Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:18:08 +0000, derek wrote:
Oh, but it does. Very few cities in the world have a PT network on the
scale of London, combined with a horrific traffic problem for cars. If

And here lies the problem. Most PT supporters live in London, and don't
realise how lucky they Are to Have such a reliable and extensive PT
network.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

In article , Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:18:08 +0000, derek wrote:
Oh, but it does. Very few cities in the world have a PT network on the
scale of London, combined with a horrific traffic problem for cars. If

And here lies the problem. Most PT supporters live in London, and don't
realise how lucky they Are to Have such a reliable and extensive PT
network.

I've only lived in London for seven months. Prior to that I lived in a
town of 50K; admittedly not in the UK. Bus coverage was similar there.

Niklas
--
Who is this Time Being and why are people always doing things for him/her?

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On 09 Nov 2003 12:15:52 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

I've only lived in London for seven months. Prior to that I lived in a
town of 50K; admittedly not in the UK. Bus coverage was similar there.

Outside the UK (certainly in Western Europe), bus services tend to be
run sensibly. In the UK, London is the only place with a proper
planned, useful, well-run and good-value bus network. This is because
it was the only place in which deregulation was not carried out,
probably because the politicians all live/work there.

Try a similarly-sized town in the UK, and you'll see the picture is
not nearly as rosy. In Milton Keynes, while there have been a few
welcome improvements to evening/Sunday services recently, it is a sick
joke. I understand it is far worse elsewhere.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
Well, I hadn't mentioned throughput, but what would
you expect the maximum PT throughput per lane to be?

But if they have to stop to pick up customers,
what is the achieved passenger throughput?

You cant really say this globally as it depends upon the density of stops,
the number of people alighting etc.

You are free to choose the optimal density of stops,
but please explain what that is. For simplicity, I would
go with your assumption that everyone alights at the
city-centre bus-station near their office.

. Say a bus achieved
1/3 capacity of 72 sealts ie 24, and they have a lane capacity of 900 buses
per hour you are talking 21600 passenger throughput, taking out say 15
minutes of the hour

Even at a bus every 5 seconds I don't see how you
can pick up any passengers; if any bus actually stops,
all the following buses would have to.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:15:52 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

In article , Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:18:08 +0000, derek wrote:
Oh, but it does. Very few cities in the world have a PT network on the
scale of London, combined with a horrific traffic problem for cars. If

And here lies the problem. Most PT supporters live in London, and don't
realise how lucky they Are to Have such a reliable and extensive PT
network.

I've only lived in London for seven months. Prior to that I lived in a
town of 50K; admittedly not in the UK. Bus coverage was similar there.


I've lived in this pile of **** for a couple of months, before that I
lived in a city of 100k, with a crumbling bus infrastructure, and before
That a town of 120k where it took 45 minutes to get to the centre, and
another 20 minutes to get to the cinema. 6 miles an hour?

Until you live With 2 buses an hour (maximum) from 7-5, and thats it, you
can't say jack. And that's actually good compared with most areas of the
UK.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

In article , Paul Weaver wrote:

I've lived in this pile of **** for a couple of months, before that I
lived in a city of 100k, with a crumbling bus infrastructure, and before
That a town of 120k where it took 45 minutes to get to the centre, and
another 20 minutes to get to the cinema. 6 miles an hour?

Nice.

Until you live With 2 buses an hour (maximum) from 7-5, and thats it, you
can't say jack.

How does that follow?

And that's actually good compared with most areas of the UK.

So I'm told, and I have no problems believing it after a stay in the
West Country not too long ago, before moving here.

Niklas
--
"Kids have it easy today. All they have to listen to is stories about how back
in the '70s we had to listen to stories about how bad it was back in the '30s."
-- Keith Lynch

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer
is
puvblic
transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and
therefore
over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For
example
go
into
any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there
to
be
seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto
public
transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the
congestion
would be far less.

cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport
would
be
faster and more reliable.

How fast would urban public transport be with no cars
on the road? (and no vans, cycles, taxis etc. if that helps).

Is this a question, is it not obvious enough.

It will be exactly the travel time + the stops for pick up/drop off,
without
any delay occurring due to congestion,

And what will the travel speed be, and who long will
each stop take, and how frequently will the stops occur?
Or, alternatively, how fast would a typical journey be?




Well this depends upon the usage the frequency of buses, the congestion
levels. The reason for the introduction of bus lanes at intersections was
to
advance the bus to the front of the queues thus gaining back on the
journey
speed to make up for stops.

And the bus lanes are useless, because they are full of prats in cars
queuing to turn left or go straight on at the lights....

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

In article , Paul Weaver wrote:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:46:16 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

How does that follow?

Assuming most people in this country live with a London, or foreign, Style
bus service is stupid, yet PT fans constantly believe that population
density is high enough

Eh? I have made no such assumption.

Niklas
--
"From what I've seen the majority of computer users are more interested in the
tool they have sitting in their laps than anything else."
-- Bill Pechter

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 14:04:55 +0000, Ian Henden wrote:
And the bus lanes are useless, because they are full of prats in cars
queuing to turn left or go straight on at the lights....

TBH I hardly see cars in bus lanes, they are usually just empty lanes.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:46:16 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

In article , Paul Weaver wrote:

I've lived in this pile of **** for a couple of months, before that I
lived in a city of 100k, with a crumbling bus infrastructure, and before
That a town of 120k where it took 45 minutes to get to the centre, and
another 20 minutes to get to the cinema. 6 miles an hour?

Nice.

Until you live With 2 buses an hour (maximum) from 7-5, and thats it, you
can't say jack.

How does that follow?#

Assuming most people in this country live with a London, or foreign, Style
bus service is stupid, yet PT fans constantly believe that population
density is high enough