|
Post by sid on Mar 15, 2019 15:22:24 GMT
No roads have been ripped up and I don't think there is any doubt that wide one way roads lead to more excess speed. On a conventional two way road there is usually little opportunity to overtake the vehicle in front. What can lead to excess speeds is multiple lanes rather than one-way roads. Ripping up the road is an expression, have said that parts of Gloucester Place / Baker Street have literally been ripped up in that those parts are no longer roads with tarmac.
As I say the way to deal with boy racers is to enforce the law. I don't think the right solution to boy racers is to remove bus lanes and make the bus experience worse for passengers. Bus passengers should not have to suffer because no one can be bothered to enforce the law against a few boy racers.
I don't see how bus users are suffering? In fact I would suggest that the removal of one way systems generally benefits bus users.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 15, 2019 16:03:39 GMT
I do agree for cars, however buses should still have reasonable priority in these schemes. Buses should go hand-in-hand with cycle and pedestrian schemes. With regards to Baker Street, I'm surprised the trick to install segregated cycle lanes was missed, and not like there wasn't room either!
I agree about priority for buses wherever possible hence my suggestion of making the bus only restriction on Baker Street 24/7. But it not just about buses, these days delivery Van's and private hire probably exceeds cars in Central area. Every extra restriction either makes these take more bus routes (as the minor routes blocked by restrictions), so it backfires and delays buses further. Buses can only get clear run if you encourage other vehicles to stick clear of bus routes which doesn't appear to be policy anymore. Eventually the bus gets so slow or unreliable it no longer carries enough to pay it's way. Go to somewhere like Paris and buses are rare in Central area.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2019 16:10:56 GMT
The one way system actually got drivers to their destination faster. As has been said the new road layout hasn't increased speeds and traffic light phasing means journeys take longer, so I would be surprised if drivers think the new layout is better. The real 'improvement' for drivers is the removal of the bus lanes, but I would not call that an improvement for buses.
As for boy racers my experience was that Baker Street was no worse than other streets. Given the number of traffic lights on Baker Street and Gloucester Place and the 30 mph speed limit it was not possible to 'race' either before the changes or after without breaking the law. In order stop boy racers you need to enforce the law, not ripping up the roads.
No roads have been ripped up and I don't think there is any doubt that wide one way roads lead to more excess speed. On a conventional two way road there is usually little opportunity to overtake the vehicle in front. I’m sorry but there is no evidence to support that at all - if that was really the case, speeding would only happen on one way streets and we all know it’s not exclusive to one particular type of road. Effra Road has a one way & a two way section - many cars speed along the two way section which also has two speed cameras along there due to a history of nasty accidents involving speeding vehicles. The one way section has never seen an accident during my lifetime and sees far less speeding vehicles yet is a wide enough road and has no speed cameras. The point is one way or two way doesn’t come into it in regards to speeding.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 15, 2019 16:15:52 GMT
What can lead to excess speeds is multiple lanes rather than one-way roads. Ripping up the road is an expression, have said that parts of Gloucester Place / Baker Street have literally been ripped up in that those parts are no longer roads with tarmac.
As I say the way to deal with boy racers is to enforce the law. I don't think the right solution to boy racers is to remove bus lanes and make the bus experience worse for passengers. Bus passengers should not have to suffer because no one can be bothered to enforce the law against a few boy racers.
I don't see how bus users are suffering? In fact I would suggest that the removal of one way systems generally benefits bus users. Again, there is little or no evidence to support this - splitting routes up creates awkward interchanges such as the current situation on Gloucester Place & Baker Street where certain routes go one way in both directions & others go another way in both directions. Interchange is an important aspect for travel and I see no benefit to splitting routes over an established system that people were used to for years where northbound buses used Gloucester Place & southbound buses used Baker Street.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 15, 2019 16:25:32 GMT
I agree about priority for buses wherever possible hence my suggestion of making the bus only restriction on Baker Street 24/7. But it not just about buses, these days delivery Van's and private hire probably exceeds cars in Central area. Every extra restriction either makes these take more bus routes (as the minor routes blocked by restrictions), so it backfires and delays buses further. Buses can only get clear run if you encourage other vehicles to stick clear of bus routes which doesn't appear to be policy anymore. Eventually the bus gets so slow or unreliable it no longer carries enough to pay it's way. Go to somewhere like Paris and buses are rare in Central area. It's more a matter of removing restrictions, ie former one way streets can now be accessed in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 15, 2019 16:28:35 GMT
I don't see how bus users are suffering? In fact I would suggest that the removal of one way systems generally benefits bus users. Again, there is little or no evidence to support this - splitting routes up creates awkward interchanges such as the current situation on Gloucester Place & Baker Street where certain routes go one way in both directions & others go another way in both directions. Interchange is an important aspect for travel and I see no benefit to splitting routes over an established system that people were used to for years where northbound buses used Gloucester Place & southbound buses used Baker Street. There is no evidence to support any of the claims being made, ie bus passengers suffering as a result of the changes. And it's not only in London that one way systems are being removed, Ashford, Chatham and Dartford etc.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 15, 2019 16:42:06 GMT
What can lead to excess speeds is multiple lanes rather than one-way roads. Ripping up the road is an expression, have said that parts of Gloucester Place / Baker Street have literally been ripped up in that those parts are no longer roads with tarmac.
As I say the way to deal with boy racers is to enforce the law. I don't think the right solution to boy racers is to remove bus lanes and make the bus experience worse for passengers. Bus passengers should not have to suffer because no one can be bothered to enforce the law against a few boy racers.
I don't see how bus users are suffering? In fact I would suggest that the removal of one way systems generally benefits bus users. The argument that removal of one-way systems benefiting bus users is that stops for both directions are on the same street, so simplifying routing for passengers.
In the specific case of Baker Street, some routes are simplified by using Baker Street in both directions. Other bus routes still use Baker Street in one direction and Gloucester Place in the other with no obvious rhyme or reason why to the average passenger. That makes it more complicated, not simpler for passengers.
Journey times are now longer than before for bus passengers. Even when there is no traffic the traffic light phasing ensures longer journey times. When there are traffic jams buses are disproportionately impacted as the bus priority measures that used to exist (bus lanes) have been removed.
It is for these reasons that bus passengers are suffering as a result of these changes.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 15, 2019 16:48:14 GMT
I don't see how bus users are suffering? In fact I would suggest that the removal of one way systems generally benefits bus users. The argument that removal of one-way systems benefiting bus users is that stops for both directions are on the same street, so simplifying routing for passengers.
In the specific case of Baker Street, some routes are simplified by using Baker Street in both directions. Other bus routes still use Baker Street in one direction and Gloucester Place in the other with no obvious rhyme or reason why to the average passenger. That makes it more complicated, not simpler for passengers.
Journey times are now longer than kbefore for bus passengers. Even when there is no traffic the traffic light phasing ensures longer journey times. When there are traffic jams buses are disproportionately impacted as the bus priority measures that used to exist (bus lanes) have been removed.
It is for these reasons that bus passengers are suffering as a result of these changes.
Have running times on any of the effected routes been increased?
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Mar 15, 2019 16:55:52 GMT
The argument that removal of one-way systems benefiting bus users is that stops for both directions are on the same street, so simplifying routing for passengers.
In the specific case of Baker Street, some routes are simplified by using Baker Street in both directions. Other bus routes still use Baker Street in one direction and Gloucester Place in the other with no obvious rhyme or reason why to the average passenger. That makes it more complicated, not simpler for passengers.
Journey times are now longer than kbefore for bus passengers. Even when there is no traffic the traffic light phasing ensures longer journey times. When there are traffic jams buses are disproportionately impacted as the bus priority measures that used to exist (bus lanes) have been removed.
It is for these reasons that bus passengers are suffering as a result of these changes.
Have running times on any of the effected routes been increased? Given that the scheme is still relatively new, I would reserve judgment on longer term effects such as increased running times. But I don’t disagree there maybe obvious causes such as more traffic lights and longer wait times.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 15, 2019 18:18:30 GMT
The argument that removal of one-way systems benefiting bus users is that stops for both directions are on the same street, so simplifying routing for passengers.
In the specific case of Baker Street, some routes are simplified by using Baker Street in both directions. Other bus routes still use Baker Street in one direction and Gloucester Place in the other with no obvious rhyme or reason why to the average passenger. That makes it more complicated, not simpler for passengers.
Journey times are now longer than kbefore for bus passengers. Even when there is no traffic the traffic light phasing ensures longer journey times. When there are traffic jams buses are disproportionately impacted as the bus priority measures that used to exist (bus lanes) have been removed.
It is for these reasons that bus passengers are suffering as a result of these changes.
Have running times on any of the effected routes been increased? The Baker Street two-way project team claimed that journey times would remain comparable. As a result you would not an expect increase in running times at this point. Let us see what happens in time, remember it may not be until contract renewal time that such changes happen. Moreover remember many of the bus routes concerned have quite padded timetables, so may well be able to accommodate losing some time in each direction.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 15, 2019 18:22:37 GMT
Have running times on any of the effected routes been increased? The Baker Street two-way project team claimed that journey times would remain comparable. As a result you would not an expect increase in running times at this point. Let us see what happens in time, remember it may not be until contract renewal time that such changes happen. Moreover remember many of the bus routes concerned have quite padded timetables, so may well be able to accommodate losing some time in each direction.
My guess would be that the 113 and 139 have saved a bit of time northbound but the 13, 189 and 274 take slightly longer but probably no significant difference either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 18:37:55 GMT
Took a ride on the 30 down there today. Seemed ok to me ?
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 15, 2019 18:58:46 GMT
The Baker Street two-way project team claimed that journey times would remain comparable. As a result you would not an expect increase in running times at this point. Let us see what happens in time, remember it may not be until contract renewal time that such changes happen. Moreover remember many of the bus routes concerned have quite padded timetables, so may well be able to accommodate losing some time in each direction.
My guess would be that the 113 and 139 have saved a bit of time northbound but the 13, 189 and 274 take slightly longer but probably no significant difference either way. I took the trouble to do some timings before the changes. I haven't yet compared against those timings, but I will do once it is all bedded down.
I haven't yet used the 113 over this section since the changes, but I have used the 139 several times and I would expect the 113 to be no different. I agree that logically you would expect these two routes to be quicker northbound, but unfortunately they are not. The reason why is the bad phasing of lights which loses quite a bit of time, and every time I used the 139 it had to queue far longer to turn right into Orchard Street than it ever did into Portman Street.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Mar 15, 2019 21:47:30 GMT
My guess would be that the 113 and 139 have saved a bit of time northbound but the 13, 189 and 274 take slightly longer but probably no significant difference either way. I took the trouble to do some timings before the changes. I haven't yet compared against those timings, but I will do once it is all bedded down.
I haven't yet used the 113 over this section since the changes, but I have used the 139 several times and I would expect the 113 to be no different. I agree that logically you would expect these two routes to be quicker northbound, but unfortunately they are not. The reason why is the bad phasing of lights which loses quite a bit of time, and every time I used the 139 it had to queue far longer to turn right into Orchard Street than it ever did into Portman Street.
As I daily commute through the changes I have the following impressions: - NB Baker Street has little traffic besides buses, but now buses can not pass each other so trip takes longer - SB Glouster place sees significant traffic so I would not recommend rerouting a bud through it. - SB Baker Street has less traffic, but travelling still takes significant time.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 18, 2019 16:16:05 GMT
Tfl do seem to have reached a stalemate on these changes. Whislt we should be patient it's strange that they haven't even made one of their announcements saying we had a high level of responses and will make a decision shortly. It's been a long time since the consultation closed so there may be some hard negotiations going on before any decisions can be released.
|
|