Beefing up bus lanes.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:21:33 +0100
bod wrote:
It would be quicker for much of the time if bus lanes were scrapped in a
lot of areas. If there is only 1 bus every half an hour or so, the bus
lane would be clear for half an hour for other traffic to use it.

I guess it depends what area it is. Some of the places I drive through you'll
see 3 or 4 buses nose to tail all with about 2 people in each.

B2003

On 27/10/2010 16:32, d wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:21:33 +0100
wrote:
It would be quicker for much of the time if bus lanes were scrapped in a
lot of areas. If there is only 1 bus every half an hour or so, the bus
lane would be clear for half an hour for other traffic to use it.

I guess it depends what area it is. Some of the places I drive through you'll
see 3 or 4 buses nose to tail all with about 2 people in each.

B2003



Yeh and then none for about half an hour. The old story; you wait ages
for a bus and then three come along at once.

Bod

On 27/10/2010 16:09, Simon Mason wrote:
On 27 Oct, 14:13, wrote:
On 27/10/2010 13:41, Simon Mason wrote:

"Nkosi \(Ama wrote:
Bus Lines Signs with time restrictons are not everywhere, some bus lame
signs have no time restriction and that means other traffic must not use
that lane. So to create lanes for a vehicle to trundle down once every half
an hour while forcing all other traffic to congest into one other lane is
ridiculous.
Unless you are on a bus.
Imagine you have bought a bus ticket for what you believe to be a
rapid form of transport through a city and you find the bus lane
clogged full of cars illegally occupying the lane. If you would
normally have driven that journey, you would be put off and think "sod
this, I might as well have taken the car". This would be totally
counter productive to the purpose of the bus lane.

Why would anyone reasonably believe a stage carriage, stopping every few
hundred yards in an urban area, with the driver then having to sell tickets,
collect fares, examine travel warrants and give change before he can move off
again, to be a "rapid form of transport through a city"?

Such a belief would be counter-intuitive.

It would entirely depend on whether the parallel queue of non bus
traffic gets to its destination quicker than the bus. From the
comments from people here who complain of being stuck in stationary
queues while the adjacent bus lane is unused for long periods, it
would be reasonable to assume that the bus is quicker.

I'll take that as a retraction.

On 27/10/2010 16:20, Simon Mason wrote:
On 27 Oct, 14:15, wrote:
On 27/10/2010 14:09, Simon Mason wrote:





On 27 Oct, 13:57, wrote:
On 27/10/2010 13:41, Simon Mason wrote:

On 27 Oct, 12:53, "Nkosi \(Ama wrote:

Bus Lines Signs with time restrictons are not everywhere, some bus lame
signs have no time restriction and that means other traffic must not use
that lane. So to create lanes for a vehicle to trundle down once every half
an hour while forcing all other traffic to congest into one other lane is
ridiculous.

Unless you are on a bus.

Imagine you have bought a bus ticket for what you believe to be a
rapid form of transport through a city and you find the bus lane
clogged full of cars illegally occupying the lane. If you would
normally have driven that journey, you would be put off and think "sod
this, I might as well have taken the car". This would be totally
counter productive to the purpose of the bus lane.

--
Simon Mason

Bus lanes just delays all the cars/vans etc.
Stupid things.

Bod- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or buses are delayed by cars/vans occupying their lane.

IOt's only "their" lane if the owners and users of the buses, uniquely among
their fellow-citizens, have paid for the lane to be acquired, built and
maintained.

But they almost always have done no such thing. Even in Runcorn, the
extensive bus-only-network (largely separate from the highway network) was
not built ot paid for by bus operators or users.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why should it be? The local Council collects taxes and allocates the
funds to where it sees fit. It collects taxes from all householders
whether they drive or go on the bus or walk. No one group of road
users can lay claim to the roads being "theirs" by virtue of the fact
they they have paid council tax. The Council then devises the road
layout based on a broad picture which has nothing to do with who has
paid what. For example, there may be a lane which only permits buses/
motorcycles/taxis and cyclists only. No one would imagine that a
motorcyclist should specifically pay for the privilege of using this
stretch of road.

Or that a cyclist or bus-passenger ever would.

On 27/10/2010 16:20, Simon Mason wrote:

The local Council collects taxes and allocates the
funds to where it sees fit. It collects taxes from all householders
whether they drive or go on the bus or walk. No one group of road
users can lay claim to the roads being "theirs" by virtue of the fact
they they have paid council tax.

No. However, those local taxes only contribute a small amount to their
total revenue. The lion's share comes from central government funds
(general taxes including business rates) and, more and more, from
motoring fees and charges such as congestion and parking charges.

The roads are owned by everyone, why should bus companies get exclusive
use of any of them for commercial gain, for free?

The Council then devises the road
layout based on a broad picture which has nothing to do with who has
paid what.

No, and given that not only do bus companies profit from them, but the
average bus occupancy rate in the UK is 9; which means they occupy about
the same amount of road space per passenger as an averagely occupied
car. All of the road surface should be available to everyone, equally.

--
Matt B

On 27 Oct, 16:50, Matt B wrote:
No, and given that not only do bus companies profit from them, but the
average bus occupancy rate in the UK is 9; which means they occupy about
the same amount of road space per passenger as an averagely occupied
car. *All of the road surface should be available to everyone, equally.

--
Matt B

So you advocate that cyclists should be able to use motorways then?

--
Simon Mason

On 27/10/2010 17:26, Simon Mason wrote:
On 27 Oct, 16:50, Matt wrote:
No, and given that not only do bus companies profit from them, but the
average bus occupancy rate in the UK is 9; which means they occupy about
the same amount of road space per passenger as an averagely occupied
car. All of the road surface should be available to everyone, equally.

--
Matt B

So you advocate that cyclists should be able to use motorways then?

--
Simon Mason



Surely you are not as stupid as to think it would makes sense for
cyclists to use the motorways?

Bod

On 27 Oct, 17:30, bod wrote:
On 27/10/2010 17:26, Simon Mason wrote: On 27 Oct, 16:50, Matt *wrote:
No, and given that not only do bus companies profit from them, but the
average bus occupancy rate in the UK is 9; which means they occupy about
the same amount of road space per passenger as an averagely occupied
car. *All of the road surface should be available to everyone, equally.

--
Matt B

So you advocate that cyclists should be able to use motorways then?

--
Simon Mason

*
*

Surely you are not as stupid as to think it would makes sense for
cyclists to use the motorways?

Bod

No, of course not - but the point made was that "All of the road
surface should be available to everyone, equally."

"Everyone" includes cyclists who have paid their taxes to the Govt to
build motoways and by extension, should not be restricted to certain
parts of the road networks.

In reality, parts of the road network are off limits for cyclists such
as motorways and parts of the road network are off limits to car
drivers, such as bus lanes.

--
Simon Mason

"Matt B" wrote in message
...

The roads are owned by everyone, why should bus companies get exclusive
use of any of them for commercial gain, for free?

A. Because they provide a public service.

On 27/10/2010 17:26, Simon Mason wrote:
On 27 Oct, 16:50, Matt wrote:
No, and given that not only do bus companies profit from them, but the
average bus occupancy rate in the UK is 9; which means they occupy about
the same amount of road space per passenger as an averagely occupied
car. All of the road surface should be available to everyone, equally.

So you advocate that cyclists should be able to use motorways then?

In cars, yes. But seriously, I think you know I meant "public road"
which excludes motorway. But, this being URC, I should, of course, have
phrased it much more carefully so as not to leave such an excuse to
avoid the substantive point.

BTW, and to avoid doubt, I wouldn't advocate them cycling in or on other
tax funded non-public-road facilities, such as railway tracks, swimming
pools or libraries, either.

--
Matt B