Does Sydney have a chance?

[cfsmtb[_183_]]

Of interest to Sydneysiders, Clover Moore is currently in New York at
the C40 Climate Summit:

T.A. Rides with the Mayors of Sydney & Copenhagen (3:03)
http://tinyurl.com/25gltj

" .. On the closing day of New York City’s historic C40 Climate Summit,
Lord Mayor Clover Moore of Sydney, Australia and Copenhagen’s Mayor of
the Technical & Environmental Administration Klaus Bondam took a lunch
break to ride bikes with Transportation Alternatives in a symbolic loop
around Central Park. As usual StreetFilms brings you the best coverage
.."

Also from Transport Alternatives, Interview with Enrique Peñalosa
(12:07)
http://tinyurl.com/yve7sb

" .. As mayor of Bogota, Colombia, Enrique Penalosa accomplished
remarkable changes of monumental proportions for the people of his
country in just three years .."

Timely, considering this article in yesterdays SMH:

Saturday: Sydney's one big car park
http://tinyurl.com/2cj2ur

" .. Weekday traffic jams were bad enough. Now Sydney is gridlocked at
the weekend, too. Roads and Traffic Authority figures show more cars
are using some of the busiest roads on Saturday than on weekdays. Roads
from Bondi to Penrith are clogged with drivers fighting to get to
children's soccer matches, the shopping centre or to a barbecue. The
problem has become so bad that the RTA is considering expanding to
other parts of Sydney a trial of weekend clearways on Spit Road,
despite concern from residents and shop owners.

Sydneysiders make more than 13 million trips on weekends. Public
transport is irregular and track work often disrupts the CityRail
network, so most of those trips are made by car .." (more in article)

Can Sydney actually do something about it's traffic chaos, or is the
problem too far gone, or complicated by competing interests?


--
cfsmtb

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:01:35 +1000, cfsmtb wrote:

> Can Sydney actually do something about it's traffic chaos, or is the
> problem too far gone, or complicated by competing interests?

Maybe the only thing they can agree on is that they should hold on to
the "worst city in Australia to ride in" title.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[cfsmtb[_192_]]

Michael Warner Wrote:
>
> Maybe the only thing they can agree on is that they should hold on to
> the "worst city in Australia to ride in" title.

That would be a pity really, considering Sydney Council are now
implementing the Cycle Strategy and Action Plan.
http://tinyurl.com/ysbpl6

And the RTA are implementing the Sydney Orbital.

sigh.


--
cfsmtb

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 May 2007 11:26:46 +1000
cfsmtb > wrote:
>
> That would be a pity really, considering Sydney Council are now
> implementing the Cycle Strategy and Action Plan.
> http://tinyurl.com/ysbpl6
>


I don't really mind the bits of the trip that are in the City of
Sydney.

There are bits that are annoying - the mess at the end of the Pyrmont
Bridge path, the mess that is the Pyrmont Bridge, the various
approaches to the Harbour Bridge none of which are very good, are all
just annoying, not actively bad.

I'd like better provision in the Campsie area to make the shopping run
easier, not everyone's as happy as I am to brave Beamish St but the
bypass is worse and the backstreets generally steeper.

What makes Sydney bad for a bicycle for me is the hills, probably
because I'm a motorcyclist so more confident in traffic on two wheels
than someone who normally uses a car.

What I'd like to see is each council sizing up their area and locating
routes that are as straight a line to major centres as they can get
while not being too steep. As that was what horse-drawn traffic also
wanted, they should re-route car traffic up the steep slightly more
roundabout routes and have the straighter flatter ones that the
council areas are built around focused on bicycles.

Zebee

[Duncan]

On May 20, 12:01 pm, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2qv...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Can Sydney actually do something about it's traffic chaos, or is the
> problem too far gone, or complicated by competing interests?

its all very well and wonderful that Clover goes off on a junket to
ride a pushie.. but the Sydney CBD is already very well serviced by
public transport and the council appears to have a plan for bicycles.

What about the other 90% of the population that doesn't go anywhere
near the CBD for the majority of their cycling (or public) transport
needs? That's where Sydney's problems really lie: in the ring > 10k
out from the CBD. The northern beaches, and anything west (SW/W or NW)
not near a train line.

[TimC]

On 2007-05-21, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 May 2007 11:26:46 +1000
> cfsmtb > wrote:
>>
>> That would be a pity really, considering Sydney Council are now
>> implementing the Cycle Strategy and Action Plan.
>> http://tinyurl.com/ysbpl6
>
> I don't really mind the bits of the trip that are in the City of
> Sydney.
>
> There are bits that are annoying - the mess at the end of the Pyrmont
> Bridge path, the mess that is the Pyrmont Bridge, the various
> approaches to the Harbour Bridge none of which are very good, are all
> just annoying, not actively bad.

Isn't there one that ends in steps? Would you not call that actively
bad?

Or am I just more clumsy than most people (I haven't fallen down steps
with the bike yet (oi, shuttup in the back))? Don't answer that.

> while not being too steep. As that was what horse-drawn traffic also
> wanted,

How many gear inches was your average horse?

--
TimC
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

[Darryl C]

In article >,
Zebee Johnstone > wrote:

> What I'd like to see is each council sizing up their area and locating
> routes that are as straight a line to major centres as they can get
> while not being too steep. As that was what horse-drawn traffic also
> wanted, they should re-route car traffic up the steep slightly more
> roundabout routes and have the straighter flatter ones that the
> council areas are built around focused on bicycles.
>
> Zebee


Zebee,

Diverting motorised transport to hilly roads just increases pollution
and ****es off drivers.

Main roads are generally the easiest route along ridge-lines and least
possible inclines because that is where the horses and trams could go.
These roads must be shared by cars, buses, trucks, motorbikes and
pushbikes. What they do not need to have is parking.

Around my way the thing that annoys me most is not dealing with traffic
going the same direction as me but vehicles parked in perfectly usable
road space, especially in clearways. I try to give drivers a fair go but
I am not going to sacrifice myself to a door flinging open or someone
stopping to reverse into a parking space, or a taxi letting somebody out
(and they take five minutes to pay the driver).

A bus lane should be provided on each side of every major suburban road
and only buses and bikes allowed in that lane. Get the taxis and
motorbikes out of there.

cheers,
Darryl

[Dave]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 14:19:07 +1000, TimC wrote:

> Isn't there one that ends in steps? Would you not call that actively
> bad?

No, I'd call it extremely fun. It's awesome for stoppies on the way down,
and a good challenge to ride up.

Oh wait, I see your point.

--
Dave Hughes |
"This isn't life in the fast lane, it's life in the oncoming traffic."
- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 May 2007 14:19:07 +1000
TimC > wrote:
> On 2007-05-21, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
>> Bridge path, the mess that is the Pyrmont Bridge, the various
>> approaches to the Harbour Bridge none of which are very good, are all
>> just annoying, not actively bad.
>
> Isn't there one that ends in steps? Would you not call that actively
> bad?

Dunno, guess I'm used to it. I don't ride down it. Pushing up it is
a pain, but hey, stretches bits of leg that don't normally get it.

Dunno what City of Sydney could do about it though, as that's a) North
Sydney and b) State Govt.

Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 May 2007 04:50:39 GMT
Darryl C > wrote:
> possible inclines because that is where the horses and trams could go.
> These roads must be shared by cars, buses, trucks, motorbikes and
> pushbikes. What they do not need to have is parking.

I'll agree with that.
>
>
> A bus lane should be provided on each side of every major suburban road
> and only buses and bikes allowed in that lane. Get the taxis and
> motorbikes out of there.

Oddly, I don't agree with this.

Because bicycles slow buses up, and in traffic a bicycle can't get out
of the bus's way.

If the bus doesn't have to stop them the bicycle is an active nuisance
unless it is going faster than most commuters, never mind kids or
shoppers or novices.

A motorcycle doesn't slow the bus up at all.

Given that a bus can transport many more people, I think that either
the lanes have to be wide enough for the bus to safely pass the
bicycle, or the bicycles have to be out of the bus lanes.

Zebee

[beerwolf[_2_]]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:


> Because bicycles slow buses up, and in traffic a bicycle can't get out
> of the bus's way.
>
> If the bus doesn't have to stop them the bicycle is an active nuisance
> unless it is going faster than most commuters, never mind kids or
> shoppers or novices.
>
> A motorcycle doesn't slow the bus up at all.
>
> Given that a bus can transport many more people, I think that either
> the lanes have to be wide enough for the bus to safely pass the
> bicycle, or the bicycles have to be out of the bus lanes.

I ride a lot in bus lanes, and am almost never in a position where I'm
delaying a bus and unable to let it pass (ymmv). On the rare occasion it
does happen, it costs very little to stop and wait in the gutter or on the
footpath while it goes past.

I'd be very happy to support a special "bike please give way" audio device
that bus drivers could activate when a bike was holding them up.

--
beerwolf

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 21 May 2007 08:51:48 -0000
beerwolf > wrote:
>
> I ride a lot in bus lanes, and am almost never in a position where I'm
> delaying a bus and unable to let it pass (ymmv). On the rare occasion it
> does happen, it costs very little to stop and wait in the gutter or on the
> footpath while it goes past.
>
> I'd be very happy to support a special "bike please give way" audio device
> that bus drivers could activate when a bike was holding them up.

I think the lanes would have to be wider for that, not sure if Sydney
streets can handle wider lanes.

2 bus driver friends complain a lot about bicycles in bus lanes,
perhaps you aren't the typical rider? (of course *everyone* in Sydney
complains about cyclists, maybe the bus drivers just have different
things to complain about.)

An audio device might work, but where's the enforcement, and what if
they don't?

Zebee

[Duncan]

On May 21, 7:34 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> 2 bus driver friends complain a lot about bicycles in bus lanes,
> perhaps you aren't the typical rider? (of course *everyone* in Sydney
> complains about cyclists, maybe the bus drivers just have different
> things to complain about.)

It is a little odd.

Although I agree in principle that bikes shouldn't hold up buses.. I
find it difficult to believe that they actually slow any of them down
in peak hour.. what with the ridiculous frequency of bus stops that we
typically have (what is it, 400m between stops?).. sure, I bike mught
hold up an express bus, but more than likely, the other buses in the
lane are already doing that.

[beerwolf[_2_]]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>> I'd be very happy to support a special "bike please give way" audio
>> device
>> that bus drivers could activate when a bike was holding them up.
>
> I think the lanes would have to be wider for that, not sure if Sydney
> streets can handle wider lanes.

No, if the lane isn't wide enough, and the bus driver pings you, just get
on the footpath and wait until the bus passes.

> An audio device might work, but where's the enforcement, and what if
> they don't?

Enforcement is in the same place where they catch motorists failing to let
a bus out when it pulls away from the kerb, or taxis letting passengers out
in a bus-only lane: ie. nada at present. I think Sydney buses should get
the same traffic priority as Melbourne trams, it would work if a few
examples were made.

I think Sydney needs more footpaths made into shared paths - as they have
done along Victoria Road between Iron Cove and the Anzac Bridge path.
That is a path that works well (imo), particularly on the bit west of
Darling St.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 05:21:10 -0700
Duncan > wrote:
> On May 21, 7:34 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>> 2 bus driver friends complain a lot about bicycles in bus lanes,
>> perhaps you aren't the typical rider? (of course *everyone* in Sydney
>> complains about cyclists, maybe the bus drivers just have different
>> things to complain about.)
>
> It is a little odd.
>
> Although I agree in principle that bikes shouldn't hold up buses.. I
> find it difficult to believe that they actually slow any of them down
> in peak hour.. what with the ridiculous frequency of bus stops that we
> typically have (what is it, 400m between stops?).. sure, I bike mught
> hold up an express bus, but more than likely, the other buses in the
> lane are already doing that.

Not all buses stop at every stop. Not all heavy traffic is peak hour,
consider weekends and even on week days there are places that have
difficult traffic, especially as in your scenario a two lane road has
just become a one lane road.

Zebee

[Duncan]

On May 22, 7:12 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 05:21:10 -0700
>
> Duncan > wrote:
> > On May 21, 7:34 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> >> 2 bus driver friends complain a lot about bicycles in bus lanes,
> >> perhaps you aren't the typical rider? (of course *everyone* in Sydney
> >> complains about cyclists, maybe the bus drivers just have different
> >> things to complain about.)
>
> > It is a little odd.
>
> > Although I agree in principle that bikes shouldn't hold up buses.. I
> > find it difficult to believe that they actually slow any of them down
> > in peak hour.. what with the ridiculous frequency of bus stops that we
> > typically have (what is it, 400m between stops?).. sure, I bike mught
> > hold up an express bus, but more than likely, the other buses in the
> > lane are already doing that.
>
> Not all buses stop at every stop. Not all heavy traffic is peak hour,
> consider weekends and even on week days there are places that have
> difficult traffic, especially as in your scenario a two lane road has
> just become a one lane road.
>
> Zebee


yes.. but where is a cyclist holding up buses?

Out of peak hour.. there's mostly no bus lanes and the clearway is
full of parked cars, so the point is moot.

When we've been reduced to one lane (from two) because of a bus, it's
hardly the cyclists fault, and he/she can quickly duck around said
bustruction.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 15:52:36 -0700
Duncan > wrote:
> yes.. but where is a cyclist holding up buses?
>
> Out of peak hour.. there's mostly no bus lanes and the clearway is
> full of parked cars, so the point is moot.

The proposal was to ban parking on the mainish suburban roads in the
hilly areas, the ones that carry a lot of traffic because they were
the "good" roads in horse drawn days - thus suitable for cyclists.

So no cars allowed to park, and if the bus lanes are permanent then no
cars in them either, so down from 2 lanes to 1 at all times. That's a
lot more congestion.

Bus lanes on all roads remember, not 3 lane ones. That's going to
make a lot more traffic for the bus to negotiate if it has to pass a
cyclist, and if we are talking that many roads we are not talking fast
cyclists, we are talking *all* cyclists.

I really don't think buslanes are viable on all the roads in question.
I think banning parking is a good idea though.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

beerwolf wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>> Given that a bus can transport many more people, I think that either
>> the lanes have to be wide enough for the bus to safely pass the
>> bicycle, or the bicycles have to be out of the bus lanes.

> I'd be very happy to support a special "bike please give way" audio
> device that bus drivers could activate when a bike was holding them
> up.

You mean like a siren? :-)

Theo
(No, not the kind that sings to sailors)

[Duncan]

On May 22, 9:22 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 15:52:36 -0700
>
> Duncan > wrote:
> > yes.. but where is a cyclist holding up buses?
>
> > Out of peak hour.. there's mostly no bus lanes and the clearway is
> > full of parked cars, so the point is moot.
>
> The proposal was to ban parking on the mainish suburban roads in the
> hilly areas, the ones that carry a lot of traffic because they were
> the "good" roads in horse drawn days - thus suitable for cyclists.
>
> So no cars allowed to park, and if the bus lanes are permanent then no
> cars in them either, so down from 2 lanes to 1 at all times. That's a
> lot more congestion.
>
> Bus lanes on all roads remember, not 3 lane ones. That's going to
> make a lot more traffic for the bus to negotiate if it has to pass a
> cyclist, and if we are talking that many roads we are not talking fast
> cyclists, we are talking *all* cyclists.

ok.. now I understand. My apologies.

> I really don't think buslanes are viable on all the roads in question.
> I think banning parking is a good idea though.

Although I'd be pretty peeved if I lived on a main road and could no
longer park in front of my house.

[TimC]

On 2007-05-22, Duncan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On May 22, 9:22 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>> I really don't think buslanes are viable on all the roads in question.
>> I think banning parking is a good idea though.
>
> Although I'd be pretty peeved if I lived on a main road and could no
> longer park in front of my house.

I think all people should have provisions on their block of land for
parking, if they wish to park a vehicle. The state, and hence its
taxpayers, should not be forced for someone to have the privelege of
parking on public road. It's a mighty innefficient use of public
resources to have a private vehicle blocking that lane from productive
use.

--
TimC
"Application encountered an error while failing. Error recovered
successfully, proceeding to fail"

[PiledHigher]

On May 22, 11:50 am, Duncan > wrote:
> On May 22, 9:22 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 15:52:36 -0700
>
> > Duncan > wrote:
> > > yes.. but where is a cyclist holding up buses?
>
> > > Out of peak hour.. there's mostly no bus lanes and the clearway is
> > > full of parked cars, so the point is moot.
>
> > The proposal was to ban parking on the mainish suburban roads in the
> > hilly areas, the ones that carry a lot of traffic because they were
> > the "good" roads in horse drawn days - thus suitable for cyclists.
>
> > So no cars allowed to park, and if the bus lanes are permanent then no
> > cars in them either, so down from 2 lanes to 1 at all times. That's a
> > lot more congestion.
>
> > Bus lanes on all roads remember, not 3 lane ones. That's going to
> > make a lot more traffic for the bus to negotiate if it has to pass a
> > cyclist, and if we are talking that many roads we are not talking fast
> > cyclists, we are talking *all* cyclists.
>
> ok.. now I understand. My apologies.
>
> > I really don't think buslanes are viable on all the roads in question.
> > I think banning parking is a good idea though.
>
> Although I'd be pretty peeved if I lived on a main road and could no
> longer park in front of my house.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I love that circular thinking!

Car drivers complain about traffic congestion, suggest something that
would make a significant difference like reducing the amount of roads
blocked up by parked cars, oh no we can't get rid of those...

[Duncan]

On May 22, 12:21 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2007-05-22, Duncan (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> > On May 22, 9:22 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> >> I really don't think buslanes are viable on all the roads in question.
> >> I think banning parking is a good idea though.
>
> > Although I'd be pretty peeved if I lived on a main road and could no
> > longer park in front of my house.
>
> I think all people should have provisions on their block of land for
> parking, if they wish to park a vehicle. The state, and hence its
> taxpayers, should not be forced for someone to have the privelege of
> parking on public road. It's a mighty innefficient use of public
> resources to have a private vehicle blocking that lane from productive
> use.
>

and what do you propose we do with the tens of thousands of houses in
Sydney where there is no (and cannot be any) provision for parking?

[Theo Bekkers]

Duncan wrote:
> TimC wrote:

>> I think all people should have provisions on their block of land for
>> parking, if they wish to park a vehicle. The state, and hence its
>> taxpayers, should not be forced for someone to have the privelege of
>> parking on public road. It's a mighty innefficient use of public
>> resources to have a private vehicle blocking that lane from
>> productive use.

> and what do you propose we do with the tens of thousands of houses in
> Sydney where there is no (and cannot be any) provision for parking?

Sell them cheap to cyclists.

Theo

[EuanB[_72_]]

Duncan Wrote:
>
> and what do you propose we do with the tens of thousands of houses in
> Sydney where there is no (and cannot be any) provision for parking?

A new boom industry, underground parking for each home. That's what
they do in much of Europe (except they build houses properly from the
get go in much or Europe with handy things like underground garages and
cellars).


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 22 May 2007 10:53:20 +0800
Theo Bekkers > wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
>> TimC wrote:
>
>>> I think all people should have provisions on their block of land for
>>> parking, if they wish to park a vehicle. The state, and hence its
>>> taxpayers, should not be forced for someone to have the privelege of
>>> parking on public road. It's a mighty innefficient use of public
>>> resources to have a private vehicle blocking that lane from
>>> productive use.
>
>> and what do you propose we do with the tens of thousands of houses in
>> Sydney where there is no (and cannot be any) provision for parking?
>
> Sell them cheap to cyclists.

Or motorcyclists. Most of them have room for a motorcycle at the
front.

If you can't park on your property than you can't have a car. As
those houses are all in the desirable inner suburbs they have heaps of
public transport available, and are well covered by car sharing
schemes too.

If it brings the value down, good oh - essential workers have a chance
of buying closer to work.

Zebee

[Brendo]

>
> If you can't park on your property than you can't have a car. As
> those houses are all in the desirable inner suburbs they have heaps of
> public transport available, and are well covered by car sharing
> schemes too.
>
> If it brings the value down, good oh - essential workers have a chance
> of buying closer to work.
>
> Zebee

I'm with you Zebee. Introduce regulation such that said house has no
provision for parking either on the property or on the street. If you
want a car, make provisions for it to be housed elsewhere. Once you
get over the 'You can't tell me whether I can have a car or not'
you'll find a dozen other ways to get around and do what you need to
do.

Brendo

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 21:01:41 -0700
Brendo > wrote:
>
> I'm with you Zebee. Introduce regulation such that said house has no
> provision for parking either on the property or on the street. If you

Oh I don't mind if the room taken up is on their own property. just on
the public property.

Maybe someone can buy a couple of closed shops and build a parking
garage, 3 stories down, and 6 up. With a lift big enough for a car so
they don't need ramps.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Sell them cheap to cyclists.
>
> Or motorcyclists. Most of them have room for a motorcycle at the
> front.
>
> If you can't park on your property than you can't have a car.

Sounds good to me.

Theo

[beerwolf[_2_]]

EuanB wrote:

>
> Duncan Wrote:
>>
>> and what do you propose we do with the tens of thousands of houses in
>> Sydney where there is no (and cannot be any) provision for parking?
>
> A new boom industry, underground parking for each home. That's what
> they do in much of Europe (except they build houses properly from the
> get go in much or Europe with handy things like underground garages and
> cellars).

First, we'll have to eliminate all the heritage nazis in local council
urban planning departments. Otherwise, it's an excellent idea.

--
beerwolf

[beerwolf[_2_]]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> I'd be very happy to support a special "bike please give way" audio
>> device that bus drivers could activate when a bike was holding them
>> up.
>
> You mean like a siren? :-)
>
> Theo
> (No, not the kind that sings to sailors)

I was thinking of something more like the ding you hear when you're
blocking a Melbourne tram. But for recalcitrant cyclists in front of a bus,
who ignore the ding, we could equip buses with a followup - a forward
pointing cold water jet :)

--
beerwolf

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 22 May 2007 09:06:28 -0000
beerwolf > wrote:
>
> I was thinking of something more like the ding you hear when you're
> blocking a Melbourne tram. But for recalcitrant cyclists in front of a bus,
> who ignore the ding, we could equip buses with a followup - a forward
> pointing cold water jet :)

as long as white knicks are banned....

Zebee

[cfsmtb[_208_]]

beerwolf Wrote:
>
>
> First, we'll have to eliminate all the heritage nazis in local council
> urban planning departments. Otherwise, it's an excellent idea.

There's already bicycle parking and storage facilities in planning
amendments in several states, but the underground parking is a beaut
idea.

Have a gander at these initiatives via the Transport Alternatives
site:
http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.html


--
cfsmtb

[EuanB[_73_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 21 May 2007 05:21:10 -0700
> Duncan > wrote:
> > On May 21, 7:34 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> >> 2 bus driver friends complain a lot about bicycles in bus lanes,
> >> perhaps you aren't the typical rider? (of course *everyone* in
> Sydney
> >> complains about cyclists, maybe the bus drivers just have different
> >> things to complain about.)
> >
> > It is a little odd.
> >
> > Although I agree in principle that bikes shouldn't hold up buses.. I
> > find it difficult to believe that they actually slow any of them down
> > in peak hour.. what with the ridiculous frequency of bus stops that
> we
> > typically have (what is it, 400m between stops?).. sure, I bike mught
> > hold up an express bus, but more than likely, the other buses in the
> > lane are already doing that.
>
> Not all buses stop at every stop. Not all heavy traffic is peak hour,
> consider weekends and even on week days there are places that have
> difficult traffic, especially as in your scenario a two lane road has
> just become a one lane road.
>
> Zebee

I'm in agreement with Zebee on this. I don't use roads with bus lanes
but I use roads with narrow lanes that run busses. Until I engaged
brain a bit I did the leapfrog thing which wasn't very smart. Now if I
come up on a bus I just wait behind it and let it go. A lot more people
are getting transported on that roadspace so in my mind it's the right
thing to do.

I'm not sure that would work on a popular route though. If the cycling
density is something in the order of St Kilda Road in Melbourne then
busses will be held up by cyclists IMO.

Busses and cyclists don't belong in the same lane, they're incompatible
IMO.


--
EuanB

[EuanB[_74_]]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> There's already bicycle parking and storage facilities in planning
> amendments in several states, but the underground parking is a beaut
> idea.
>
> Have a gander at these initiatives via the Transport Alternatives site:
> http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter9/chapter9c.html

Nice. Thanks.


--
EuanB

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 24 May 2007 13:11:28 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> Busses and cyclists don't belong in the same lane, they're incompatible
> IMO.

Single fast cyclist on a route with lots of setdown/pickup, maybe.

Many cyclists of all speeds on a route with unpredictable number of
stops, no.

Maybe what we need are thinner buses!

Zebee

[TimC]

On 2007-05-24, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 24 May 2007 13:11:28 +1000
> EuanB > wrote:
>>
>> Busses and cyclists don't belong in the same lane, they're incompatible
>> IMO.
>
> Single fast cyclist on a route with lots of setdown/pickup, maybe.
>
> Many cyclists of all speeds on a route with unpredictable number of
> stops, no.
>
> Maybe what we need are thinner buses!

My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
infinite number of conveyor belts. The one adjacent to the line
joining your source to your destination is going very slowly, and then
one next to it is going infinitesimally faster, etc. You just step on
the conveyor belt, take as many steps to the right on each
progressively faster conveyor belt until you get to the midpoint of
your trip, then start stepping back. When you reach the stationary
conveyor belt and step off, you are at your destination. You'd
arrange the velocity gradient across the belts so you can walk at a
comfortable speed across the conveyor belts, and accelerate at a
comfortable rate in your parallel direction.

You'd probably just need a cartesian grid of these with two height
levels to get from any arbitrary source to any arbitrary destination.
Each belt would be permanently going and would never accelerate or
decelerate -- when it has no passengers, it has no load, and burns
through hardly any electricity. When passengers are all accelerating
at peak hour in the morning, energy will have to be provided to each
belt to keep it at its normal speed -- achieved using a servoing
mechanism on each belt drive. When the passengers want to decelerate
at the end of their trip, the energy they gained in acceleration is
transferred to the lower speed belts, which recover the energy again
in the servoing system by effectively regeneratively braking.

What say you about my plan?

No need for busses or trains or other public transport, and you could
probably arrange it so the lateral movement across the belts can be
done by bicycle. If you must ride to your destination, you can just
ride on the slowest speed belt. You might want to get a slightly
cambered wheel so that the gradient of speeds across it on these
infinitesimally small belts doesn't wear one side of the tire down
more than the other.

--
TimC
HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically
Charged Particles Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred
Million Miles Per Hour. --unknown

[Dave]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:16:01 +1000, TimC wrote:

> My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
> infinite number of conveyor belts.

I think that was Asimov, but it could have been Heinlein. I'm fairly sure
it wasn't Clarke.

Dammit, I'm going to have to reread an awful lot of my books at this rate.

--
Dave Hughes |
"Until we understand quantum gravity, we're not going to be
running Linux on a black hole" - Seth Lloyd

[TimC]

On 2007-05-26, Dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:16:01 +1000, TimC wrote:
>
>> My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
>> infinite number of conveyor belts.
>
> I think that was Asimov, but it could have been Heinlein.

What? Someone's already come up with this plan? I thought the only
reason it hadn't been done yet was because it had not yet been
publicised.

--
TimC
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology

[John Pitts[_2_]]

On 2007-05-25, TimC > wrote:
> My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
> infinite number of conveyor belts. The one adjacent to the line
> joining your source to your destination is going very slowly, and then
> one next to it is going infinitesimally faster, etc.
> ...

Asimov used a similar idea in some of his Robot/Foundation books, except
that he had discrete belts moving at different speeds, and you had to
step from one to the other to change your speed.

With your "infinitely small" belts, wouldn't your right foot be
travelling faster (or slower) than your left? You'd have to keep
"skipping" one foot to avoid doing the splits.

> What say you about my plan?

You'd never sell it. People would have to (shock, horror) stand up all
the way to work, supporting their own weight! On their own feet !!!1!
What are we, savages?!?

Mind you, many bus and train commuters do that now. You have to get on
at the beginning of the route if you want a seat.

Would the "beltways" be sheltered from the weather (or underground, like
Asimov's)?

> No need for busses or trains or other public transport, and you could
> probably arrange it so the lateral movement across the belts can be
> done by bicycle. If you must ride to your destination, you can just
> ride on the slowest speed belt.

We'd have the same problem we have now with cyclist/pedestrian
incompatibility on shared paths. Better not to have bikes on the
"beltways".

It'd be interesting to see an analysis of the energy efficiency of such
a scheme. I'd do it myself, but (a)it's a couple of decades since I did
any physics and (b)I can't be arsed.

--
John
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your older self. - Terry Pratchett, "Thud!"

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 May 2007 11:39:47 GMT
John Pitts > wrote:
>
> It'd be interesting to see an analysis of the energy efficiency of such
> a scheme. I'd do it myself, but (a)it's a couple of decades since I did
> any physics and (b)I can't be arsed.

The ones that are (inevitably) stopped will use zero energy.

The ones that break will do some neat energy conversion.

The ones that go backwards because All Software Sucks will create some
interesting results though.

Zebee

[K.A. Moylan]

In article >,
"Dave" > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:16:01 +1000, TimC wrote:
>
> > My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
> > infinite number of conveyor belts.
>
> I think that was Asimov, but it could have been Heinlein. I'm fairly sure
> it wasn't Clarke.
> ...

'The Roads Must Roll', by Robert A. Heinlein.

--
K.A. Moylan
Canberra, Australia
Ski Club: http://www.cccsc.asn.au
kamoylan at ozemail dot com dot au

[Resound[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:16:01 +1000, TimC wrote:
>
>> My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
>> infinite number of conveyor belts.
>
> I think that was Asimov, but it could have been Heinlein. I'm fairly sure
> it wasn't Clarke.
>
> Dammit, I'm going to have to reread an awful lot of my books at this rate.
>
> --
> Dave Hughes |
> "Until we understand quantum gravity, we're not going to be
> running Linux on a black hole" - Seth Lloyd
>

Asimov, Foundation series.

[Dave]

On Sun, 27 May 2007 13:47:29 +1000, K.A. Moylan wrote:

> 'The Roads Must Roll', by Robert A. Heinlein.

Ah. Thank you. I knew I'd read it somewhere, and a quick look around
confirms what I vaguely recalled of the plot.

Bad luck Tim, I think this means there's prior art.

--
Dave Hughes |
The family that chooses words with care together is the family that
avoids needless violence and gunplay together, is our motto.

[dewatf]

On 21 May 2007 23:22:09 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> The proposal was to ban parking on the mainish suburban roads in the
> hilly areas, the ones that carry a lot of traffic because they were
> the "good" roads in horse drawn days - thus suitable for cyclists.

They were the best routes to cross the ridges and gullys that much of much
of Sydney's geography. They just built roads on the best routes for horses,
cycles, trams, walking and cars.

Those form the skeleton of Sydney. Most of the growth of Sydney then
occured with the post-WWII immigration and baby was based around suburbs
laid out for cars and commuting to the CBD. The major alternative was a
Victorian designed rail system. The trams on those roads were replaced with
buses (which fit in with car traffic better).

The equation is tens of thousands of drivers, thousands of public transport
users and a hundred or so cyclists trying to travel on those routes.

> I think banning parking is a good idea though.

Those aterial roads, being the major roads, were also the roads where all
the shops were built to catch passing trade. Take away the parking and the
shops all go bust. Look at what happened to Parramatta Rd and Oxford St
when parking restrictions and meters were introduced. Without parking on
King St after 7pm all the restaurants go.

What you end up with then is all the shops and restaurants moving to
regional shopping centres where they are the mercy of Westfield as monoploy
landlord. Then everybody has to drive to them and park.

dewatf.

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
> infinite number of conveyor belts. The one adjacent to the line
> joining your source to your destination is going very slowly, and then
> one next to it is going infinitesimally faster, etc. You just step on
> the conveyor belt, take as many steps to the right on each
> progressively faster conveyor belt until you get to the midpoint of
> your trip, then start stepping back.

Sounds like from Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel.

> When you reach the stationary conveyor belt and step off,

A stationary conveyer?

Theo

[Ray]

In article >,
says...
> TimC wrote:
>
> > My public transport plan all along was to pave the country in an
> > infinite number of conveyor belts. The one adjacent to the line
> > joining your source to your destination is going very slowly, and then
> > one next to it is going infinitesimally faster, etc. You just step on
> > the conveyor belt, take as many steps to the right on each
> > progressively faster conveyor belt until you get to the midpoint of
> > your trip, then start stepping back.
>
> Sounds like from Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel.
>
> > When you reach the stationary conveyor belt and step off,
>
> A stationary conveyer?
>

Yeah, sounds a bit weird, perhaps that must be a bike path!

Come to think of it, with the bike path parallel thrown in, how would
you handle the arrogant dog owners that will claim the belts as their's
alone ???

Ray