Sorry, I mean the fantastic East London Transit System (Inc) (R) (C)
(tm?)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/east-londo...llbrochure.pdf
As published on the 15th. Nothing too earth shattering (although the
local preacher-types will have to find somewhere else to speak from in
Barking as they are planning to knock down the bandstand - sadly it
appears they are quite flexible as they also use the local buses to gain
trapped audiences).

On a completely different topic, I'm not too sure if the Waterloo
surrounding area redevelopment process has been mentioned here?
"The Mayor of London has published his draft planning framework for
Waterloo. Proposals include a new 'town square' and development above
the station." http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1985
--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

Paul G wrote:
Sorry, I mean the fantastic East London Transit System (Inc) (R) (C)
(tm?)

Why *are* they giving this more prominence than bendy/new decker
conversions? It doesn't look anything special to me.

Neil

On 17 Feb 2006 01:54:22 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Paul G wrote:
Sorry, I mean the fantastic East London Transit System (Inc) (R) (C)
(tm?)

Why *are* they giving this more prominence than bendy/new decker
conversions? It doesn't look anything special to me.

Neil

Was this not intended to part of a new trolley-bus network?

DC

"Paul G" wrote:

Sorry, I mean the fantastic East London Transit System (Inc) (R) (C)
(tm?)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/east-londo...llbrochure.pdf
As published on the 15th. Nothing too earth shattering (although the
local preacher-types will have to find somewhere else to speak from in
Barking as they are planning to knock down the bandstand - sadly it
appears they are quite flexible as they also use the local buses to gain
trapped audiences).

Interesting stuff. Appears very little is to be done about the motorised
shambles which is Ilford Lane, however.

As a nation, we can't afford to keep hospital wards open, but it's good to
know that money is available to relocate the taxi rank at Barking station
yet again.

And lets have the double decker with the Routemaster design cues, rather
than the free bendy bus.

Chris
Barking

On 16/2/06 22:52, in article , "Paul G"
wrote:


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/east-londo...llbrochure.pdf

From the doc:

quote
At present there is more demand for kerbside
parking and loading than there is room for.
The resulting illegal parking and loading creates
unnecessary congestion for all vehicles,
including buses, especially around bus stops
and junctions. It is proposed to adopt a layout
that would ensure that ELT vehicles can operate
without delays and enable them to pull up close
to the kerb at bus stops.
To achieve this, measures are proposed to
upgrade bus stops, including some stops built
out from the kerb, and also to introduce kerb
Œbuild-outs¹ at some junctions to provide inset
parking and loading bays.
These proposals could result in an overall
reduction of up to 20 parking spaces along the
whole length of Ilford Lane and Fanshawe
Avenue (just under 10 per cent of the existing
number)...
/quote

Brilliant. There's not enough parking, so we propose to reduce it further.

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In message , U n d e r a c h
i e v e r writes

Brilliant. There's not enough parking, so we propose to reduce it further.

This *WILL* be the pattern over coming decades - there is a pressing
need to reduce car travel for environmental reasons. I am all in favour
providing that public transport or cycling can offer a more attractive
alternative (and it already does for many of the journeys I undertake).

--
Paul Terry

On 18/2/06 19:08, in article , "Paul G"
wrote:

There's not enough parking, so currently drivers attempt to double park
in the street (reducing the road to a single lane for both directions)
or block kerbs etc. I guess the idea is to remove any opportunity for
drivers to stop other than at dedicated parking bays.

I don't see how changing road layouts can stop double parking. Providing
more parking bays, or faster turnover on the ones that are there already,
might help. But this also might not be possible. However reducing the number
of bays can surely only make things worse?

The road simply
isn't designed to be a high street with local shops - it's far too
narrow, but that's what it effectively is, as well as being a busy
thoroughfare between Ilford and Barking (and beyond).

I would have thought properly segregated public transport link would have
been a better idea then; like the DLR or Croydon Tram. Then there's no (or
little) conflict between mass transit and other road users (cars, cyclists).

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 18/2/06 20:23, in article , "Paul Terry"
wrote:

This *WILL* be the pattern over coming decades - there is a pressing
need to reduce car travel for environmental reasons. I am all in favour
providing that public transport or cycling can offer a more attractive
alternative (and it already does for many of the journeys I undertake).

Me also. I make very few car journeys in London. I cycle. I use the boat. I
use the bus almost daily. But taking away car parking spaces does not reduce
people's desire to use cars and there is no evidence that your going to get
modal shift from car to bus but putting in schemes like the one proposed.
And if I need to shift heavy goods from shop to home, I'm going to use the
car. And if there's no space outside, who wouldn't be tempted to double
park? And, as a cyclist, one of the banes of my life if crappy half-arsed
bus priority measures that are unnecessarily inconveniently and/or dangerous
to other road users.

I think the environmental cost of cars[1] should be applied to users by
means of (a) road pricing and (b) taxes on fuels based on their polluting
harm. We might find shifting the whole cost of motoring on to motorists
causes a great sea change in their behaviour. Bricking up the odd parking
space and 'build out' bus stops just ****es people off without necessarily
providing an alternative for the car user.

[1] and taxis, buses, lorries etc. for that matter.

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In message , David C.
writes
On 17 Feb 2006 01:54:22 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Paul G wrote:
Sorry, I mean the fantastic East London Transit System (Inc) (R) (C)
(tm?)

Why *are* they giving this more prominence than bendy/new decker
conversions? It doesn't look anything special to me.

Neil

Was this not intended to part of a new trolley-bus network?

Evidently not at the current time, but I think so at one point; I guess
the reason why there is this whole consultation is to make upgrading the
route easier should the money/determination ever be found.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

In message , U n d e r a c h
i e v e r writes
On 18/2/06 19:08, in article , "Paul G"
wrote:

There's not enough parking, so currently drivers attempt to double park
in the street (reducing the road to a single lane for both directions)
or block kerbs etc. I guess the idea is to remove any opportunity for
drivers to stop other than at dedicated parking bays.

I don't see how changing road layouts can stop double parking. Providing
more parking bays, or faster turnover on the ones that are there already,
might help. But this also might not be possible. However reducing the number
of bays can surely only make things worse?
Seems to work quite well in Westminster (going from poorly defined
parking spaces to "rather too well" [1] defined parking spaces).

The road simply
isn't designed to be a high street with local shops - it's far too
narrow, but that's what it effectively is, as well as being a busy
thoroughfare between Ilford and Barking (and beyond).

I would have thought properly segregated public transport link would have
been a better idea then; like the DLR or Croydon Tram. Then there's no (or
little) conflict between mass transit and other road users (cars, cyclists).
Ah. I knew I left that £1m+++ somewhere Simply not worth it
currently for the benefits it would be likely to bring, although there's
another post around here mentioning the tramlink option. Also as the
route hasn't got space to park, it unsurprisingly hasn't got enough
space for a DLR track either! The Docklands was undeveloped/derelict
when the original DLR was built (and where the new Barking Reach
extension is currently planned to be built).

[1] depending on you're point of view!
--
Paul G
Typing from Barking