|
Post by snoggle on Jun 26, 2017 23:53:46 GMT
TfL are consulting on proposals to change the local environment near Waterloo station and the I-max roundabout. One major impact would be the removal of the Tenison Way bus stops / lay-bys and their relocation to the east. One arm of the roundabout would be pedestrianised so we are talking about yet another Elephant and Castle / Old St type scheme. There would be no right turn from Waterloo Rd n/b to Stamford St e/b. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/waterloo-roundabout/Map of the new layoutThe construction of this will cause chaos for about 2 years or so. Do we really need another traffic "heart attack" in London?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 27, 2017 0:18:17 GMT
TfL are consulting on proposals to change the local environment near Waterloo station and the I-max roundabout. One major impact would be the removal of the Tenison Way bus stops / lay-bys and their relocation to the east. One arm of the roundabout would be pedestrianised so we are talking about yet another Elephant and Castle / Old St type scheme. There would be no right turn from Waterloo Rd n/b to Stamford St e/b. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/waterloo-roundabout/Map of the new layoutThe construction of this will cause chaos for about 2 years or so. Do we really need another traffic "heart attack" in London? Interesting that the 77's first stop on Concert Hall Approach isn't shown - a mistake or maybe an actual removal? Most of is more ridiculous pandering to the cycle community except this time, at least the bus stops are being tidied up a bit as well as the stands. Also, why is it still being called a bus station?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 27, 2017 0:46:10 GMT
There's also a consultation on changes around Lambeth Bridge and removing the roundabouts at either end. The southbound bus lane over the bridge will be lost in favour of a cycle lane. Once again, the bus passenger is all but ignored.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Jun 27, 2017 1:39:36 GMT
There's also a consultation on changes around Lambeth Bridge and removing the roundabouts at either end. The southbound bus lane over the bridge will be lost in favour of a cycle lane. Once again, the bus passenger is all but ignored. To be fair Lambeth Bridge isn't that busy. The removal of the bus lane shouldn't have that much of a detrimental effect on journey times for buses.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 27, 2017 6:29:02 GMT
I agree in principle with these proposals, creates a far safer environment for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 27, 2017 8:16:46 GMT
There's also a consultation on changes around Lambeth Bridge and removing the roundabouts at either end. The southbound bus lane over the bridge will be lost in favour of a cycle lane. Once again, the bus passenger is all but ignored. To be fair Lambeth Bridge isn't that busy. The removal of the bus lane shouldn't have that much of a detrimental effect on journey times for buses. Lambeth Bridge does get busy at times and that bus lane helps it to pass through traffic. Once again, more pandering towards cyclists with no actual thought towards lowering congestion so ending up with everyone squeezing into less road space. Losing the roundabout at Milbank is nonsensical and gives an excuse to add more traffic lights when we have way too much in London already - the one at Lambeth Palace was ruined many moons ago when it was signalised.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 27, 2017 8:22:34 GMT
I don't get this scheme, it was only a few years ago they changed the road layout so is it a way of admitting the changes were rubbish.
As for the references to public realm, I may be really thick, but surely that is supposed to be a nice pedestrian square or similar, not basically a wide pavement adjacent to a road where traffic will be queuing for traffic lights.
Not sure this improved things either for interchange between trains and buses, or for pedestrians, would it not have been better to simply build a cycle lane underpass if the principle aim is to get cycles safely past the junction. To me it's lot of disruption to end up with a bodged compromise.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 27, 2017 9:43:44 GMT
There's also a consultation on changes around Lambeth Bridge and removing the roundabouts at either end. The southbound bus lane over the bridge will be lost in favour of a cycle lane. Once again, the bus passenger is all but ignored. To be fair Lambeth Bridge isn't that busy. The removal of the bus lane shouldn't have that much of a detrimental effect on journey times for buses. I agree and the loss of the bus lane on Lambeth Bridge is hardly going to cause any great hardship. There is an awkward bottle neck at the southern side anyway. I agree with most of these schemes that reduce the dominance of motor vehicles, make cycling safer and generally create a far more pleasant environment for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by northken on Jun 27, 2017 12:28:40 GMT
TfL are consulting on proposals to change the local environment near Waterloo station and the I-max roundabout. One major impact would be the removal of the Tenison Way bus stops / lay-bys and their relocation to the east. One arm of the roundabout would be pedestrianised so we are talking about yet another Elephant and Castle / Old St type scheme. There would be no right turn from Waterloo Rd n/b to Stamford St e/b. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/waterloo-roundabout/Map of the new layoutThe construction of this will cause chaos for about 2 years or so. Do we really need another traffic "heart attack" in London? Interesting that the 77's first stop on Concert Hall Approach isn't shown - a mistake or maybe an actual removal? Most of is more ridiculous pandering to the cycle community except this time, at least the bus stops are being tidied up a bit as well as the stands. Also, why is it still being called a bus station? Haha, pandering to the cycle community. The Waterloo plans are truly tragic with nothing on the approaches and mainly encourage conflict between buses and cycles. In one of the CGI videos there's even a bus cutting up a group of people on bikes. These plans really do need to be reconsidered. On a lighter note, all the buses seems to be in Metroline livery!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 27, 2017 13:13:21 GMT
Interesting that the 77's first stop on Concert Hall Approach isn't shown - a mistake or maybe an actual removal? Most of is more ridiculous pandering to the cycle community except this time, at least the bus stops are being tidied up a bit as well as the stands. Also, why is it still being called a bus station? The junction of York Road and Concert Hall approach will be signalised and will allow a right turn for buses - I read that on the plan or in the text. I therefore assume the 77 stays put and they've not mentioned it because the stop is not changing. TfL have only identified those stops where there will be a physical change of location from what I can see. I guess they call it a "bus station" because the stops are recessed in their own traffic lane and not strictly on the main road carriageway although I know what you mean. If it was a proper bus station then they'd surely put all of Waterloo's routes in it? Oh hang on there's nowhere near enough space for that. I wonder where routes like the 139 and 243 will stand in future - will need to recheck the plan. It will be very interesting to see how TfL manage to restructure Vauxhall's gyratory, both ends of Lambeth Bridge and Waterloo at roughly the same time - somewhere between 2018 and 2020. The risk to local traffic and bus journey times on multiple parallel corridors must be enormous from these three sets of roadworks.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 27, 2017 13:32:19 GMT
There's also a consultation on changes around Lambeth Bridge and removing the roundabouts at either end. The southbound bus lane over the bridge will be lost in favour of a cycle lane. Once again, the bus passenger is all but ignored. To be fair Lambeth Bridge isn't that busy. The removal of the bus lane shouldn't have that much of a detrimental effect on journey times for buses. It is during the rush hour. The bus lane allows a significant time saving on crush loaded 507s, even though it's relatively short, often two traffic light phases. The long bus lane northbound along Lambeth Palace Road by contrast has little impact for most of its length.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 27, 2017 13:41:30 GMT
Interesting that the 77's first stop on Concert Hall Approach isn't shown - a mistake or maybe an actual removal? Most of is more ridiculous pandering to the cycle community except this time, at least the bus stops are being tidied up a bit as well as the stands. Also, why is it still being called a bus station? The junction of York Road and Concert Hall approach will be signalised and will allow a right turn for buses - I read that on the plan or in the text. I therefore assume the 77 stays put and they've not mentioned it because the stop is not changing. TfL have only identified those stops where there will be a physical change of location from what I can see. I guess they call it a "bus station" because the stops are recessed in their own traffic lane and not strictly on the main road carriageway although I know what you mean. If it was a proper bus station then they'd surely put all of Waterloo's routes in it? Oh hang on there's nowhere near enough space for that. I wonder where routes like the 139 and 243 will stand in future - will need to recheck the plan. It will be very interesting to see how TfL manage to restructure Vauxhall's gyratory, both ends of Lambeth Bridge and Waterloo at roughly the same time - somewhere between 2018 and 2020. The risk to local traffic and bus journey times on multiple parallel corridors must be enormous from these three sets of roadworks. The 139 shares the Waterloo Road stand with the 4 and 26 so shouldn't need to change. I was wondering about the 243 though. The plan doesn't seem to provide any replacement for the stand that it currently uses in the "bus station". If you look at the estimated impact on journey times, the 243's predicted journey times are the same as for the 521 rather than 4/26/139, which suggests that it will continue to turn via Mepham Street. So it would have to share the Mepham Street stand with the 521. Not sure how well that will work at times when the 521 is at its peak frequency.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 27, 2017 13:54:04 GMT
Interesting that the 77's first stop on Concert Hall Approach isn't shown - a mistake or maybe an actual removal? Most of is more ridiculous pandering to the cycle community except this time, at least the bus stops are being tidied up a bit as well as the stands. Also, why is it still being called a bus station? Haha, pandering to the cycle community. The Waterloo plans are truly tragic with nothing on the approaches and mainly encourage conflict between buses and cycles. In one of the CGI videos there's even a bus cutting up a group of people on bikes. These plans really do need to be reconsidered. On a lighter note, all the buses seems to be in Metroline livery! How is making cycling safer a bad thing? We've been pandering to motorists for far too long and the balance is now being redressed. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think needs to be reconsidered?
|
|
|
Post by northken on Jun 27, 2017 14:04:35 GMT
Haha, pandering to the cycle community. The Waterloo plans are truly tragic with nothing on the approaches and mainly encourage conflict between buses and cycles. In one of the CGI videos there's even a bus cutting up a group of people on bikes. These plans really do need to be reconsidered. On a lighter note, all the buses seems to be in Metroline livery! How is making cycling safer a bad thing? Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think needs to be reconsidered? Apologies for being unclear. I'm pro public transport and cycling, but on the road buses and cycles should not mix. The plans need to be reconsidered as they force the two into conflict and thus do not make the roads much safer. For example, on the approach to the roundabout from the South the segregated lane is on the outside rather than the inside and cyclists are just expected to access it without any signals. I fear there will be many cases of vehicles cutting in front of the cyclists. This whole 'Healthy Steets' scheme seems to prioritise the placement of trees and looks above all else.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 27, 2017 14:17:24 GMT
The 139 shares the Waterloo Road stand with the 4 and 26 so shouldn't need to change. I was wondering about the 243 though. The plan doesn't seem to provide any replacement for the stand that it currently uses in the "bus station". If you look at the estimated impact on journey times, the 243's predicted journey times are the same as for the 521 rather than 4/26/139, which suggests that it will continue to turn via Mepham Street. So it would have to share the Mepham Street stand with the 521. Not sure how well that will work at times when the 521 is at its peak frequency. I guess I was working off seeing 139s standing in the bus station. I assume, like you, that the 243 will be shoved into Mepham St alongside the 521. Looking at the plans again the road is marked as "Bus Stand" for stop 4 for the 521. Oddly the marked cage stretches to the south but appears to create a pinchpoint with the outer kerb so if more than 1 521 is on stop 4 it *appears* (careful word use here) that approaching buses from the south may struggle to enter the "bus station". I have looked at the journey time matrix. I am completely nonplussed by the evaluation that shows only the 4 being affected on southbound journeys. Does the 4 have wildly different run times compared to every other southbound bus route at Waterloo? Why can't that be amended on its new contract? I am not surprised that the 381 is completely hammered by these changes - intuitively I suspected that the more heavily trafficked E-W corridor would be hit hardest by multiple traffic light phasings.
|
|