Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

Over 10 minutes on the number 17 bus tonight, to crawl from Ludgate Circus
to that ludicrous zebra crossing at St Paul's.

Is this something Boris can resolve, or does it fall within the
responsibilities of the old farts of the City of London?

Chris

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:03:56 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Over 10 minutes on the number 17 bus tonight, to crawl from Ludgate Circus
to that ludicrous zebra crossing at St Paul's.

Is this something Boris can resolve, or does it fall within the
responsibilities of the old farts of the City of London?

I have no idea whose responsibility it is but super Boris will surely
save the world (and banish traffic jams forever)- well that's the way
the media hype seems to be portraying him. The Standard even suggested
the sunshine was part of his "honeymoon period" since taking over.

--
Paul C

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

In message , Chris Read
writes

Over 10 minutes on the number 17 bus tonight, to crawl from Ludgate Circus
to that ludicrous zebra crossing at St Paul's.

Is this something Boris can resolve, or does it fall within the
responsibilities of the old farts of the City of London?

Think you'll find its the City of London. Taxi drivers have a moan about
the City fathers as we're not allowed to use most of the bus lanes in
the City but can do so in the Greater London area.

I agree that a light controlled crossing would make the traffic flow a
lot better there, although there had been a major road closure in the
east end and there may have been extra traffic in the area.

--
Mike Hughes
A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton
at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 14, 11:35 pm, Mike Hughes wrote:
Think you'll find its the City of London. Taxi drivers have a moan about
the City fathers as we're not allowed to use most of the bus lanes in
the City but can do so in the Greater London area.

Don't be too upset. From what I've see when I used to work in the city
you cabbies are still allowed to do illegal u-turns in the middle of
the road, stop suddenly wherever you please and no matter how much
traffic is behind you to pick or drop off a fare and accelerate
through pedestrian crossings if they're flashing amber even if people
are still on them.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

I have no idea whose responsibility it is but super Boris will surely
save the world (and banish traffic jams forever)- well that's the way
the media hype seems to be portraying him. The Standard even suggested
the sunshine was part of his "honeymoon period" since taking over.

Sunshine or otherwise, the simple (and cheap for the City)
installation of a traffic light pedestrian crossing would solve the
problem.

Neil

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
wrote:

Don't be too upset. From what I've see when I used to work in the city
you cabbies are still allowed to do illegal u-turns in the middle of
the road, stop suddenly wherever you please and no matter how much
traffic is behind you to pick or drop off a fare and accelerate
through pedestrian crossings if they're flashing amber even if people
are still on them.

While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*
problem. I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 15, 8:18 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT), Boltar

wrote:
Don't be too upset. From what I've see when I used to work in the city
you cabbies are still allowed to do illegal u-turns in the middle of
the road, stop suddenly wherever you please and no matter how much
traffic is behind you to pick or drop off a fare and accelerate
through pedestrian crossings if they're flashing amber even if people
are still on them.

While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*

Its not a rant , its a fact.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*
problem.

They're nothing like as much of a problem as delivery vans and lorries
parking in them. At least the cab will move off again very shortly, but
the lorry might be there for an hour or more.

Yes, it'll get a ticket. The driver doesn't care because his employer
accepts that as just a cost of doing business and just pays out. The
employer doesn't care because his customers are happy to eat the cost.

I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.

The whole point of a taxi is that you can pick one up anywhere without
having to find a bus stop.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.
At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear
shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.
-- Robert A Heinlein

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Fri, 16 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:

While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*
problem.

They're nothing like as much of a problem as delivery vans and lorries
parking in them. At least the cab will move off again very shortly, but
the lorry might be there for an hour or more.

Yes, it'll get a ticket. The driver doesn't care because his employer
accepts that as just a cost of doing business and just pays out. The
employer doesn't care because his customers are happy to eat the cost.

Good, if depressing, point. So, we start issuing points for parking
violations by commercial vehicle drivers, then?

I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.

The whole point of a taxi is that you can pick one up anywhere without
having to find a bus stop.

Which is great, as long as it doesn't interfere with the huge numbers of
people who could be bothered to find a bus stop getting where they want to
go. Which is why bus lanes were mentioned.

tom

--
It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.

The whole point of a taxi is that you can pick one up anywhere without
having to find a bus stop.

That may be the London way but in fact on-street hailing is almost
unknown in many provincial cities.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:40:02PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*
problem.
They're nothing like as much of a problem as delivery vans and lorries
parking in them. At least the cab will move off again very shortly, but
the lorry might be there for an hour or more.
Yes, it'll get a ticket. The driver doesn't care because his employer
accepts that as just a cost of doing business and just pays out. The
employer doesn't care because his customers are happy to eat the cost.
Good, if depressing, point. So, we start issuing points for parking
violations by commercial vehicle drivers, then?

Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".

I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.
The whole point of a taxi is that you can pick one up anywhere without
having to find a bus stop.
Which is great, as long as it doesn't interfere with the huge numbers of
people who could be bothered to find a bus stop getting where they want to
go. Which is why bus lanes were mentioned.

But taxis are nowhere near being the top cause of bus delays anyway.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Immigration: making Britain great since AD43

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:39:00PM +0100, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:
I think it's time London got a Singapore-style "taxi stop"
system in place on Red Routes and anywhere else with bus lanes.
The whole point of a taxi is that you can pick one up anywhere without
having to find a bus stop.
That may be the London way but in fact on-street hailing is almost
unknown in many provincial cities.

I know. It makes travelling around those cities a pain in the arse.

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:40:02PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
While that seems like a rant, taxis stopping in bus lanes are a *real*
problem.
They're nothing like as much of a problem as delivery vans and lorries
parking in them. At least the cab will move off again very shortly, but
the lorry might be there for an hour or more.
Yes, it'll get a ticket. The driver doesn't care because his employer
accepts that as just a cost of doing business and just pays out. The
employer doesn't care because his customers are happy to eat the cost.
Good, if depressing, point. So, we start issuing points for parking
violations by commercial vehicle drivers, then?

Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".

Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

tom

--
It is better to create badly than to appreciate well. -- Gareth Jones

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't
-- Marge Simpson

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL
have painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer
park there at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have
to get up in the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it. If I was
running a delvery company I'd just buy all my trucks and vans in
france or holland and run them over here on foreign plates parking
when and where I pleased.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Boltar wrote:

On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

Hmm. The fines would have to be pretty huge to make a difference to the
price, once they'd been averaged out over all deliveries.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL have
painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer park there
at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have to get up in
the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Tough ****. That road's needed for public transport - the shopkeeper
doesn't get to hold up hundreds of people using it just so he can take a
delivery.

tom

--
there is never a wrong time to have your bullets passing further into
someone's face -- D

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:14:50AM -0700, Boltar wrote:

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL
have painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer
park there at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have
to get up in the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Deck of Cards: $1.29.
"101 Solitaire Variations" book: $6.59.
Cheap replacement for the one thing Windows is good at: priceless
-- Shane Lazarus

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?


Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?

Frankly yes. If its a street with shops that street only exists
because of those shops. And why pick on a posh shop like Fortnums? Why
not use an example of a small shop owner who's already finding it hard
to make ends meet and now can't have deliveries at any sane time of
day just so a bus can save 30 seconds and get stuck in a queue 200
metres further down the road anyway?

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 20, 12:43 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Boltar wrote:
On May 20, 11:48 am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
Or have a sliding scale that makes a single violation, like what normal
people might do occasionally, annoyingly expensive but tolerable, but
for repeated violations (either on seperate days, or by seperate
vehicles with the same owner) something that'll make the delivery
companies' customers say "no thanks, you can deliver at 2am instead when
you won't **** the buses up".
Ah - having it affect the customer, not the company. Now *that* is a
*brilliant* idea! I'm not sure quite how you'd do it, but it's applying
the leverage to the people who are holding the purse strings.

I meant that the deliveryco would get fined, but to pay them they'd
have to put their delivery prices up and *that* will make their
customers say no.

Hmm. The fines would have to be pretty huge to make a difference to the
price, once they'd been averaged out over all deliveries.

So a shop that has been around for decades suddenly finds that TfL have
painted a bus lane outside and the delivery van can no longer park there
at any reasonable hour so both shop staff and driver have to get up in
the small hours, Well thats fair isn't it.

Tough ****. That road's needed for public transport - the shopkeeper

Newsflash - Roads are needed for many things, public transport is just
one amongst them.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.
Perhaps Boris will make some changes.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:

On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Yes, it is fair, if the benefit of having the bus lane outweighs that of
not having it.

Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 8:33 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 16:54:36 +0100, Mike Bristow wrote:

[we should have bus lanes if they are a net benifit]
Says who?

Society as a whole - in a rather roundabout way via the ballot box.

I don't ever remember there being a referendum on bus lanes.

That's why I said "in a rather roundabout way". It's called
representative democracy.

To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

Please can I move to your fantasy world where I get to vote for one
candidate on issue A, another on issue B, a third on issue C...?

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On May 22, 4:54 pm, Mike Bristow wrote:
To put it into practice: if you want fewer bus lanes, vote
for a Brian Coleman.

I never said their should be fewer , but I think people on live or
have businesses on the road should have grandfather rights to be able
to park vehicles on it temporarily to unload or do deliveries. Just
painting a bus lane then telling the shopkeepers to eff off and unload
their vans elsewhere is just unhelpful and petty minded beaurocracy.

B2003

Ludgate Hill/St Paul's
 

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 03:53:34AM -0700, Boltar wrote:
On May 21, 11:46 am, David Cantrell wrote:
Do you really think that Fortnum and Mason's desire (they were founded
quite a few decades ago) to have delivery lorries stop whenever they
damned well feel like is more important than having a bus lane outside
the shop?
Frankly yes. If its a street with shops that street only exists
because of those shops.

Wow.

And why pick on a posh shop like Fortnums?

Because few other shops have existed for decades.

Why
not use an example of a small shop owner who's already finding it hard
to make ends meet and now can't have deliveries at any sane time of
day just so a bus can save 30 seconds and get stuck in a queue 200
metres further down the road anyway?

Of course, the queue 200 yards further down the road is *also* caused by
someone parked in a bus lane so if they were properly policed that one
wouldn't be there either.

In any case, taking a typical bus journey (ie, mine, this morning, from
City Thameslink to Holborn station) I estimate it would have been *ten
minutes* quicker if not for ****s parked in bus lanes. Now, there were
maybe thirty people on my bus, so let's assume thirty people on each of
fifty buses held up. Of those 30, assume half were going to work.
Furthermore, assume that their time is worth, on average, 20 quid an
hour to their employers. That's 50 * 15 * 20 / 6 pounds wasted by ****s
parked in bus lanes. Or 2500 quid. Because of three delivery trucks.

The extra costs of having delivery drivers work at night and employing
someone at each of the three shops to take the deliveries would be a lot
less than 2500 quid.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Are you feeling bored? depressed? slowed down? Evil Scientists may
be manipulating the speed of light in your vicinity. Buy our patented
instructional video to find out how, and maybe YOU can stop THEM