|
Post by sid on Jun 27, 2017 14:48:42 GMT
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. No need to apologise indeed it seems that we are generally in agreement. I think there schemes benefit everybody to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 27, 2017 14:53:58 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? 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? If you think the balance is being redressed, I'm afraid your mistaken. What happening is that rather than actually tackling congestion, it is making it worse by squeezing another mode of transport, for good or bad onto roads which, at the same time, are getting narrower. Until you significantly cut congestion, it will be never redressed and the poor old bus passenger takes multiple hits in the process.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 27, 2017 15:17:47 GMT
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? If you think the balance is being redressed, I'm afraid your mistaken. What happening is that rather than actually tackling congestion, it is making it worse by squeezing another mode of transport, for good or bad onto roads which, at the same time, are getting narrower. Until you significantly cut congestion, it will be never redressed and the poor old bus passenger takes multiple hits in the process. Making cycling safer is reducing congestion, less dependency on the car, the old argument about it being too dangerous to cycle in London doesn't apply anymore. I doubt if bus journeys will be significantly increased, as we all know they spend far too much time as it is dawdling along or sitting at stops in order to regulate the service.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 27, 2017 15:20:13 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. The 139 used to stand in the bus station, and the 243 and 521 used to share Mepham Street. The 243 moved into the bus station when the 521 was debendified, as the hefty frequency increase meant that the 521 needed more room, with the 139 shoved out to Waterloo Road. The 521 hasn't had its frequency reduced (yet!) so should still need the same amount of stand space. In Metroline days 139 drivers would sometimes stand in the bus station when there was room - not sure if Sovereign's drivers have cottoned on to that possibility yet. I hadn't noticed that stop 4 is proposed to be a bus stand. I agree it doesn't look like that will work well. I was a bit alarmed to see the 4 singled out. It doesn't make much sense when you look into the detail. Comparing the 4 with the 26, which follows the same routeing through the whole area, the 4 is meant to see an increase of 31-60s in the pm peak whereas the 26 has an increase of 0-30s. Yet the current schedules already give the 4 *more* time to cover Aldwych - Waterloo than the 26!
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jun 27, 2017 17:22:25 GMT
Not content with Archway, Elephant and Tottenham Hell the planners have more money to waste. If the 243 is moved it will be a shame as Mepham St is handy for the station. If drivers have to drop pax at Stop 3 then go to stand in Mepham Street, it's going to be a messy confusion. Nothing seems to pedestrian friendly if you want to get to the IMAX, unless there's a threatening subway soaked in pee with poor lighting... crossing 4 lanes of traffic - then taking your chance crossing the cycle lanes where cyclists fear no red light or person - will be nice if you have a kid in a buggy for instance. I guess they haven't factored in the knock-on effect it will have on other tour operators and Duck Tours who will be sat in roadworks as they inch towards Westminster Bridge... There's only so much a tour guide can say about traffic or terrible road layouts
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jun 27, 2017 17:42:00 GMT
Someone really does not like roundabouts and gyratorys.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 27, 2017 18:18:20 GMT
Someone really does not like roundabouts and gyratorys. And yet the Netherlands has its fair share of them and can design appropriate and safe cycling infrastructure. As the UK does not have the same traffic rules as the Netherlands we therefore have to protect cyclists with massive infrastructure changes. In the Netherlands the rules are that motor vehicles must give way to cyclists at junctions and when turning off roundabouts on to another lane and also when turning off a main road into a side road. If a cycle lane crosses these "exit" roads and a cycle is coming along the car MUST stop. We could save ourselves a hell of a lot of cost if the driving rules were changes and drivers / cyclists / pedestrians were trained about it. I don't doubt the massive scale of the "re-education" exercise that this change would entail given decades and decades of cars believing they have priority over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE but we do need a more "rounded" approach that involves behaviours as well as cycle lanes and traffic lights.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Jun 27, 2017 19:55:48 GMT
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. One of the best ever comments on here and as a bus driver I totally agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Jun 27, 2017 20:22:10 GMT
I hadn't noticed that stop 4 is proposed to be a bus stand. It doesn't look like that will work well That is what i was thinking, as if there is a bus standing near where the cycle lane starts, it would be difficult for buses to pass to go into the station.
|
|
|
Post by northken on Jun 28, 2017 7:19:23 GMT
Someone really does not like roundabouts and gyratorys. And yet the Netherlands has its fair share of them and can design appropriate and safe cycling infrastructure. As the UK does not have the same traffic rules as the Netherlands we therefore have to protect cyclists with massive infrastructure changes. In the Netherlands the rules are that motor vehicles must give way to cyclists at junctions and when turning off roundabouts on to another lane and also when turning off a main road into a side road. If a cycle lane crosses these "exit" roads and a cycle is coming along the car MUST stop. We could save ourselves a hell of a lot of cost if the driving rules were changes and drivers / cyclists / pedestrians were trained about it. I don't doubt the massive scale of the "re-education" exercise that this change would entail given decades and decades of cars believing they have priority over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE but we do need a more "rounded" approach that involves behaviours as well as cycle lanes and traffic lights. The thing is that this is all achievable under current UK rules. There are several good examples of pedestrian and cycle priority across side roads, but unfortunately these are few and far between given that it's easier and part of the culture to prioritise cars, and also that many local highway authorities lack initiative. Dutch roundabouts (of which the first UK one is to be installed in Cambridge) are now also a possibility with the introduction of parallel crossings into TSRGD 2016, but as I've said before no one knows what these are because the DfT utterly failed to educate people about them. There are many solutions that don't require a traffic signal and in the Netherlands many cities are starting to remove them, bit we're British so...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 28, 2017 10:35:02 GMT
And yet the Netherlands has its fair share of them and can design appropriate and safe cycling infrastructure. As the UK does not have the same traffic rules as the Netherlands we therefore have to protect cyclists with massive infrastructure changes. In the Netherlands the rules are that motor vehicles must give way to cyclists at junctions and when turning off roundabouts on to another lane and also when turning off a main road into a side road. If a cycle lane crosses these "exit" roads and a cycle is coming along the car MUST stop. We could save ourselves a hell of a lot of cost if the driving rules were changes and drivers / cyclists / pedestrians were trained about it. I don't doubt the massive scale of the "re-education" exercise that this change would entail given decades and decades of cars believing they have priority over EVERYTHING and EVERYONE but we do need a more "rounded" approach that involves behaviours as well as cycle lanes and traffic lights. The thing is that this is all achievable under current UK rules. There are several good examples of pedestrian and cycle priority across side roads, but unfortunately these are few and far between given that it's easier and part of the culture to prioritise cars, and also that many local highway authorities lack initiative. Dutch roundabouts (of which the first UK one is to be installed in Cambridge) are now also a possibility with the introduction of parallel crossings into TSRGD 2016, but as I've said before no one knows what these are because the DfT utterly failed to educate people about them. There are many solutions that don't require a traffic signal and in the Netherlands many cities are starting to remove them, bit we're British so... You make some very good points in fact there was the usual furore about the Dutch roundabout in Cambridge, almost exactly the same comments as we hear about the London proposals. I've not been to Cambridge recently so I don't know how it's worked in practice but I doubt whether it's been anything like the unmitigated disaster many were predicting just like the London schemes haven't been. Unfortunately the common mindset in the UK is that the motorist is king and cyclists are a d*mn nuisance who shouldn't be allowed on the road. Attempts to give cyclists priority are likely to to be treated with contempt by many and that's why we need schemes like this in London.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2017 11:29:27 GMT
The thing is that this is all achievable under current UK rules. There are several good examples of pedestrian and cycle priority across side roads, but unfortunately these are few and far between given that it's easier and part of the culture to prioritise cars, and also that many local highway authorities lack initiative. Dutch roundabouts (of which the first UK one is to be installed in Cambridge) are now also a possibility with the introduction of parallel crossings into TSRGD 2016, but as I've said before no one knows what these are because the DfT utterly failed to educate people about them. There are many solutions that don't require a traffic signal and in the Netherlands many cities are starting to remove them, bit we're British so... You make some very good points in fact there was the usual furore about the Dutch roundabout in Cambridge, almost exactly the same comments as we hear about the London proposals. I've not been to Cambridge recently so I don't know how it's worked in practice but I doubt whether it's been anything like the unmitigated disaster many were predicting just like the London schemes haven't been. Unfortunately the common mindset in the UK is that the motorist is king and cyclists are a d*mn nuisance who shouldn't be allowed on the road. Attempts to give cyclists priority are likely to to be treated with contempt by many and that's why we need schemes like this in London. And yet when a roundabout or gyratory is removed here, your the first one jumping up and down saying how good it is - so all of a sudden, this one is good because it's got a cycle lane running around it. snoggle hit the nail of the head - in Holland, they've managed to have cyclists managing to use roundabouts & gyratories rather than wasting lots of money ripping the road network to pieces and ruining junctions left, right & centre. You could throw up all the cycle infrastructure you like but if the mindset is not re-trained, you will carry on having many issues. If people want me to like cyclists, stop at zebra crossings when I'm waiting like most car drivers do, stop running red lights and nearly colliding with me when I've got the green man showing, stop trying to turn the wrong way into a one way road & dont perform illegal U-turns across a busy road (I'm also looking at you cars) - once that is began to being adhered to, the 'hate' for cyclists will diminish and all road users could work together to transform the roads collectively.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 28, 2017 11:52:34 GMT
You make some very good points in fact there was the usual furore about the Dutch roundabout in Cambridge, almost exactly the same comments as we hear about the London proposals. I've not been to Cambridge recently so I don't know how it's worked in practice but I doubt whether it's been anything like the unmitigated disaster many were predicting just like the London schemes haven't been. Unfortunately the common mindset in the UK is that the motorist is king and cyclists are a d*mn nuisance who shouldn't be allowed on the road. Attempts to give cyclists priority are likely to to be treated with contempt by many and that's why we need schemes like this in London. And yet when a roundabout or gyratory is removed here, your the first one jumping up and down saying how good it is - so all of a sudden, this one is good because it's got a cycle lane running around it. snoggle hit the nail of the head - in Holland, they've managed to have cyclists managing to use roundabouts & gyratories rather than wasting lots of money ripping the road network to pieces and ruining junctions left, right & centre. You could throw up all the cycle infrastructure you like but if the mindset is not re-trained, you will carry on having many issues. If people want me to like cyclists, stop at zebra crossings when I'm waiting like most car drivers do, stop running red lights and nearly colliding with me when I've got the green man showing, stop trying to turn the wrong way into a one way road & dont perform illegal U-turns across a busy road (I'm also looking at you cars) - once that is began to being adhered to, the 'hate' for cyclists will diminish and all road users could work together to transform the roads collectively. These schemes benefit pedestrians as well, it's not all about cyclists. As for the general stereotyping of cyclists as having no respect for the law many motorists are every bit as bad, indeed I'm sure many cyclists also drive and I can't imagine they go from law abiding citizens to complete lunatics when they switch from driving to cycling or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2017 13:06:46 GMT
And yet when a roundabout or gyratory is removed here, your the first one jumping up and down saying how good it is - so all of a sudden, this one is good because it's got a cycle lane running around it. snoggle hit the nail of the head - in Holland, they've managed to have cyclists managing to use roundabouts & gyratories rather than wasting lots of money ripping the road network to pieces and ruining junctions left, right & centre. You could throw up all the cycle infrastructure you like but if the mindset is not re-trained, you will carry on having many issues. If people want me to like cyclists, stop at zebra crossings when I'm waiting like most car drivers do, stop running red lights and nearly colliding with me when I've got the green man showing, stop trying to turn the wrong way into a one way road & dont perform illegal U-turns across a busy road (I'm also looking at you cars) - once that is began to being adhered to, the 'hate' for cyclists will diminish and all road users could work together to transform the roads collectively. These schemes benefit pedestrians as well, it's not all about cyclists. As for the general stereotyping of cyclists as having no respect for the law many motorists are every bit as bad, indeed I'm sure many cyclists also drive and I can't imagine they go from law abiding citizens to complete lunatics when they switch from driving to cycling or vice versa. Maybe all the many reckless cyclists I see are the reckless minority in cars? These schemes do not always benefit pedestrians - the Waterloo scheme has no extra benefit for pedestrians for example bar one crossing installed next to the South Bank. The Lambeth Bridge scheme has little benefit for pedestrians either.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 28, 2017 16:03:44 GMT
The problem I have with this and some of the other similar plans is they are pro cycling and not really pro anything else. Not even really all that pro pedestrian. Cycling is still relatively niche, and will probably remain thus. A bit more pro pedestrian and bus stuff would be most welcome. Most of the time I carry far too much to cycle, but bus travel remains a viable option until they slow me down to a point where I will add to congestion by buying myself a little car, because it sure won't be a bicycle!...
|
|