Amongst all the mayhem of boxes, zig-zags, bumps, chicanes, lights and
bollards there seems to be a new phenomena in South London - buses
being used to deliberately block the routes they use so as to prevent
traffic passing them.

On the road from Hook to Chessington (71 bus route) the lay-by before
the Greenfields roundabout was filled in about 6 months ago, so the 71
has nowhere to pull into (bad thing for the traffic) but OTOH nowhere
to pull out of (good thing for the 71).

Today I notice just round the corner on the opposite side the bus stop
has been jettied out into the dual carriageway and the bus now
*completely* blocks the road to cars!

Is the idea that anyone in future using a car will travel at the same
speed as the bus they see ahead of them?

Matthew Church wrote:
Amongst all the mayhem of boxes, zig-zags, bumps, chicanes, lights and
bollards there seems to be a new phenomena in South London - buses
being used to deliberately block the routes they use so as to prevent
traffic passing them.

On the road from Hook to Chessington (71 bus route) the lay-by before
the Greenfields roundabout was filled in about 6 months ago, so the 71
has nowhere to pull into (bad thing for the traffic) but OTOH nowhere
to pull out of (good thing for the 71).

Today I notice just round the corner on the opposite side the bus stop
has been jettied out into the dual carriageway and the bus now
*completely* blocks the road to cars!

Is the idea that anyone in future using a car will travel at the same
speed as the bus they see ahead of them?

New TfL policy has been to fill in bus lay-bys so that buses aren't held
up waiting for traffic to let them out when they leave a bus stop. As
for the dual carriageway "jetty", that sounds a bit odd!

Although in favour of speeding up buses, I wonder whether it might
better serve the interests of both bus users and motorists to introduce
a rule which makes it compulsory to let buses leaving a bus stop pull
out. Unfortunately I suspect the problem would be enforcement - on-bus
cameras might be an option, but they're expensive and it's another thing
for the driver to worry about.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Matthew Church wrote:

Although in favour of speeding up buses, I wonder whether it might
better serve the interests of both bus users and motorists to introduce
a rule which makes it compulsory to let buses leaving a bus stop pull
out. Unfortunately I suspect the problem would be enforcement - on-bus
cameras might be an option, but they're expensive and it's another thing
for the driver to worry about.

It is already a rule in the Highway Code, though I believe HC rules are for
guidance and are not mandatory.

I usually let a bus pull out in front of me if it indicates and waits for me
to let it out - which I indicate by giving it a double-flash of my
headlights since the HC does not define a proper "I will wait for you"
signal (*). Some bus drivers think that putting their indicator on gives
them a divine right to pull away without checking whether they will force a
vehicle to swerve into oncoming traffic if it's already started to overtake
the bus before it started signalling.


(*) If the use of the headlight flashing signal for this use is prohibited,
then it's very simple: I am not prepared to wait for another car if I'm
unable to signal my intentions rather than relying on telepathy - a clear
signal is safer than ambiguity "*is* he or *isn't* he going to wait for me?"

Matthew Church:
Today I notice just round the corner on the opposite side the bus stop
has been jettied out into the dual carriageway and the bus now
*completely* blocks the road to cars!

I first heard of this concept some 10 years ago in misc.transport.urban-
transit under the name of "bus bulb". (Presumably the shape of the
"jetty" is considered bulbous. I don't know if a different term is
used in Britain, and I've never actually seen one of them.)

Dave Arquati:
Although in favour of speeding up buses, I wonder whether it might
better serve the interests of both bus users and motorists to introduce
a rule which makes it compulsory to let buses leaving a bus stop pull
out. ...

That works for me. Such a law was adopted recently here in Ontario,
Canada. I'm not sure how many drivers actually know about it, but
that'll improve over time. I include the text of the section for
anyone's interest:

# Requirement to yield to bus from bus bay
#
# 142.1
#
# (1) Every driver of a vehicle in the lane of traffic adjacent
# to a bus bay shall yield the right of way to the driver of
# a bus who has indicated his or her intention, as prescribed,
# to re-enter that lane from the bus bay.
#
# Bus not to signal until ready
#
# (2) The driver of a bus shall not indicate his or her intention
# to re-enter the lane of traffic adjacent to a bus bay
# until the driver is ready to re-enter traffic.
#
# When bus must wait
#
# (3) No driver of a bus shall re-enter the lane of traffic
# adjacent to a bus bay and move into the path of a vehicle
# or street car if the vehicle or street car is so close that
# it is impractical for the driver to yield the right of way.
#
# Regulations
#
# (4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
# for the purposes of this section,
# (a) defining bus and bus bay;
# (b) prescribing the manner in which a bus driver shall
# indicate his or her intention to re-enter the lane
# that is adjacent to a bus bay;
# (c) prescribing signs, signal devices and markings for
# bus bays;
# (d) prescribing the standards, specifications and location
# of the signs, signal devices and markings;
# (e) prescribing standards for operating and maintaining
# any signal devices prescribed under clause (c).

(The Lieutenant Governor is the Queen's representative in Ontario,
and "the LG in Council" effectively means the provincial cabinet.)

This was actually enacted in 1994, but with a proviso that it wasn't
in force until so proclaimed, which happened sometime this century.
--
Mark Brader "Elaborative, polysyllabic multipartite agglu-
Toronto tinations can obfuscate and become obstructive
to comprehensibility." -- Chris Torek

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:10:08 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

New TfL policy has been to fill in bus lay-bys so that buses aren't held
up waiting for traffic to let them out when they leave a bus stop.

So, instead, one of the following happens;
1) The cars behind execute dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, or;
2) The cars have to wait while fares are taken.

I personally don't see that the way to attract people to public
transport is to do things like this that make it more resented. What
we need is...

1) More sensible positioning of bus stops. It's worth considering
things like putting stops right up against traffic lights with some
sort of priority control so the bus can request the lights to change
in its favour when it's finished at the stop. I've seen this sort of
thing in a few places in Germany.

2) Off-bus ticketing, loss of the requirement to show passes or the
return of conductors. Buses can only be allowed to block traffic if
fares do not need to be collected at stops, as at a busy stop the cars
could be waiting a number of minutes. This is not conducive to
effective traffic flow.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

(Matthew Church) wrote in message om...
Amongst all the mayhem of boxes, zig-zags, bumps, chicanes, lights and
bollards there seems to be a new phenomena in South London - buses
being used to deliberately block the routes they use so as to prevent
traffic passing them.

If you want to encourage more people to go by bus then you must
improve bus reliability. Sometimes this has to be at the expense of
other traffic.

On the road from Hook to Chessington (71 bus route) the lay-by before
the Greenfields roundabout was filled in about 6 months ago, so the 71
has nowhere to pull into (bad thing for the traffic) but OTOH nowhere
to pull out of (good thing for the 71).

Laybys are bad for the buses - having to get back into the traffic
stream delays the service and affects reliability.

Today I notice just round the corner on the opposite side the bus stop
has been jettied out into the dual carriageway and the bus now
*completely* blocks the road to cars!

Parked cars anywhere near a bus stop prevent the bus pulling in
parallel to the kerb - which is essential for the
improved-accessibility of the modern low-floor vehicles (better
bus-driver training would help here too). Building out the footway
like this usually gets rid of the illegal parking - and often takes
less road-width than a parked vehicle would have done. The length
needed for the bus stop and associated parking restrictions may also
be reduced since the bus now needs less space to manoeuvre into and
out from the kerb.

Is the idea that anyone in future using a car will travel at the same
speed as the bus they see ahead of them?

Not everywhere, but in some places where this helps bus reliability
yes.

Widening the road sufficiently to allow overtaking the bus without a
layby might be a better solution in places where land is cheap but in
London (I've never been to Hook or Chessington mind you) it just
isn't. In addition to the financial cost widening the road at almost
all points of congestion in London would mean demolishing the
buildings on one or both sides of the road. Fine if you can get a
developer to pay - they tried that in a lot of places in the 60s & 70s
but, in the long term, it didn't solve the traffic congestion.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:29:26 +0100, Martin Underwood
wrote in :

It is already a rule in the Highway Code, though I believe HC rules are for
guidance and are not mandatory.

I thought it was legislation, from either the beginning of this year
or that of 2003. I recall seeing signs to that effect on the back of buses
(I've ridden a grand total of 25 km in the last two years so I don't get
to study the back of buses too often...). This doesn't seem to be borne
out by the latest HC-online, though.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

Dave Arquati ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Although in favour of speeding up buses, I wonder whether it might
better serve the interests of both bus users and motorists to introduce
a rule which makes it compulsory to let buses leaving a bus stop pull
out. Unfortunately I suspect the problem would be enforcement - on-bus
cameras might be an option, but they're expensive and it's another thing
for the driver to worry about.

Hmmm. I can foresee a slight problem with that - it won't be long before a
bus driver just pulls straight out into traffic without looking "because
they have to give way to me" and causes an accident. With any luck, it
won't be a motorbike or a bicycle that's going past him at the time.

UM Pston wrote:
(Matthew Church) wrote in message om...

Amongst all the mayhem of boxes, zig-zags, bumps, chicanes, lights and
bollards there seems to be a new phenomena in South London - buses
being used to deliberately block the routes they use so as to prevent
traffic passing them.


If you want to encourage more people to go by bus then you must
improve bus reliability. Sometimes this has to be at the expense of
other traffic.


On the road from Hook to Chessington (71 bus route) the lay-by before
the Greenfields roundabout was filled in about 6 months ago, so the 71
has nowhere to pull into (bad thing for the traffic) but OTOH nowhere
to pull out of (good thing for the 71).


Laybys are bad for the buses - having to get back into the traffic
stream delays the service and affects reliability.


Today I notice just round the corner on the opposite side the bus stop
has been jettied out into the dual carriageway and the bus now
*completely* blocks the road to cars!


Parked cars anywhere near a bus stop prevent the bus pulling in
parallel to the kerb - which is essential for the
improved-accessibility of the modern low-floor vehicles (better
bus-driver training would help here too). Building out the footway
like this usually gets rid of the illegal parking - and often takes
less road-width than a parked vehicle would have done. The length
needed for the bus stop and associated parking restrictions may also
be reduced since the bus now needs less space to manoeuvre into and
out from the kerb.


Is the idea that anyone in future using a car will travel at the same
speed as the bus they see ahead of them?


Not everywhere, but in some places where this helps bus reliability
yes.

Widening the road sufficiently to allow overtaking the bus without a
layby might be a better solution in places where land is cheap but in
London (I've never been to Hook or Chessington mind you) it just
isn't.

And of course the widened pavements aren't going to be narrowed again to
their previous perfectly reasonable width.

I do feel that I would get better value for my council tax if the
department of my local council that deals with roads and pavements just
put their feet up and stopped work altogether.

In addition to the financial cost widening the road at almost
all points of congestion in London would mean demolishing the
buildings on one or both sides of the road. Fine if you can get a
developer to pay - they tried that in a lot of places in the 60s & 70s
but, in the long term, it didn't solve the traffic congestion.

So now they make the roads narrower. If they can't beat the 'congestion'
they might as well help cause it, I suppose :-(

People love to talk about the increase in traffic. I never hear any
statistics quoted about decrease in road space. As much as 30 to 50
percent on some roads?


--
Nick H (UK)

Adrian wrote:
Dave Arquati ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :


Although in favour of speeding up buses, I wonder whether it might
better serve the interests of both bus users and motorists to introduce
a rule which makes it compulsory to let buses leaving a bus stop pull
out. Unfortunately I suspect the problem would be enforcement - on-bus
cameras might be an option, but they're expensive and it's another thing
for the driver to worry about.


Hmmm. I can foresee a slight problem with that - it won't be long before a
bus driver just pulls straight out into traffic without looking "because
they have to give way to me" and causes an accident. With any luck, it
won't be a motorbike or a bicycle that's going past him at the time.

Although surely if this rule were the case and the bus driver had
signalled to pull out, then whoever subsequently overtakes is the one
causing the accident rather than the bus driver.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London