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)

"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message ...
UM Pston wrote:


snip

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 don't really see what you mean - if you widen the footway (or the
road for that matter) it is usually a permanent change.

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.

It may well come to that - the amount paid out on insurance claims for
people tripping on dodgy paving slabs or driving down potholes rises
as maintenance expenditure falls.

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 :-(

Road improvements which decrease the travel-time for drivers often
fail to reduce congestion in the long term - because it enables more
people to live further awy fron their work; or travel more miles in
the business day or whatever. The 'improvement' thereby generates
more traffic. Investing in public transport infrastructure rather
than road-widening may heve the opposite effect but nobody really
knows yet because they haven't done it for long enough to prove it.
Surely it is worth a try.

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?

A much smaller percentage if you look at the whole journey. Some
reallocation of road-space is surely needed to make bus, cycle &
pedestrian journeys safer and faster in order to reduce the growth in
car traffic. I think everybody who wants one should have (or share) a
car - but should use it less if there are viable alternatives. To
make the alternatives viable we must invest in the infrastructure they
need.

More road widening in London is just too expensive, regardless of the
environmental issues. That is why the last Conservative government
curtailed their planned road-building programme. It wasn't for
ideological reasons - they just couldn't afford it.