In message , at
13:43:38 on Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Richard J.
remarked:

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in
the general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable
route then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of
not being able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

Why don't you start walking until you see a suitable bus coming, then
walk to the next bus stop? Since you seem to do this in very congested
streets, I'm sure you'd arrive at the bus stop before the bus did.

Because the way bus stops are laid out these days it's not at all
obvious which stop to head for. And if in doing this, you pass the bus
in question - how much easier just to jump aboard.

You're suggesting that the rear platform will be used for entry as
well as exit. If so, you'll have longer dwell times due to
conflicting flows.

Not if the entry and exits happen in dribs and drabs along the route.

That would only apply to the most congested parts of the routes, and
even there the much wider provision of bus lanes these days has limited
the opportunity to hop on a bus.

I'm mainly talking about inside the Circle Line, and there the
congestion is definitely still sufficient to make jumping on a bus by
far the best solution.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:05:20 on Mon,
15 Jun 2009, Tom Barry remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in
the general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable
route then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of
not being able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

A point of view not shared with the people forming that large increase
in bus ridership over the last few years, who seem to find the concept
of bus stops with frequent services adequate.

You don't know how much more ridership would have increased without all
the obstacles put in the way.

I certainly do, round here you can't catch them anyway and if you can
then it's almost certainly because some traffic snarl up is preventing
the bus from moving and thus rendering catching it rather a pointless
use of a quid.

I could see your point if it was one bus every half an hour, but these
things come along every few minutes. Much more important to
concentrate on dwell time and journey length, really, to my mind.

It's more a case of traffic lights becoming defacto bus stops, and not
having to search out some distant pole that's been decreed as the only
true place you are allowed to board.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:57:52 on Mon, 15
Jun 2009, Tom Barry remarked:
It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. That's why the getting off option is most important.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus
"so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

May I humbly suggest that the problem is therefore traffic congestion
rather than bus design, which is rather what I was getting at.

But a solution is to change the bus design.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote on 15 June 2009 20:23:27 ...
In message , at 15:05:20 on Mon,
15 Jun 2009, Tom Barry remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in
the general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable
route then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of
not being able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

A point of view not shared with the people forming that large increase
in bus ridership over the last few years, who seem to find the concept
of bus stops with frequent services adequate.

You don't know how much more ridership would have increased without all
the obstacles put in the way.

What are all these "obstacles"? You mean like having clearly labelled
bus stops so that you know where to wait for a suitable bus? Like
dedicated bus stops where the bus pulls in close to the kerb, thus
giving a safe means of entry to and exit from the bus? Like more
routes? Like more frequent buses? Like bus lanes that prevent buses
getting stuck in other vehicles' traffic jams?

By the way, if you very rarely use London buses because of the inability
to get on and off between stops, what mode of transport do you use instead?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Jun 15, 6:02*pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 June, 17:50, wrote:

In article ,

(Tom Barry) wrote:

[snip]

The bus journey time is important, anyway - if it's too variable
because of traffic conditions or road network design or routing
then the service is unreliable or has to stop and wait time or has
so much slack built in it's daft to expect people to use it.

What a ludicrous attitude! Before the Elfin Safety Fascists got control I
could make my own decisions when to get on and off buses. Why should I be
falsely imprisoned "for my own good"? I'll be the judge of that, thank you.

I am in favour of being able to get off when I want to, although open
platforms aren't necessarily the best way of achieving it.

In a traffic jam, the driver could open the doors preceded by warnings
about looking out for cyclists etc. *Trouble is they would probably be
sacked for doing that at the moment.

In a traffic jam I go to the front door next to the driver and at an
appropriate time ask politely to be let off - I think I've only been
refused a couple of times.

Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.


... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.

On Jun 16, 7:42*am, James Farrar wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. *I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. * The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.

... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.

Indeed. The problem is this was about his only solid election pledge.
Pretty much everything else was rather vague.

On Jun 16, 7:42*am, James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote :

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. *I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. * The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.

... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.

ITYM 139,772 votes.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.

... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.

That's a mandate, not a justification*. If 1.1m people vote for a
stupid policy it doesn't mean it stops being stupid, it just has more
chance of getting implemented. See the bendy removal on the 507/521 for
details.

If 1.1m people voted to shoot anyone called James Farrar in the head I
wouldn't be going around saying 'oh, it must be justified then' and I
doubt you would, either.

Tom

* A justification would be a detailed assessment of why the extra costs
of a new bus built in limited quantities to an as yet unknown design and
requiring twice the crew to operate are justifiable during a recession
on a bus system which already requires a hefty subsidy to operate at the
fare levels seen today. Go on, then.

James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.


... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.


What percentage of the electorate did that represent?

I just think it is a shame that the Conservative Party could not find a
serious candidate to go up against Ken, so they put up a buffoon who
could not and should not ever be taken seriously.

And judging by his lack of progress so far, Boris should never have been
selected and never have been elected. Granted, he scored an early goal
in unseating Ian Blair, but he has done nothing useful since.