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.

Really it's a DEcongestion zone, freeing up the city for walking,
faster buses, and just better breathing all round.

Quickmap's new London by Bus map makes sense of decongestion, helps
Londoners survive tube closures and could prove a lifeline to Chelsea
tractor owners.

The new map is available at Waterstone's in the CZ extension area
(Kings Road, South Ken, High Street Ken and Notting Hill Gate),
Foyles, Stamfords, The Stationery Office shop in Holborn, selected
retailers and online at www.quickmap.com

Or, download a super-simple version from:
http://www.quickmap.com/downloads/q20supersimple.pdf

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 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.

Is it really necessary to have the gradient effect at every bus stop? I
find it visually distracting.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Feb 18, 10:34 am, "Andrew" wrote:
Really it's a DEcongestion zone, freeing up the city for walking,
faster buses, and just better breathing all round.

Not really, take look at Oxford Circus to see what happens when buses
are set free. 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. Private cars on the whole are fine,
the trouble makers are typically the ones in unregistered, unlicensed,
untaxed, uninsured cars that the cameras will no doubt help.

If you want to free the city up for walking and cycling, get rid of
buses.

On 18 Feb 2007 12:40:41 -0800, "Paul Weaver"
wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:34 am, "Andrew" wrote:
Really it's a DEcongestion zone, freeing up the city for walking,
faster buses, and just better breathing all round.

Not really, take look at Oxford Circus to see what happens when buses
are set free.

Buses are not set free in London - thankfully. If you think it is bad
now just try doubling or trebling the number of buses in Central London
which is what the feeding frenzy of deregulation would let lose.

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. Private cars on the whole are fine,
the trouble makers are typically the ones in unregistered, unlicensed,
untaxed, uninsured cars that the cameras will no doubt help.

If you want to free the city up for walking and cycling, get rid of
buses.

and how would people make all the journeys they currently make if all
the buses were got rid of? I don't see how London would function
without its bus system.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 18 Feb, 22:13, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 18 Feb 2007 12:40:41 -0800, "Paul Weaver"
wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:34 am, "Andrew" wrote:
Really it's a DEcongestion zone, freeing up the city for walking,
faster buses, and just better breathing all round.

Not really, take look at Oxford Circus to see what happens when buses
are set free.

Buses are not set free in London - thankfully. If you think it is bad
now just try doubling or trebling the number of buses in Central London
which is what the feeding frenzy of deregulation would let lose.

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. Private cars on the whole are fine,
the trouble makers are typically the ones in unregistered, unlicensed,
untaxed, uninsured cars that the cameras will no doubt help.

If you want to free the city up for walking and cycling, get rid of
buses.

and how would people make all the journeys they currently make if all
the buses were got rid of? I don't see how London would function
without its bus system.

Maybe not all roads, but many should have motor traffic banned, with
priority to non-motor traffic. I reckon a trip from Liverpool Street
to Notting Hill on a bike would take about half an hour to even
someone not used to riding if you didn't have to wait for buses to
knock you off. 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

Of course ideally we'd be doubling the number of tube lines, at least
in central London, but that would cost painful amounts of money
nowadays, and take decades.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Paul Weaver wrote:

On Feb 18, 10:34 am, "Andrew" wrote:

Really it's a DEcongestion zone, freeing up the city for walking,
faster buses, and just better breathing all round.

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.

Agreed. TfL should insist on the provision of showers at all depots.



You're right about the menace, though - the classic
overtake-just-before-a-stop maneuver must be on the training course,
they're that consistent about it. Still, i'd rather have one bus than
dozens of taxis - in fact i'd rather have one bus than one taxi; those
guys are real psychotics. Except Mr Hughes of course!

tom

--
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they don't like that.

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.

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 will say that your spider maps are much easier to read and much more
useful than the maps we have posted at bus stops.

And anything is better than what NJTransit provides:
http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/bus/T0001.pdf
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

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!

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)!

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

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.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA