Boltar wrote:
Stuck in a traffic jam again this morning caused (surprise surprise)
by a bus crawling along the road and stopping in the middle of it even when
it could pull into the bus stop, I suddenly wondered why it was deemed
necessary to have a bus stop every 200 hundred metres. Are the people who
use the bus too bone idle to be able to walk more than the length of a
football pitch to get to the stop? Reducing the stops by half would mean that
the jam I was in (and probably hundreds of others) would move at double the
speed (maybe even the heady heights of 15mph, woo!). Surely this would be
one way of reducing jams in the city? (And anyone who tells me that I should
be in the bus instead of my car anyway can just save their typing right now
because if they think I'm changing twice and spending probably 90 mins in 3
juddering buses and waiting in the rain to travel 9 miles they're living in
dreamland. If the tube or train was an option I'd use them but they arn't.)

B2003


London is now the City of The Bus. Any proposal made to any local
authority in London, or to TfL, as long as it contains the word BUS will
be welcomed with open arms and adopted. It doesn't matter if it is
sensible or not. It doesn't even matter if it makes for better bus
journeys or not, just so long as a superficial, unintelligent view of it
makes it look bus-positive.

If all this was done intelligently, with better planned routes, lanes,
etc then it could end up being a good thing, but I have no hopes...

What a pity it is isn't politically fashionable to make London the City
of The Great Tube/Train Services.

--
Nick H (UK)