
surprise me after...

FWIW, I saw an X26 full and standing at Croydon a couple of hours ago.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:41:29 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 26/06/2011 11:01, Paul Corfield wrote:

the X26 from Kingston to Heathrow.

?? I hope you don't know something I don't, IYSWIM. Still, it wouldn't
surprise me after...

Shhh!

FWIW, I saw an X26 full and standing at Croydon a couple of hours ago.

The general rule seems to be that I don't get a seat on the way to
Heathrow but do on the way back. A perfect route for bendy
conversion, with a bit of extra luggage rack. I think there are a
number of Heathrow - W/SW suburbs that would benefit.

Richard.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:30:51 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:37:57 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

The 25 has been debendified as of today and doubledeckers are running its
length.

How many routes still have these monsters on them?

12 - converts November
29 / N29 - converts by year end but no firm date
73 - converts September
207 - converts by year end but no firm date
453 - converts November
436 - converts November

All dates refer to 2011 as I believe Boris has decreed they must be
gone by the end of the year. This clears the deck in terms of one
Mayoral commitment before the Borismaster (another commitment) emerges
to much undoubted fanfare early in 2012.

I still think it's a monstrous waste of resources to be binning the
bendy buses when they still have another 10-15 years life in them. I'm
sure I'm in a minority though.

I suspect that they will be recycled. Swansea has had a number of
second-hand bendy buses imposed upon it - no idea where they came
from. thjey all have personalised number plates to hide the fact from
the morons in the council that they are rejects.
They were initially planned torun as far as Mumbles, but then it was
discovered that it was impossible for them to turn around to make the
return journey!
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

On 2011\06\26 10:30, Peter wrote:

I suspect that they will be recycled. Swansea has had a number of
second-hand bendy buses imposed upon it - no idea where they came
from. thjey all have personalised number plates to hide the fact from
the morons in the council that they are rejects.
They were initially planned torun as far as Mumbles, but then it was
discovered that it was impossible for them to turn around to make the
return journey!

Then I'd call that a proposal rather than a plan.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:21:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2011\06\26 10:30, Peter wrote:

I suspect that they will be recycled. Swansea has had a number of
second-hand bendy buses imposed upon it - no idea where they came
from. thjey all have personalised number plates to hide the fact from
the morons in the council that they are rejects.
They were initially planned torun as far as Mumbles, but then it was
discovered that it was impossible for them to turn around to make the
return journey!

Then I'd call that a proposal rather than a plan.

No, it was a plan - the council wanted something to replace the
Mumbles Railway and came up with a bendybus route to the village.
However, due to the incompetence of both the councillors and the
traffic planners. We are talking about a council who designated one of
the busiest streets in Swansea as a pedestrian area - excellent -
except for the double decker buses that were permitted to share it.
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)