Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, James Farrar wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 02:30:32 -0800, "Paul Weaver" wrote: Say make the following roads motor-free (and get rid of speed bumps, traffic lights etc): Embankment from Albert Bridge to Tower Bridge, Oxford Street/ BayswaterRoad from Notting Hill to Liverpool Street, The Strand, The Mall, Portland Street/Regent Street, Woburn Place/Kingway/Waterloo Bridge, Blackfriars Road/Bridge Farringdon Road, and Bishopscade/ London Bridge/Borough Road/Westminster Bridge Road/Birdcage Road The office I work at is on one of those, and relies almost entirely on motor vehicles for a significant part of its business, so I hope your plan is going to cover the relocation costs! If i may ask, what's the business, and what does it use motor vehicles for? tom -- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:59:02 -0500, David of Broadway wrote: Andrew wrote: Or, download a super-simple version from: http://www.quickmap.com/downloads/q20supersimple.pdf Super-simple? Then again, London's bus maps aren't designed to make it easy to trace a route, which is the style I'm used to: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf I'm not sure if that style is genuinely easier to read or if I just find it easier to read because I'm accustomed to it. Has it ever been attempted for London? I'm not convinced it would work; London is a somewhat less organised city than NYC (especially north of 14th Street)! Indeed - i didn't even know we *had* a 14th Street! tom -- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul Weaver" wrote [snip] Bus drivers in London are a menace to cyclists, often overtaking with inches to spare, then pulling in and slamming the brakes on. They are loud and stink. Taxi's aren't much better when it comes to running you off the road. [snip] Cyclists who have that problem have usually created it for themselves by riding too close to the kerb. As everyone will tell you, read John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", the stuff about primary and secondary positions. Jeremy Parker |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, David of Broadway wrote:
James Farrar wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:59:02 -0500, David of Broadway wrote: Then again, London's bus maps aren't designed to make it easy to trace a route, which is the style I'm used to: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf I'm not sure if that style is genuinely easier to read or if I just find it easier to read because I'm accustomed to it. Has it ever been attempted for London? The closest we have are the quadrant maps: http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/n_east.pdf etc Which are, er, not very close. And there is the central London tourist bus map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/cen_bus.pdf Which is very limited in scope, and only shows a subset of the routes in the area it covers anyway. I'm not convinced it would work; London is a somewhat less organised city than NYC (especially north of 14th Street)! You want disorganized? Maybe I should have linked to Brooklyn instead of Manhattan: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/busbkln.pdf My dear fellow, you really should look at a map of London some time. Even Brooklyn is a paragon of geometrical order compared to this place. It seems like there's a basic difference in how bus routes are planned in the two cities. In New York, they're largely planned to run along a series of streets, and in the process they happen to run past a series of origins and destinations. In London, it appears as though they're largely planned to run past a series of origins and destinations, and in the process they happen to run along a series of streets. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions in both cities, but the basic approach may set the tone for the style of map. Possibly. There are also a lot more areas of parallel streets in New York, even in the outer boroughs, than in London. Also, your Manhattan map shows a measly 42 routes; a quick, semi-automatic, examination of the list on londonbusroutes.net indicates that we have 612 bus routes in London, not including night routes but including school relief and non-TfL routes. Not all of those go through zone 1/2, which i'd say is our equivalent of Manhattan, but i would imagine more than 42 do. tom -- When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:42:46 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote: Andrew wrote: http://www.quickmap.com/downloads/q20supersimple.pdf While I appreciate the problems inherent in cramming so many buses onto a single sheet of paper, it's hard to say that the map is "super simple." ![]() I think it's horrible - a bubblemap on steroids. I like the use of square brackets to indicate the terminus of a bus route. Don't know what the wavy lines and underlines under a route number means. Wavy lines seem to indicate part time service over a given section of route. This is correct for the 283 which does have differing termini depending on whether it runs to the Wetland Centre or not. However it is patently wrong for the 23 as all journeys run to Liverpool St and Westbourne Park now. It is correct for the 271 which has variable termini in the City. The underlining would seem to show a M-F only service - this is only shown on the Red Arrows which I think are the only services in Zone 1 with this service level. Is it really necessary to have the gradient effect at every bus stop? I find it visually distracting. The whole thing is distracting. It also deals with tube and railway stations in a strange and inconsistent manner. Give me a proper map any day. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:59:02 -0500, David of Broadway
wrote: Andrew wrote: Motorists who feel aggrieved by the extension of the London charging zone have some positive assistance this week with the launch of a new easy-to-read bus map for London. Easy-to-read? It gives me a headache. I don't like it. Or, download a super-simple version from: http://www.quickmap.com/downloads/q20supersimple.pdf Super-simple? Not really. Then again, London's bus maps aren't designed to make it easy to trace a route, which is the style I'm used to: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf I'm not sure if that style is genuinely easier to read or if I just find it easier to read because I'm accustomed to it. Has it ever been attempted for London? The real issue is that New York's bus system is a fair bit simpler than London's. I have used it and "studied" it from bus maps. Your use of and familiarity with your grid street pattern must also assist in comprehending the bus network. The use of "uptown", "midtown" and "downtown" as commonly understood descriptions of areas of Manhatten is also a further help. IIRC many services are described in this way as they run N-S or E-W (Crosstown?) - this must also help people know which way a bus is going. We really only have West End and City plus some district names which are very familiar like "Victoria". I know the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn are more involved in terms of service provision but your overall number of regular NYCTA routes is still relatively small. I know there are commuter express services as well but I believe they are advertised separately. You tend to have only one route on many main corridors which assists with map clarity hugely - in Central London that is pretty rare. We often have 3 as a minimum and up to 10 or so on the very busiest streets. I will say that your spider maps are much easier to read and much more useful than the maps we have posted at bus stops. They are fine if there is a direct bus from the stop you are standing at. They are hopeless if your journey requires interchange to another service at some point. There is no sense of there being a network with spider maps which I believe is counterproductive when you have a network which is as dense as London's and where the move to shorter routes over the last 4 decades means changing services is much more of a necessity. There is little to guide people as to how to accomplish such journeys if they are relatively unfamiliar with the bus network. The one advantage they do have is that they make an attempt to show you exactly (for the immediate area) and approximately (wider radius from origin) where bus stops are. That is a help. And anything is better than what NJTransit provides: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/bus/T0001.pdf Actually as a pocket guide I think that is not too bad. It should be in 24 hour clock format but at least it is an attempt to show every trip with journey time. Oh how I wish we could have that in London - it is only courtesy of a non TfL website that I have something approximating to the real timetable for my local route. I consider that to be a huge failing on the part of TfL - it's not as if we didn't used to have such info. The half hearted local transport guides have been scrapped. Even our quadrant bus maps are threatened which is another insane piece of nonsense. The guide also has an approximate geographic representation of the route the bus takes, transfer points, services to transfer to and some fare / zone information. It even tells you when there is a holiday schedule operating. Try finding any of that in London in a leaflet! I think you don't know when you are well off ! -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, David of Broadway wrote: James Farrar wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:59:02 -0500, David of Broadway wrote: Then again, London's bus maps aren't designed to make it easy to trace a route, which is the style I'm used to: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf I'm not sure if that style is genuinely easier to read or if I just find it easier to read because I'm accustomed to it. Has it ever been attempted for London? The closest we have are the quadrant maps: http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf http://cache.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/n_east.pdf etc Which are, er, not very close. Not close at all! At a junction, I can't tell which bus routes go which ways without matching a number over here to a number over there. I can't simply follow a colored line. And there is the central London tourist bus map: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/cen_bus.pdf Which is very limited in scope, and only shows a subset of the routes in the area it covers anyway. That's more along the lines of what I'm looking for, although I'd like to see a proper map, superimposed on a street map. (I have nothing against diagrams per se, and I think they work wonderfully for, e.g., the Underground, but I think a basic bus map works better in reference to the surrounding street network.) I'm not convinced it would work; London is a somewhat less organised city than NYC (especially north of 14th Street)! You want disorganized? Maybe I should have linked to Brooklyn instead of Manhattan: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/busbkln.pdf My dear fellow, you really should look at a map of London some time. Even Brooklyn is a paragon of geometrical order compared to this place. Oh, certainly, Brooklyn vs. London themselves. (I've been to London several times and I have A-Z's dating back to the black-and-white days.) I thought Mr(.) Farrar was referring to the bus route networks, not the street networks. It seems like there's a basic difference in how bus routes are planned in the two cities. In New York, they're largely planned to run along a series of streets, and in the process they happen to run past a series of origins and destinations. In London, it appears as though they're largely planned to run past a series of origins and destinations, and in the process they happen to run along a series of streets. I'm sure there are numerous exceptions in both cities, but the basic approach may set the tone for the style of map. Possibly. There are also a lot more areas of parallel streets in New York, even in the outer boroughs, than in London. Unquestionably. So street-oriented route design might not make much sense in London. Also, your Manhattan map shows a measly 42 routes; a quick, semi-automatic, examination of the list on londonbusroutes.net indicates that we have 612 bus routes in London, not including night routes but including school relief and non-TfL routes. Not all of those go through zone 1/2, which i'd say is our equivalent of Manhattan, but i would imagine more than 42 do. Good point -- the bus route network is much denser in London than in NYC. I wonder why that is. We have a total of 207 local and 36 express routes in the MTA New York City Transit bus network, plus 46 local routes and 35 express routes in the MTA Bus network (recently established to take over the private bus operations mostly in Queens and the Bronx). -- David of Broadway New York, NY, USA |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 19 Feb, 17:17, "Jeremy Parker" wrote:
"Paul Weaver" wrote [snip] Bus drivers in London are a menace to cyclists, often overtaking with inches to spare, then pulling in and slamming the brakes on. They are loud and stink. Taxi's aren't much better when it comes to running you off the road. [snip] Cyclists who have that problem have usually created it for themselves by riding too close to the kerb. As everyone will tell you, read John Franklin's "Cyclecraft", the stuff about primary and secondary positions. How does it help on a two lane road like Bayeswater Road? I typically ride about within 6" the centre of lane 1. The bus then doesn't bother pulling completely into lane 2, but even if it did, it has traffic tailing it. It then pulls straight in front of you and slams its breaks on. If you're luck it indicates. Practically every bus in rush hour stops at every stop along that road, so it shouldn't be a surprise to them. So, this bus is now 2 foot infront of you, you have to slam your brakes on to avoid plowing into the bus. You could move to lane 2 to re-overtake, however there is traffic behind you, and in the time it takes you to check over your shoulder, you could plow into the back of the bus. So there's no choice except to slow and stop. You then fidn that lane 2 is full. You can't normally ride in lane two, as you should stay in the left- hand lane when not overtaking. Simple answer is to prevent buses, taxis, and any other vehicle that is likely to stop in a few yards from overtaking bikes at all times. I wouldn't mind as much, but when going down bayswater road towards holland park cyclists are almsot universally faster than buses. It's as bas as when buses pointlessly overtake each other. Still, what you going to do. Ken likes buses, they do no wrong. Perhaps a small camera with wide angle lens mounted on the handlebars taking a picture every half a second would provide enough evidence? |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , David of Broadway
writes http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/cen_bus.pdf That's more along the lines of what I'm looking for, although I'd like to see a proper map, superimposed on a street map. While I agree in principle, it would simply not be possible in central London where there can be as many 15 routes (plus night buses) passing along one street. Either the map would have to be enormous, or there would have to be considerable topographical distortion to fit in the number of differently coloured lines. The alternative is the style of the quadrant maps which you say (and I agree) are not all that clear. Good point -- the bus route network is much denser in London than in NYC. I wonder why that is. Partly historic reasons - London's early adoption of railways and tubes resulted in an infrastructure that is difficult and expensive to adapt to modern needs, so buses were an important adjunct to the transport system from the late 19th-century onwards (in fact, many of the more tortuous routes still follow the lines of 19th-century horse-bus routes). Partly demographic reasons - In 1880 NYC's population was only just over 1.2m whereas London's was already three times that size. With little room for new roads or new railways, buses and trams were the only solution. Partly social reasons - traditionally, buses provided a cheap form of transport and the network was taken under state control at an early stage. Today, it is still a highly regulated network and (as Paul C rightly states in this group) benefits from a "virtuous circle" in which high frequencies make it popular, and so generate more and more traffic. Partly environmental reasons - only today the London Congestion Zone has been expanded, making it prohibitively expensive (when combined with car parking charges) for most of us to drive into Central London. Thus there is a strong demand for public transport, of which buses form an important part. (I'm a car owner, living 8 miles from the centre of London - but I would almost always go into that centre by railway or bus + tube: taking the car usually makes no economic sense.) -- Paul Terry |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, David of Broadway wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, David of Broadway wrote: James Farrar wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:59:02 -0500, David of Broadway wrote: Then again, London's bus maps aren't designed to make it easy to trace a route, which is the style I'm used to: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/manbus.pdf I'm not sure if that style is genuinely easier to read or if I just find it easier to read because I'm accustomed to it. Has it ever been attempted for London? I'm not convinced it would work; London is a somewhat less organised city than NYC (especially north of 14th Street)! You want disorganized? Maybe I should have linked to Brooklyn instead of Manhattan: http://www.mta.info/nyct/maps/busbkln.pdf My dear fellow, you really should look at a map of London some time. Even Brooklyn is a paragon of geometrical order compared to this place. Oh, certainly, Brooklyn vs. London themselves. (I've been to London several times and I have A-Z's dating back to the black-and-white days.) I thought Mr(.) Farrar was referring to the bus route networks, not the street networks. He was, but since the bus routes run along the streets, there is a certain degree of relation between their level of order! In particular, New York has a lot of griddy areas, where you can just fire a bus route down each avenue, with a few going across, and you cover the whole area without the routes crossing or converging. There aren't many places in London where you can do that, so you end up with a lot more routes crisscrossing and getting tangled up. tom -- the themes of time-travel, dreams, madness, and destiny are inextricably confused |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
3 Months TRAVEL CARD Zone 1 to Zone 6 for sale, 200 pounds | London Transport | |||
Oyster PAYG: zone 2 to zone 1 via zone 3 | London Transport | |||
DEcongestion zone map | London Transport | |||
Eastenders on the Map Was:Tube Map | London Transport | |||
Will Travelcard Zone 6 ever expand to include Dartford stattion? | London Transport |