Liverpool City Council: Enlightened, or nuts?

greg66_tri_v2.0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-24156566

Proposing to get rid of bus lanes on a 9m trial basis. Would that be a good idea in London?

Personally, I dislike bus lanes and dislike buses. I *especially* dislike the immunity buses appear to have to the consequences of driving through red lights and blocking yellow box junctions. And I really hate their supposed right of way that permits them to heave out into a moving stream of traffic and expect it to stop for them. Oh, and their right to stop at a stop and block the entire road, even when there's space to pull in.

However, my 2x daily ride is hardly affected by them, so I'd be hard pressed to claim that doing this in London would make much of a difference to me on my bike.

Who'd be in favour of ditching bus lanes in London?

bigmat

Only if they stayed as bike lanes. Buses don't really bother me on my bike, the bus lanes are a nice big relatively traffic free space to ride my bike. I don't drive much in London (if I can avoid it) so don't really care what impact it might have for cars.

Daz555

As a motorcyclist I love bus lanes - in Bristol bikers are allowed to use them.

SteppenHerring

And I really hate their supposed right of way that permits them to heave out into a moving stream of traffic and expect it to stop for them.

I always let buses out when I'm in the car because a) you're supposed to and b) it annoys the people behind. I've waved buses out when I'm on a bike before and had the car behind immediately overtake me and the bus so I don't do that anymore.

I'm not that keen on bus or cycle lanes that go up the left of traffic. Cars pull across them from every which way. Filtering on the right feels safer but there often isn't room.

TheStone

Buses in London don't work.
There's loads of them and mostly empty. Take a ride down Oxford Street!!!
When they are full, it's usually people too lazy to walk a short distance (London Bridge -> City)

Extending the tube and having some kind of personal service for those that can't easily get around would make more sense.

walkingbootweather

How on earth is the bus carrying the victorious Liverpool Premiership / Champions League / FA Cup winning team going to get through the city.

On second thought, that won't be a problem because it will never happen

meanredspider

We don't have any up here. But then we don't really have any buses. But I hate the ones in Cambridge. I often think you wouldn't need a bus lane if there weren't any bus lanes because the rest of the traffic would move faster. On the few rides I've done in London, I didn't much like sharing the route with a bus - it was like a game of leapfrog: Overtake the bus then it overtakes you and so on.

Now I'm going to have to get used to trams...

veronese68

I think it would be an interesting experiment. Can you add something to the vote though? I want taxis banned from bus lanes.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-24156566

Proposing to get rid of bus lanes on a 9m trial basis. Would that be a good idea in London?

Personally, I dislike bus lanes and dislike buses. I *especially* dislike the immunity buses appear to have to the consequences of driving through red lights and blocking yellow box junctions. And I really hate their supposed right of way that permits them to heave out into a moving stream of traffic and expect it to stop for them. Oh, and their right to stop at a stop and block the entire road, even when there's space to pull in.

And they're RED! The colour of those awful lefties!

vermin

It might be sensible in London, because people have the tube to fall back on, the city already has a vehicle deterent in place which could be extended and cycle provision at offices is often good.

In Liverpool it is madness. There is no real tube equivalent - busses are the only real public transport option in the area. Most people drive though, because the entire public transport system is moribund. Employers in the city are a long way behind those in London when it comes to cycle provision (storage, showers, etc). Pushing the busses back into the normal traffic will only make the public transport system even worse.

Which is also why HS2 is such a ridiculous idea. If the authorities redirected even a fraction of the proposed cost into local public transport systems in the regions it would make a world of difference.

msmancunia

vermin wrote:

Which is also why HS2 is such a ridiculous idea. If the authorities redirected even a fraction of the proposed cost into local public transport systems in the regions it would make a world of difference.

My feelings exactly. The sorry excuse for rolling stock that Northern Rail use in the North West and Yorkshire is over forty years old. Most people don't want to get to London any quicker - Manchester to London in 2hrs 10 mins is pretty good going. They just want their daily journey from A to B to be on time, and on a clean, newish, spacious train that doesn't break down.

Having said that, Northern Fail is the reason I got back on a bike when I moved back up here, so it was useful for something.

jamesco

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Who'd be in favour of ditching bus lanes in London?

Not me - better a bus-lane than a car-lane!

Buses are great and I've got a lot of respect for the drivers. It's rare to have a bus driver behave inconsiderately, despite them enduring endless abuse in a dynamic and stressful environment. We'll never get roads dedicated to cycling in London, so bus-lanes are the best we can hope for.

Buses should have a bumper-sticker on the back saying "70+ fewer cars!"

EKE_38BPM

jamesco wrote:

...It's rare to have a bus driver behave inconsiderately...

What optician do you go to? I want to get some of those rose-tinted glasses you have.

Agent57

Right on, msmancunia! Northern Rail trains are grim. (TPE ones are pretty good though.)

As for bus lanes, I'm in favour of them I think. I don't think getting rid of them would make traffic flow that much faster, and it would certainly cause bus journeys to take more time, which is not an incentive to use the bus. I'd like to see their data that suggests having bus lanes doesn't encourage people to use the bus - I'm assuming that the same trip by bus is faster than private car, of course. As for "dedicated lanes [...] could be causing traffic jams," no; it's all the motorised traffic that causes jams. I really do wish more people used buses, but one of their major downfalls is that they don't go door to door; and I suppose that once you factor in walking to the stop, waiting for a bus, and walking at the other end, possibly changing bus, etc., any overall savings due to speedy transit through traffic on dedicated lanes may well be eroded to the point that the convenience of a car wins out.

More bikes, that's the answer. Motorised or pedalled.

Herewith ends the lesson to the choir.

Applespider

meanredspider wrote:

On the few rides I've done in London, I didn't much like sharing the route with a bus - it was like a game of leapfrog: Overtake the bus then it overtakes you and so on.

Really? Where were you riding? 9 times out of 10, you overtake a bus once and it stays behind you.

I love bus lanes - and I'll actively look for routes (particularly to new places) that have them since unless you're approaching a mass terminus, there's usually very buses in them so you have a lovely big space to cycle in that cars don't encroach on because they'll be fined.

greg66_tri_v2.0

RIGHT!

Which two of you lot are the bloody Commie bastards? Eh, eh, eh?

Own up now and make it easy on yourselves. I'll find you in the end. You know I will!

tgotb

Agent57 wrote:

I suppose that once you factor in walking to the stop, waiting for a bus, and walking at the other end, possibly changing bus, etc., any overall savings due to speedy transit through traffic on dedicated lanes may well be eroded to the point that the convenience of a car wins out.

What about the fact that there's a bus stop every 200 yards (more frequently in densely populated areas), meaning that even when there's a dedicated bus lane, the bus's average speed is about 10mph. Actually, this is the best justification for bus lanes: in a bus lane, the bus will average 10mph because it has to cater for passengers who can't walk more than 200 yards; if there isn't a dedicated bus lane, this means that the rest of the traffic also has to stop every 200 yards.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

RIGHT!

Which two of you lot are the bloody Commie bastards? Eh, eh, eh?

Own up now and make it easy on yourselves. I'll find you in the end. You know I will!

Teehee. :twisted:

FWIW, bus lanes seem to be like bike lanes, in that they seem to have been installed where there's plenty of space and it's easy to do, rather where they are actually needed.

msmancunia

TGOTB wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I suppose that once you factor in walking to the stop, waiting for a bus, and walking at the other end, possibly changing bus, etc., any overall savings due to speedy transit through traffic on dedicated lanes may well be eroded to the point that the convenience of a car wins out.

What about the fact that there's a bus stop every 200 yards (more frequently in densely populated areas), meaning that even when there's a dedicated bus lane, the bus's average speed is about 10mph. Actually, this is the best justification for bus lanes: in a bus lane, the bus will average 10mph because it has to cater for passengers who can't walk more than 200 yards; if there isn't a dedicated bus lane, this means that the rest of the traffic also has to stop every 200 yards.

In London there may be bus stops every 200 yards, but outside of the capital, not always. If you live off a main road, say, on an estate, it's sometimes a lot further. My closest bus stop is 15 mins away from my house, and the buses are one every half an hour. And this is in North Manchester! God help those who live right out in the sticks who can't drive.

I like bus lanes. Like Applespider said, there's not many buses where I live, so plenty of room for moi.

First.Aspect

I'd leave things as they are -

i.e. driving in bus lanes permitted if you are in a queue *near a set of lights, if someone else is doing it, or if you are in a panel van. Parking in bus lanes permitted for panel vans, providing hazard lights are used.


*to be judged on the basis of how important you think you are.

tgotb

One change I think genuinely would be sensible, would be to get rid of all these money-grabbing cameras that monitor bus lanes, and also get rid of the people who sit in a control centre monitoring them. Instead, just put a camera on every bus. If a vehicle that shouldn't be there obstructs a bus, the bus driver presses a button, and the camera takes a picture or records a bit of video capturing the infringement. The driver would then be fined as normal. There are lots of places approaching junctions where allowing drivers to nip through a short bit of bus lane, when there's obviously no bus in the vicinity, would allow the traffic to flow much more freely with no downside to anyone.

bails87

Except bus lanes aren't just for use by buses. What if a driver illegally uses a bus lane and obstructs/endangers a cyclist, motorbiker or taxi driver?

Round here there's one bus lane that I use. It's only short but I love it because it's wide enough to give me some sense of seperation from the rest of the traffic. There are very few buses down there, so I rarely have to worry about having a bus breathing down my neck, and it gets me past a queue of slow/stationary traffic.

EDIT: The queue is caused by the traffic lights further up the road, nothing to do with the bus lane which ends a few hundred yards before the junction.

vermin

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

RIGHT!

Which two of you lot are the bloody Commie bastards? Eh, eh, eh?

Own up now and make it easy on yourselves. I'll find you in the end. You know I will!

Seems the Militant Tendency is still alive and well in the 'pool.

Headhuunter

vermin wrote:

It might be sensible in London, because people have the tube to fall back on, the city already has a vehicle deterent in place which could be extended and cycle provision at offices is often good.

In Liverpool it is madness. There is no real tube equivalent - busses are the only real public transport option in the area. Most people drive though, because the entire public transport system is moribund. Employers in the city are a long way behind those in London when it comes to cycle provision (storage, showers, etc). Pushing the busses back into the normal traffic will only make the public transport system even worse.

Which is also why HS2 is such a ridiculous idea. If the authorities redirected even a fraction of the proposed cost into local public transport systems in the regions it would make a world of difference.

Londoners don't always have the Tube to fall back on. Entire swathes of SE London have no tube. Yes we have overground "BR" trains but they are often infrequent and if you want to get across SE London to SW London you largely have to go by bus unless you want to go into central London, change and then back out again.

Headhuunter

msmancunia wrote:

vermin wrote:

Which is also why HS2 is such a ridiculous idea. If the authorities redirected even a fraction of the proposed cost into local public transport systems in the regions it would make a world of difference.

My feelings exactly. The sorry excuse for rolling stock that Northern Rail use in the North West and Yorkshire is over forty years old. Most people don't want to get to London any quicker - Manchester to London in 2hrs 10 mins is pretty good going. They just want their daily journey from A to B to be on time, and on a clean, newish, spacious train that doesn't break down.

Having said that, Northern Fail is the reason I got back on a bike when I moved back up here, so it was useful for something.

The thing with HS2 is that if you build major, new efficient infrastructure, business will develop around it. So at the moment it may seem prohibitively expensive but ultimately it should take pressure off the road system and London as the burgeoning centre of business for the entire UK. Following the Beeching cuts and subsequent periods of disinvestment in the rail network, billions upon billions of quid of investment in roads, motorways etc, (particularly through the Thatcher years) business and logistics has evolved to rely on heavily trafficked roads and away from rail. This needs to be reversed... If you look at continental Europe and countries like Japan where investment in rail has been maintained rather than being pumped into roads, huge efficiencies still exist. Unfortunately we now need to reverse decades of focus on roads and cars in this country

Headhuunter

BigMat wrote:

Only if they stayed as bike lanes. Buses don't really bother me on my bike, the bus lanes are a nice big relatively traffic free space to ride my bike. I don't drive much in London (if I can avoid it) so don't really care what impact it might have for cars.

I agree. Bus lanes are fantastic routes for cycling. I am most definitely against their removal. In fact I am against anything which makes it easier to drive in London and less easy to take public transport...

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

On the few rides I've done in London, I didn't much like sharing the route with a bus - it was like a game of leapfrog: Overtake the bus then it overtakes you and so on.

This only happens if you ride slowly. Once I've passed a bus I never see it again...

vermin

Headhuunter wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

vermin wrote:

Which is also why HS2 is such a ridiculous idea. If the authorities redirected even a fraction of the proposed cost into local public transport systems in the regions it would make a world of difference.

My feelings exactly. The sorry excuse for rolling stock that Northern Rail use in the North West and Yorkshire is over forty years old. Most people don't want to get to London any quicker - Manchester to London in 2hrs 10 mins is pretty good going. They just want their daily journey from A to B to be on time, and on a clean, newish, spacious train that doesn't break down.

Having said that, Northern Fail is the reason I got back on a bike when I moved back up here, so it was useful for something.

The thing with HS2 is that if you build major, new efficient infrastructure, business will develop around it. So at the moment it may seem prohibitively expensive but ultimately it should take pressure off the road system and London as the burgeoning centre of business for the entire UK. Following the Beeching cuts and subsequent periods of disinvestment in the rail network, billions upon billions of quid of investment in roads, motorways etc, (particularly through the Thatcher years) business and logistics has evolved to rely on heavily trafficked roads and away from rail. This needs to be reversed... If you look at continental Europe and countries like Japan where investment in rail has been maintained rather than being pumped into roads, huge efficiencies still exist. Unfortunately we now need to reverse decades of focus on roads and cars in this country

The problem with HS2 is that whilst it will marginally reduce the time it takes to get out of London to a handful of other cities, those other cities are so poorly served by regional networks that they cannot operate efficiently. There's no point trying to bring trade out of London until the regional centres can sustain themselves. For example, taking public transport from my home in Cheshire, it takes less time to reach my firm's London office 200 miles away, than to reach either of the two regional centres, Liverpool or Manchester.

EKE_38BPM

Headhuunter wrote:

...if you want to get across SE London to SW London you largely have to go by bus unless you want to go into central London, change and then back out again.

Not only PT, but *shudder*, a bus!
Thats the extra punishment you get for living in SLondon. I say "extra" because living in SLondon is a punishment in itself.



I don't understand how getting rid of bus lanes can help reduce congestion.

Bus lanes allow the buses to move quicker than cars (during 'rush hour', anyway), at the detriment to the speed of the cars (less lanes to use). Each bus carries dozens of idiots. If those idiots were not on buses, lots of them would be idiots in cars. That means lots of cars. Lots of cars means EVERYONE has to move slower, buses, cars, trucks, coaches, motorbikes, proper bikes. EVERYONE!
This seems to be a lose-lose situation. Buses will move slower because they won't have their own lanes to 'speed' along and cars will move slower because there will be so many of them clogging up the roads. Stupid idea.





Unless, the really long-term plan is to make the roads so congested that everyone gets frustrated with sitting in traffic jams and turns to bikes to get to work faster than driving, so that eventually the bus lanes are changed to really wide cycle lanes.

bracketed

Bus lanes are excellent. On a bike, they are a fantastic, full-width lane where, mostly, you can go at a good pace without worrying whether a driver will give you enough space when passing. Drivers notice them where they don't notice cycle superhighways, for example.

Buses are often excellent. They go more places than the tube, you don't have the additional half-mile underground walk that you often end up doing, *after* you've walked to the tube station, and you can watch the world go by. Waterloo to Fleet Street - quickest way, after the bike, is by bus.

Many bus lanes are only peak-time anyway. Which means
1. you can use them in a car at other times
2. most people in cars don't realise this, so they are still great for cycling in.

Bus drivers have the hardest driving job in London, and the vast majority are very chilled and patient with people on bikes. Not to say that people on bikes are riding badly, but pulling in to a bus stop can often seem quite challenging. Mostly, bus drivers deal with this very well indeed.

Finally, if you get rid of bus lanes, you lower the barrier to driving. Which means more people will drive, cos that's how people are. Which means that congestion will get to the same level, and drivers will spend just as much time in traffic queues. Except, now there is no longer any alternative, because the buses are also in those queues. In short, life is worse.

Bus lanes = a good thing.

awavey

well the bus lanes I use are great...but thats because I rarely encounter buses using them, so its just a nice cycle lane to ride down, albeit with horridly designed rejoins to the normal road section, as its designed for buses who can just shove other vehicles out the way with their Im bigger than you approach,which is bit harder to do on a bike.

but for actual buses, I dont see what benefit they ever make for them, they are never joined up properly, so the buses then just get stuck in the same traffic jam the bus lane was trying to save them from anyway, and seem to provide more obstacles for buses especially in London as they get stuck endlessly overtaking one another by having to pull into the not bus lane bit to get by.

in many ways they suffer the exact same reason why cycle lanes dont work for us, not totally segregated, dont cover the whole route, its just as I say they can force their way through traffic much more easily, that would just result in A&E visit on a bike. taking them away is probably a step to far, but recognising they dont work properly as currently designed might be useful starting point