On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:40:18 -0000, Brimstone put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Paul Weaver wrote:

Almost every day I see at least one bus "broken down" at a bus stop,
doors closed, driver reading the paper, hazards flashing away.

Buses must be very unreliable

Are you certain that it's broken down?

I rather suspect that's his point!

Mark
--
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 06:50:32AM -0800, wrote:

I dont know if it is related to the economic situation but recently I
have found that a lot more buses are waiting time at bus stops. Is
this strictly speaking legal. They load up then wait for about a
minute before moving off delaying the traffic behind. Maybe there are
more buses running early as there is less traffic on the road but are
they allowed to just stop at a bus stop.

It would be better if they just kept on going. If they get to their
destination early then maybe the timetable needs changing rather than
hogging the road for no good reason.

No, it wouldn't be better. They'd just all bunch up, leaving a huge gap
in the middle of the service. Whenever I've been on a bus that does
this (it's not that often - and I've not seen it get more prevalent
recently) the driver has made an announcement to explain why.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

All praise the Sun God
For He is a Fun God
Ra Ra Ra!

On 5 Dec 2008 14:21:32 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

(Motor) traffic is stopped by many things. The greatest cause of delays
to traffic is motorists in cars.

ITYM "traffic"

I meant what I typed, motor traffic. Cyclists and their vehicles are
less encumbered by motor vehicle constipation.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is to
make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and bus
boarders in the space the layby used to take up.

Deliberately introducing delays to traffic benefits buses, how?

Your point relies on a false premise, contained in the first five
words, which I explained before.

However, given that motorists cause most of the delays to motorised
traffic (a term which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes buses)
by the sheer volume of motorists there are things which can be done.
One of these things is to encourage motorists out of their little
metal prisons by making alternatives more attractive. Another thing
is to relocate the congestion to places where it is easier for
public transport vehicles to have priority (and thus encourage
further modal shift). Bus lanes and virtual bus lanes are examples
of this approach. One place where this has been done is the A90 from
the Forth Road Bridge into Edinburgh. As I recall the results, as
well as speeding up priority vehicles by something like 20 minutes
it also speeded up motorists by a minute or two.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Adrian wrote:

Deliberately introducing delays to traffic benefits buses, how?

it doesn't. But Hansen has been into evidence free mantra for so long
that there's little point questioning his religious beliefs.

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

(Motor) traffic is stopped by many things. The greatest cause of
delays to traffic is motorists in cars.

ITYM "traffic"

I meant what I typed, motor traffic.

Which isn't what you typed.

You typed "motorists in cars". Look up a bit - it's still quoted,
unedited.

Cyclists and their vehicles are less encumbered by motor vehicle
constipation.

Sure. But buses, trucks, vans and other non "motorists in their cars"
traffic is part of, vehicle-for-vehicle a greater contributor to, and
affected by that traffic.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is
to make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and bus
boarders in the space the layby used to take up.

Deliberately introducing delays to traffic benefits buses, how?

Your point relies on a false premise, contained in the first five words,

Ah, so those bus-stop laybys get filled in unwittingly? Or is the effect
- which you then describe as beneficial - unknown until it inevitably
happens?

which I explained before.

You did. However, since you've already contradicted that explanation,
you'll excuse me for being sceptical about it.

One of these things is to encourage motorists out of their little metal
prisons

****, you're as bad as Duhg.

by making alternatives more attractive.

"Buses - currently so bad "little metal prisons" are preferable."
You do do the hard-sell well...

As I recall the results, as well as speeding up priority vehicles by
something like 20 minutes it also speeded up motorists by a minute or
two.

I wonder how that could possibly happen unless the causes of traffic
really aren't as massively simplistic ("motorists in cars") as you try to
claim?

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:57:23 +0000, Mark Goodge
wrote:

If the council didn't provide bus stops, the buses would just stop
wherever was convenient for them.

Which is exactly what they do on my local route. It's a pain, though,
as they end up stopping far too frequently and are thus quite slow.

What you do find, though, is that a number of locations have
effectively become bus stops by convention. The next logical step is
sticking up a flag and timetable board.

Neil

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

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:37:40 +0000 someone who may be ®i©ardo
wrote this:-

Some cities have even deliberately filled in bus lay-bys

Correct.

just to make congestion worse,

Incorrect.

There are a number of reasons for exterminating bus laybys, from
widening a former narrow part of the pavement, through allowing the
driver to pull away as soon as everyone is off/on to making sure bus
and bus boarder align in order to make life easier for everyone but
particularly those with mobility problems. Any traffic calming
effect is just a bonus.


What is the "bonus" in holding up the traffic for miles around? Those
that implement this sort of thing are too stupid to see that it affects
buses as well as all other road users, so everybody loses.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Abo wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:50:32 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

I dont know if it is related to the economic situation but recently I
have found that a lot more buses are waiting time at bus stops. Is
this strictly speaking legal.

Yes.

They load up then wait for about a
minute before moving off delaying the traffic behind. [snip]

It would be better if they just kept on going.

Tell that to passengers who miss the bus because it is running
early.

You cut the important point of 'If they get to their
destination early then maybe the timetable needs changing rather than
hogging the road for no good reason', you nob.

But traffic conditions from hour to hour, day to day and so on. There
has to be some leeway built into the timetable to take account of this.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:29:15 -0000 someone who may be "Depresion"
127.0.0.1 wrote this:-

Bus companies don't have the right to build laybys wherever they need a
stop and on many routes there wouldn't be any place to put them , or
alternative locations to use
Then they don't get to stop and traffic can flow again. Good solution.

(Motor) traffic is stopped by many things. The greatest cause of
delays to traffic is motorists in cars. There are so many of them
that they clog roads in towns. After that delays are caused by
things like road junctions, though these are really a manifestation
of too many motorists.

There are two ways to solve congestion. The first way to do this
only works for a while, knock everything down and expand into the
countryside. Where this has been tried it has only worked for a
while before congestion rose again. Los Angeles is a good example.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is
to make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and
bus boarders in the space the layby used to take up. Not only does
it work but it is better for everyone, despite the whining of a
small but vocal minority.



Funny old world isn't it. The refusal to expand the road networks
results in severe traffic congestion for all forms of vehicular
transport, but it's only ever the fault of the private motorist.

Presumably, with the ever increasing overcrowding on the rail network,
you're in favour of closing a few branch lines to assist people in
deciding to find alternative forms of transport, in addition to pricing
this form of transport beyond the means of many people?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

David Hansen wrote:
On 5 Dec 2008 14:21:32 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

(Motor) traffic is stopped by many things. The greatest cause of delays
to traffic is motorists in cars.
ITYM "traffic"

I meant what I typed, motor traffic. Cyclists and their vehicles are
less encumbered by motor vehicle constipation.

The second way works in the long term. Transfer some of the trips to
walking, cycling and public transport. One of the ways to do this is to
make buses more attractive. One of the ways of making buses more
attractive is by filling in laybys and installing better stops and bus
boarders in the space the layby used to take up.
Deliberately introducing delays to traffic benefits buses, how?

Your point relies on a false premise, contained in the first five
words, which I explained before.

However, given that motorists cause most of the delays to motorised
traffic (a term which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes buses)
by the sheer volume of motorists there are things which can be done.
One of these things is to encourage motorists out of their little
metal prisons by making alternatives more attractive. Another thing
is to relocate the congestion to places where it is easier for
public transport vehicles to have priority (and thus encourage
further modal shift). Bus lanes and virtual bus lanes are examples
of this approach. One place where this has been done is the A90 from
the Forth Road Bridge into Edinburgh. As I recall the results, as
well as speeding up priority vehicles by something like 20 minutes
it also speeded up motorists by a minute or two.


And if you've no wish to go to Edinburgh?

--
Moving things in still pictures!