On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:07:08 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

- Hail and ride by definition does not provide fixed
stops, and thus does not provide passenger information
or any kind of shelter. This makes the service far
more difficult to use and understand for a new or
infrequent user than a fixed-stop bus route.

On hail and ride routes in London there are information
and timetable displays affixed to various lamp-posts
along the route.

So why not just provide a bus stop and be done with it..?!

Because then you wouldn't be able to board just anywhere.

At 20:46:25 on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 Paul Corfield opined:-

I'm also struggling with the hail and ride
proposals because I think that the accessibility issues and the proposed
solutions will result in the de facto abolition of hail and ride. I'd
prefer that TfL just said that rather than pretend they and the highway
authorities can comply with the legislation and still have hail and ride
services. I use a few routes that are hail and ride and I think the
concept is very good and very convenient and I'd hate to see it go
because the people who value it most (often old people) would suffer
through the introduction of facilities that are apparently for their
benefit (fixed accessible boarding points but with a longer walk to
them).

There's a local stretch of road which is hail-and-raid because the
residents didn't want anything as vulgar as bus-stops on their road.
--
Thoss

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:08:53 +0100, asdf
wrote:

Because then you wouldn't be able to board just anywhere.

People tend to congregate in places anyway, so why not just indicate
the nearest safe[1] place to stop near those points with, umm, a bus
stop flag?

[1] People waiting on hail and ride routes have a habit of waiting at
road junctions, which are about as unsafe a place as you can get for
stopping a bus, and leaves the driver the choice between leaving them
behind or stopping dangerously.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:54:00 +0100, thoss
wrote:

There's a local stretch of road which is hail-and-raid because the
residents didn't want anything as vulgar as bus-stops on their road.

I think "tough" would be a sensible response. Or perhaps a choice
between a bus service with stops or no bus service at all.

I'm only talking about flags and timetables marking a sensible and
safe stop, BTW, not a full shelter which is probably over the top on
many such routes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:08:53 +0100, asdf
wrote:

Because then you wouldn't be able to board just anywhere.

People tend to congregate in places anyway, so why not just indicate
the nearest safe[1] place to stop near those points with, umm, a bus
stop flag?


Perhaps one of the reasons for hail and ride sections is that the latest DDA
spec for a simple bus stop insists on a raised curb, a shelter, next bus
indicators, lighting, tactile pavement markings etc, etc, so they have now
become completely unaffordable?

Paul

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:12:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Perhaps one of the reasons for hail and ride sections is that the latest DDA
spec for a simple bus stop insists on a raised curb, a shelter, next bus
indicators, lighting, tactile pavement markings etc, etc, so they have now
become completely unaffordable?

Are you absolutely sure of that? Next bus indicators are not
available in most locations outside London, for instance, and shelters
are pointless if it's an away-from-town stop where few people board.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:12:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Perhaps one of the reasons for hail and ride sections is that the latest
DDA
spec for a simple bus stop insists on a raised curb, a shelter, next bus
indicators, lighting, tactile pavement markings etc, etc, so they have now
become completely unaffordable?

Are you absolutely sure of that? Next bus indicators are not
available in most locations outside London, for instance, and shelters
are pointless if it's an away-from-town stop where few people board.

No, not sure at all - just a scatter gun attempt at cynicism really...

Paul

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:08:53 +0100, asdf
wrote:

Because then you wouldn't be able to board just anywhere.

People tend to congregate in places anyway, so why not just indicate
the nearest safe[1] place to stop near those points with, umm, a bus
stop flag?

[1] People waiting on hail and ride routes have a habit of waiting at
road junctions, which are about as unsafe a place as you can get for
stopping a bus, and leaves the driver the choice between leaving them
behind or stopping dangerously.

Or maybe stopping somewhere safe, nearby. Make 'em walk to the bus. They'll
soon get the message.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:54:11 GMT, "ian henden"
wrote:

Or maybe stopping somewhere safe, nearby. Make 'em walk to the bus. They'll
soon get the message.

IMX they don't, and meanwhile the bus is delayed while they walk to
the location concerned.

Better for all to mark the safe places in advance, so it's clear to
the users, and they can be made even safer by making it illegal to
park in them. We could even call them "bus stops".

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:02:29 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:

Because then you wouldn't be able to board just anywhere.

People tend to congregate in places anyway, so why not just indicate
the nearest safe[1] place to stop near those points with, umm, a bus
stop flag?

[1] People waiting on hail and ride routes have a habit of waiting at
road junctions, which are about as unsafe a place as you can get for
stopping a bus, and leaves the driver the choice between leaving them
behind or stopping dangerously.

IMX (again) hail and ride sections in London are in residential areas
with very low traffic volumes. I don't think there'd be much of a
problem with blocking a junction for a few seconds.