> In message > <2a67d031-7817-4271-9c98-45cee6d0d...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at > 02:09:08 on Wed, 12 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker > <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
> >> >Well I cycle down a greenway most days during rush hour (about to do > >> >so) and not many buses go down it compared to the number of cars that > >> >I pass (so I'm not complaining about them from a personal perspective > >> >here).
> >> Maybe that's not a good example of bus segregation.
> >So the argument is not about why buses should have priority, it's > >about when they should?
> Same thing.
No, saying all buses should have priority is different from saying particular buses should.
> "Why should this bus have priority here" - because between > 6am and 10am it greatly assists the flow of people.
So where is the proof of that? Are people travelling more quickly when buses are given priority? Does it always improve things or does it depend on the road network, demographics of travellers etc. How do we know that making a change will lead to improvement or not. I agree it's possible to improve travelling but it's not a given that it will.
> >> >to get segregation you'd have to give up on a lot of parking space
> >> Not necessarily. My local buses are segregated on a road where you > >> wouldn't want to park (it's just not near enough to anything you'd be > >> parking and walking to).
> >Then probably there are drivers wanting to drive on those bus-only > >routes. If there aren't then what was the point of segregating?
> I took the bus this morning, and noticed that the whole way (not just > the bits with bus lanes) was double yellow lines.
That tells me people aren't allowed to park, not that they don't want to.
> What the bus lane sections do is allow a "shortcut" to the next set of > traffic lights. Rather like bike lanes and their associated advance stop > boxes.
Yes, thanks for that. It also slows down cars though.
> >> Into Nottingham from the south.
> >OK, I don't know that but it sounds quite pseudo urban. Sure we have > >such roads here in Edinburgh and my journey home from work starts on > >one.
> I'm not sure what "pseudo urban" means. It's completely built up from > where I live into the City (in effect I'm about 2 miles from the centre > in a city that is a solid 5 miles radius).
I meant on the fringes of the urban area such as lead in roads which are often dual carriageway due to lower density housing etc.
But you've already said people are banned from parking rather than given a choice.
> >> >How do you know nobody wants to park there if its segregated
> >> Because people don't want to park on that road at all.
In message <1feca3d6-9ffd-4a7e-a310-a0158c6a5...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, at 03:31:48 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
>> >So the argument is not about why buses should have priority, it's >> >about when they should?
>> Same thing.
>No, saying all buses should have priority is different from saying >particular buses should.
Did I say "all" buses. No I don't think so.
>> "Why should this bus have priority here" - because between >> 6am and 10am it greatly assists the flow of people.
>So where is the proof of that? Are people travelling more quickly when >buses are given priority?
Of course they are. There are so many more people in a bus than a car.
>> I took the bus this morning, and noticed that the whole way (not just >> the bits with bus lanes) was double yellow lines.
>That tells me people aren't allowed to park, not that they don't want >to.
I already said that most of the roads in question aren't near anything you'd want to park and visit.
The remainder would have double yellow lines, even if there were no buses - just to keep the cars moving.
>> What the bus lane sections do is allow a "shortcut" to the next set of >> traffic lights. Rather like bike lanes and their associated advance stop >> boxes.
>Yes, thanks for that. It also slows down cars though.
If the buses didn't have priority the cars would be slowed even more.
>> >> Because people don't want to park on that road at all.
>> >But they probably want to drive.
>> Which they can do.
>You said it was segregated?
As I told you before, there's more than one way of segregating. On the road I have in mind it's perfectly legal to drive a car, except to all intents and purposes it's a long dead-end for cars because of a short stretch of "busses only" just before you get to the City Centre. -- Roland Perry
On Nov 13, 12:33 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message > <1feca3d6-9ffd-4a7e-a310-a0158c6a5...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, at > 03:31:48 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker > <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
> >> >So the argument is not about why buses should have priority, it's > >> >about when they should?
> >> Same thing.
> >No, saying all buses should have priority is different from saying > >particular buses should.
> Did I say "all" buses. No I don't think so.
You did say 'because >a< bus as 30 people on it'. You weren't clear if you thought all buses had 30 people or that you were just asking for priority for those that do.
> >> "Why should this bus have priority here" - because between > >> 6am and 10am it greatly assists the flow of people.
> >So where is the proof of that? Are people travelling more quickly when > >buses are given priority?
> Of course they are. There are so many more people in a bus than a car.
Its clear that the people in the bus travel more quickly between stops than people in the cars.
That's trivial.
What is not clear is that the people in the buses (or indeed everyone) get from where they don't want to be to where they do more quickly because of bus only lanes. I'm asking about the sum total travel time of all involved including waiting time at bus stops etc.
> >> I took the bus this morning, and noticed that the whole way (not just > >> the bits with bus lanes) was double yellow lines.
> >That tells me people aren't allowed to park, not that they don't want > >to.
> I already said that most of the roads in question aren't near anything > you'd want to park and visit.
> The remainder would have double yellow lines, even if there were no > buses - just to keep the cars moving.
My original statement was that segregated lanes either take driving space or parking space so yes, the lines might be there to keep all vehicles going. My statement stands.
> >> What the bus lane sections do is allow a "shortcut" to the next set of > >> traffic lights. Rather like bike lanes and their associated advance stop > >> boxes.
> >Yes, thanks for that. It also slows down cars though.
> If the buses didn't have priority the cars would be slowed even more.
Only >if< there is a transfer of people from cars to buses such that the traffic volume is at least halved on the remaining road. Remember, some people take the bus anyway so we're talking about marginal changes.
> >> >> Because people don't want to park on that road at all.
> >> >But they probably want to drive.
> >> Which they can do.
> >You said it was segregated?
> As I told you before, there's more than one way of segregating. On the > road I have in mind it's perfectly legal to drive a car, except to all > intents and purposes it's a long dead-end for cars because of a short > stretch of "busses only" just before you get to the City Centre.
SO there's nothing to stop and AND you've blocked their exit? No wonder no-one wants to drive that route.
In message <4ac4861b-d8a3-4e90-b756-9aa6b5fb9...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at 05:19:22 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
>> Did I say "all" buses. No I don't think so.
>You did say 'because >a< bus as 30 people on it'. You weren't clear if >you thought all buses had 30 people or that you were just asking for >priority for those that do.
At the time of day when bus priority measures make any difference (either making the bus go faster or the cars go slower) then it's quite clear from observing the buses that they have at least 30 people each. I deliberately picked a lowish figure. The bus I was on yesterday was typical and had about 60 people on.
>What is not clear is that the people in the buses (or indeed everyone) >get from where they don't want to be to where they do more quickly >because of bus only lanes. I'm asking about the sum total travel time >of all involved including waiting time at bus stops etc.
One of the bus lanes one my way to the station is regularly abused by car drivers. It's supposed to allow buses to get t a set of traffic lights quicker, but is generally clogged by cars.
As a result every bus is delayed by perhaps two minutes, and the offending handful of cars get where they are going two minutes sooner.
Because the bus has at least 30 (or 60 in practice) people on it, the accumulated delay-minutes is clearly not in the bus passenger's favour.
>> I already said that most of the roads in question aren't near anything >> you'd want to park and visit.
>> The remainder would have double yellow lines, even if there were no >> buses - just to keep the cars moving.
>My original statement was that segregated lanes either take driving >space or parking space so yes, the lines might be there to keep all >vehicles going. My statement stands.
The segregated lanes are taking away car driving space. But as I've conclusively show above, the effect on *immediate* total journey time is positive. If many of the bus passengers drove instead of taking the bus, the car journey time would increase enormously (even if the segregated lane was abolished).
>> >> What the bus lane sections do is allow a "shortcut" to the next set of >> >> traffic lights. Rather like bike lanes and their associated advance stop >> >> boxes.
>> >Yes, thanks for that. It also slows down cars though.
>> If the buses didn't have priority the cars would be slowed even more.
>Only >if< there is a transfer of people from cars to buses such that >the traffic volume is at least halved on the remaining road.
30 (or 60) people on bus is good indication that traffic volume is ore than halved.
>> As I told you before, there's more than one way of segregating. On the >> road I have in mind it's perfectly legal to drive a car, except to all >> intents and purposes it's a long dead-end for cars because of a short >> stretch of "busses only" just before you get to the City Centre.
>SO there's nothing to stop and AND you've blocked their exit? No >wonder no-one wants to drive that route.
There's a perfectly good 3-lane (each way) non-segregated road parallel to that one. And one that has no buses getting in your way. -- Roland Perry
> In message > <4ac4861b-d8a3-4e90-b756-9aa6b5fb9...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at > 05:19:22 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker > <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked: > >What is not clear is that the people in the buses (or indeed everyone) > >get from where they don't want to be to where they do more quickly > >because of bus only lanes. I'm asking about the sum total travel time > >of all involved including waiting time at bus stops etc.
> One of the bus lanes one my way to the station is regularly abused by > car drivers. It's supposed to allow buses to get t a set of traffic > lights quicker, but is generally clogged by cars.
> As a result every bus is delayed by perhaps two minutes, and the > offending handful of cars get where they are going two minutes sooner.
> Because the bus has at least 30 (or 60 in practice) people on it, the > accumulated delay-minutes is clearly not in the bus passenger's favour.
On the other hand, the bus will probably pull in at the next stop and spit out a couple of passengers for a couple of new ones. In percentage terms the effect on the bus is lower than on the cars (depending of course how far they are actually travelling).
> >> The remainder would have double yellow lines, even if there were no > >> buses - just to keep the cars moving.
> >My original statement was that segregated lanes either take driving > >space or parking space so yes, the lines might be there to keep all > >vehicles going. My statement stands.
> The segregated lanes are taking away car driving space. But as I've > conclusively show above, the effect on *immediate* total journey time is > positive. If many of the bus passengers drove instead of taking the bus, > the car journey time would increase enormously (even if the segregated > lane was abolished).
What do you mean by 'imediate total journey time'.?
If we make a lane bus only we need to get half the existing car occupants (or at least drivers) onto the buses to have a net reduction. Does this happen? Peter Masson told us how bus use increased but that said nothing about how car use decreased.
As for abolishing bus lanes then we can support a doubling of car usage if we do so. Many bus users will continue to use the bus for various reasons.
> >> If the buses didn't have priority the cars would be slowed even more.
> >Only >if< there is a transfer of people from cars to buses such that > >the traffic volume is at least halved on the remaining road.
> 30 (or 60) people on bus is good indication that traffic volume is ore > than halved.
How? How do you know that those passengers would not take the bus whatever?
(Note I'm not saying that you're wrong just that you're not showing me that you're right.)
> >> As I told you before, there's more than one way of segregating. On the > >> road I have in mind it's perfectly legal to drive a car, except to all > >> intents and purposes it's a long dead-end for cars because of a short > >> stretch of "busses only" just before you get to the City Centre.
> >SO there's nothing to stop and AND you've blocked their exit? No > >wonder no-one wants to drive that route.
> There's a perfectly good 3-lane (each way) non-segregated road parallel > to that one. And one that has no buses getting in your way.
This appears to be quite an unusual setup. How many miles of urban road are three lanes wide never mind 4?
In message <89d40750-c150-4c12-af23-8df87d1dd...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups .com>, at 09:09:35 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_ how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
>> One of the bus lanes one my way to the station is regularly abused by >> car drivers. It's supposed to allow buses to get t a set of traffic >> lights quicker, but is generally clogged by cars.
>> As a result every bus is delayed by perhaps two minutes, and the >> offending handful of cars get where they are going two minutes sooner.
>> Because the bus has at least 30 (or 60 in practice) people on it, the >> accumulated delay-minutes is clearly not in the bus passenger's favour.
>On the other hand, the bus will probably pull in at the next stop and >spit out a couple of passengers for a couple of new ones.
Unlikely. I only see more people getting on.
>> The segregated lanes are taking away car driving space. But as I've >> conclusively show above, the effect on *immediate* total journey time is >> positive. If many of the bus passengers drove instead of taking the bus, >> the car journey time would increase enormously (even if the segregated >> lane was abolished).
>What do you mean by 'imediate total journey time'.?
I mean that 60 bus passengers being delayed 2 minutes is 120 person- minutes wated. Whereas six cars jumping the queue by 2 minutes is 12 person-minutes saved.
"Immediate" means that's what happened today. It doesn't factor in what the extra delay to car users would have been without bus priority measures and those 60 passengers deciding to drive.
>If we make a lane bus only we need to get half the existing car >occupants (or at least drivers) onto the buses to have a net >reduction. Does this happen? Peter Masson told us how bus use >increased but that said nothing about how car use decreased.
>As for abolishing bus lanes then we can support a doubling of car >usage if we do so. Many bus users will continue to use the bus for >various reasons.
There are many more pinch points than bits of road with a bus lane. Removing a bus lane will not double the car throughput.
>> There's a perfectly good 3-lane (each way) non-segregated road parallel >> to that one. And one that has no buses getting in your way.
>This appears to be quite an unusual setup. How many miles of urban >road are three lanes wide never mind 4?
There are at least two 3-lane (in each direction) roads into Nottingham that I can think of. An example:
"THE_1_tattie_howker" <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
>The real question that hasn't been answered is what is the net effect >on journey times. Have they got better? Has anyone shown that?
There seems to be some evidence that, when road space for general traffic is restricted, after a period of readjustment journey times get back close to what they were before the restriction occurred.
One example, not related to the creation of bus lanes, is the Blackwall Tunnel. Until about 2 years ago in the morning peak the southbound bore was used for 2 way traffic, so there were three northbound lanes (the direction of morning peak flow) and one southbound. Then it was decided to abolish this tidal flow arrangement on safety grounds - it was assessed that there was too great a risk of a head-on collision in the southbound bore. For several weeks there was chaos, even, IIRC, to the extent of Questions in the House. But, after that time things settled down - enough people found other routes or other modes that the queues to get through the tunnel took no longer than they used to before the changes.
Another example was the introduction of the London Congestion Charge. There were predictions, and some evidence initially, of chaos on charge-free roads round the periphery of the Charge Zone. But after a few weeks the traffic on these roads was back to about what it was before the introduction of the Charge.
On Nov 13, 5:41 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <89d40750-c150-4c12-af23-8df87d1dd...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups > .com>, at 09:09:35 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_ > how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
> >> Because the bus has at least 30 (or 60 in practice) people on it, the > >> accumulated delay-minutes is clearly not in the bus passenger's favour.
> >On the other hand, the bus will probably pull in at the next stop and > >spit out a couple of passengers for a couple of new ones.
> Unlikely. I only see more people getting on.
I have an image of South America with people hanging from the sides rather than polite English commuterland.Perhaps you should be agitating for more buses rather than roadspace?
> >> The segregated lanes are taking away car driving space. But as I've > >> conclusively show above, the effect on *immediate* total journey time is > >> positive. If many of the bus passengers drove instead of taking the bus, > >> the car journey time would increase enormously (even if the segregated > >> lane was abolished).
> >What do you mean by 'imediate total journey time'.?
> I mean that 60 bus passengers being delayed 2 minutes is 120 person- > minutes wated. Whereas six cars jumping the queue by 2 minutes is 12 > person-minutes saved.
> "Immediate" means that's what happened today. It doesn't factor in what > the extra delay to car users would have been without bus priority > measures and those 60 passengers deciding to drive.
If your point about other choke points is true below then the total effect is minor on the people in the bus. I'm sure 2 minutes on a 30 minute journey isn't much. It's only if you accumulate such delays does it matter.
> >If we make a lane bus only we need to get half the existing car > >occupants (or at least drivers) onto the buses to have a net > >reduction. Does this happen? Peter Masson told us how bus use > >increased but that said nothing about how car use decreased.
> >As for abolishing bus lanes then we can support a doubling of car > >usage if we do so. Many bus users will continue to use the bus for > >various reasons.
> There are many more pinch points than bits of road with a bus lane. > Removing a bus lane will not double the car throughput.
I think there are two things here. What's the point of speeding up buses on one small part of a route then? You need a joined up policy.
The other thing is that you may actually be creating a pinch point for those who have little option but to drive (sure they could change jobs, move house etc. but relatively they have little option apart from those life changing events).
"Willie Gallagher, who has been in charge of the £512m project for two years, is to step down as Tie executive chairman at the end of the month. Last month senior councillors demanded his resignation after the tram works brought the centre of the city to a standstill." <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7727130.stm> -- Bruce Fletcher Stronsay, Orkney UK "I went to a restaurant that serves 'breakfast at any time'. So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance." (Peter Kay)
In message <5886214d-588a-428d-bb7c-6461d5b0d...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, at 13:36:49 on Thu, 13 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked:
>> >On the other hand, the bus will probably pull in at the next stop and >> >spit out a couple of passengers for a couple of new ones.
>> Unlikely. I only see more people getting on.
>I have an image of South America with people hanging from the sides >rather than polite English commuterland.Perhaps you should be >agitating for more buses rather than roadspace?
There are plenty of buses (from Trent Bridge towards the City Centre there are more than 60 per hour). But they get pretty full, and occasionally people will have to wait for the next one.
>I'm sure 2 minutes on a 30 minute journey isn't much. It's only if you >accumulate such delays does it matter.
What matters is that a bus full of people are being delayed by the actions of a handful of motorists (who ignore the bus lane). -- Roland Perry
> On Nov 11, 1:43?pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote: >> In message >> <873c84c0-938e-450b-8a35-18ce6e3fe...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, at >> 04:13:06 on Tue, 11 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker >> <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >> >Most buses start their route with a handful of people on them and >> >gradually build up the number as they reach the city centre.
>> >In all that stopping and starting the bus is slowing down and acting >> >as a barrier to the flow of other vehicles.
>> If the bus is segregated, there's no such effect. > Circular argument. What you're saying is that >if< buses are > segregated (aka given priority) then they won't slow other vehicles > down so therefore they should be given priority. > The segregation you mention is itself slowing other drivers down. >> And even when they >> aren't, all that happens is the cars get to the queue at the next set of >> traffic lights a bit later, but not so much later it delays their end to >> end time. > It depends. For a third of my route to work if I get stuck behind a > bus I am reduced to its speed (which usually involves stopping at > every stop) because I can't get passed it. If I can get passed it, I > may catch up with another bus.
The interesting question is how much worse does it have to get before you switch to another mode of transport?
In ed.general THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 5:55?pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote: >> I took the bus this morning, and noticed that the whole way (not just >> the bits with bus lanes) was double yellow lines. > That tells me people aren't allowed to park, not that they don't want > to.
We seem to have accepted without question this idea that people ought to be able to leave their cars in the streets and roads. Obviously there's a need for temporary parking, but roads and streets are essentially throughways, and dumping vehicles in them for several hours at a time seriously obstructs their proper function.
Obviously this misuse of roads occurred bit by bit, creeping up on us from times when roads were so open and vehicles so few that it didn't matter in the slightest. But today is long past the time at which any rational government should have started insisting that owning a car entailed having somewhere off-road to keep it, and that businesses which employed car commuters had an obligation to provide off-road parking for their cars.
> In ed.general THE_1_tattie_howker <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 1:43?pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote: > >> In message > >> <873c84c0-938e-450b-8a35-18ce6e3fe...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, at > >> 04:13:06 on Tue, 11 Nov 2008, THE_1_tattie_howker > >> <the_tattie_how...@tiscali.co.uk> remarked: > >> >Most buses start their route with a handful of people on them and > >> >gradually build up the number as they reach the city centre.
> >> >In all that stopping and starting the bus is slowing down and acting > >> >as a barrier to the flow of other vehicles.
> >> If the bus is segregated, there's no such effect. > > Circular argument. What you're saying is that >if< buses are > > segregated (aka given priority) then they won't slow other vehicles > > down so therefore they should be given priority. > > The segregation you mention is itself slowing other drivers down. > >> And even when they > >> aren't, all that happens is the cars get to the queue at the next set of > >> traffic lights a bit later, but not so much later it delays their end to > >> end time. > > It depends. For a third of my route to work if I get stuck behind a > > bus I am reduced to its speed (which usually involves stopping at > > every stop) because I can't get passed it. If I can get passed it, I > > may catch up with another bus.
> The interesting question is how much worse does it have to get before > you switch to another mode of transport?
If you've read my other posts you'll see that I have switched: to cycling.
My journey time is half an hour by bike compared to anything between 30 to 60 minutes during rush hour by car. Still, on rainy days or when I need to dress smartly, I will drive rather than take the bus. Its just so much more comfortable and actually I find it less stressful sitting in my own car than on a bus (plus waiting time).
|
