"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Depresion
writes
it makes life easier for the few people who drive buses and screws
up traffic for far more people.
Correct, in the little town where I live, on a main road is a bus stop and
right opposite it is an island in the middle of the road so that when the
bus stops all traffic behind is held up, not even a cyclist could get
through.
--
The object is to stop traffic overtaking a stationary bus in the sort of
area where people leaving the bus might cross the road. Stops them being
flattened, also allows the bus to move off again quickly. It is actually
quicker for ALL the traffic if numpties do not try and overtake a bus as it
moves off. (For the hard-of-thinking, if a bus remains stationary with its
righthand indicator going, waiting to move off, overtaking cars will
overtake more slowly as the road width is restricted by the presence of the
bus, traffic coming the other way will also have to slow down - or even
stop! - whereas, if the following traffic waits while the bus unloads and
then moves off WITH the bus, the overall delay is shorter, except for the
handful of cars that would otherwise manage to squeeze by. THEY are the ones
that slow everything down.)

Such an arrangement should NOT be at a timing point or a point where large
numbers of people are likely to board or alight from the bus. The bus dwell
time should be kept to a minimum.

Ian wrote:

"Clive" wrote:
Depresion writes:

it makes life easier for the few people who drive buses and screws
up traffic for far more people.

Correct, in the little town where I live, on a main road is a bus stop
and right opposite it is an island in the middle of the road so that when the
bus stops all traffic behind is held up, not even a cyclist could get through.

The object is to stop traffic overtaking a stationary bus in the sort of
area where people leaving the bus might cross the road. Stops them being
flattened, also allows the bus to move off again quickly. It is actually
quicker for ALL the traffic if numpties do not try and overtake a bus as it
moves off. (For the hard-of-thinking, if a bus remains stationary with its
righthand indicator going, waiting to move off, overtaking cars will overtake
more slowly as the road width is restricted by the presence of the bus,
traffic coming the other way will also have to slow down - or even stop! -
whereas, if the following traffic waits while the bus unloads and then moves
off WITH the bus, the overall delay is shorter, except for the handful of
cars that would otherwise manage to squeeze by. THEY are the ones that slow
everything down.)
Such an arrangement should NOT be at a timing point or a point where
large numbers of people are likely to board or alight from the bus. The bus
dwell time should be kept to a minimum.

You love that word "should", don't you?

Here's a word: "Why"?

Or put another way: "Says who?".

In message , David Hansen
writes
I'll add the words I typed back in, the words after,
"everyone". "but particularly those with mobility problems."
The connection between mobility problems and stopping all traffic is?
Considering that the traffic island to which I referred is not a
crossing, why have the council decided to put it against an already
existing bus stop?
--
Clive

In message , David Hansen
writes
Los Angeles is a good example.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is
to make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and
bus boarders in the space the layby used to take up. Not only does
it work but it is better for everyone, despite the whining of a
small but vocal minority.
Wake up, that idiot in the back. I have spent several weeks in both
New York and Los Angeles, both cities function perfectly well without
"real" public transport, thankfully only to the car. It is only the
rush hours that cause problems.
--
Clive

In message , David Hansen
writes
However, given that motorists cause most of the delays to motorised
traffic (a term which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes buses)
by the sheer volume of motorists there are things which can be done.
One of these things is to encourage motorists out of their little
metal prisons by making alternatives more attractive. Another thing
is to relocate the congestion to places where it is easier for
public transport vehicles to have priority (and thus encourage
further modal shift). Bus lanes and virtual bus lanes are examples
of this approach. One place where this has been done is the A90 from
the Forth Road Bridge into Edinburgh. As I recall the results, as
well as speeding up priority vehicles by something like 20 minutes
it also speeded up motorists by a minute or two.
You are either a fruit cake or a cyclist, hang on, you could be both.
--
Clive

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:14:03 +0000, Clive put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message , David Hansen
writes
Los Angeles is a good example.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is
to make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and
bus boarders in the space the layby used to take up. Not only does
it work but it is better for everyone, despite the whining of a
small but vocal minority.

Wake up, that idiot in the back. I have spent several weeks in both
New York and Los Angeles, both cities function perfectly well without
"real" public transport, thankfully only to the car. It is only the
rush hours that cause problems.

New York has a very good public transport system; one of the few US
cities that does. It's the only US city that I've visited where I
didn't need a car to get around.

Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

Clive wrote:
In message , Depresion
writes
it makes life easier for the few people who drive buses and screws
up traffic for far more people.
Correct, in the little town where I live, on a main road is a bus stop
and right opposite it is an island in the middle of the road so that
when the bus stops all traffic behind is held up, not even a cyclist
could get through.

For a while, there was a built-out bus stop he
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...k&z=19&iwloc=A
which traffic planners might have thought was a ideal place in terms of
helping bus drivers, passengers and pedestrians, particularly those with
mobility problems. They took it out again, because it didn't work.

Clive wrote:

[About Hansen]

You are either a fruit cake or a cyclist, hang on, you could be both.

bing Hansen is both, he also considers himself to be an authority on
environmental issues. So now you know what sort of fruitcakes Friends of
the Earth are.

On Dec 6, 10:43*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Clive wrote:

[About Hansen]

You are either a fruit cake or a cyclist, hang on, you could be both.

bing Hansen is both, he also considers himself to be an authority on
environmental issues. So now you know what sort of fruitcakes Friends of
the Earth are.

Hansen posts as if he is an expert on everything, but then goes on to
deny that he is an expert.

When his errors are pointed out to him, he replies with something
along the line of "ah insults"

Francis

Steve Firth wrote:
Clive wrote:

[About Hansen]

You are either a fruit cake or a cyclist, hang on, you could be both.

bing Hansen is both, he also considers himself to be an authority on
environmental issues. So now you know what sort of fruitcakes Friends of
the Earth are.

And nuts as well...

"Everyone's a fruit and nutcase..."

--
Moving things in still pictures!