Bendy buses should be brought back London Assembly Transport Committee

[Via Bank]

I do believe artics are ideal for certain routes, but the roads must be set up for them to mitigate some of the problems we saw last time.

In practice, I think that means bus priority measures, redesigned junctions to reduce the risk of buses blocking them, and safe, well-protected pedestrian crossings, pavements, and cycle tracks, along the whole route. Poor quality signalised junctions, piecemeal cycle lanes without bus stop bypasses, on-street parking, and staggered pedestrian crossings of the type typical in London ten years ago (and still pretty typical now) will force vulnerable road users into conflict, and encourage them to take risks - which will be much more dangerous with a longer vehicle with more blind spots.

Route 25 would probably be ideal for a return to artic operation - there are some OK (but not great) protected cycle tracks between Aldgate and Stratford which could, and should, be upgraded and extended in both directions; it's reasonably straight; the majority of the route is on bus lanes.

Given that the Mayor's draft transport strategy emphasises that he wants walking and cycling to become the default modes for short journeys, I can't see artic operation being compatible with this vision without considerable changes to the configuration of the streets they would run on. It's not necessarily a case of London not having physical space on the road, it's that too much is allocated for the use (and often storage) of private cars, and not enough for the smooth, safe, and separated flow of pedestrians, bicycles, buses, HGVs etc. In a city as crowded as London, that simply isn't sustainable.

 

[96tommy]

Route 25 would probably be ideal for a return to artic operation - there are some OK (but not great) protected cycle tracks between Aldgate and Stratford which could, and should, be upgraded and extended in both directions; it's reasonably straight; the majority of the route is on bus lanes.

25 is my local route and I use it most days, the bendy buses were handy for the capacity and space compared to the often overcrowded Gemini's and E400s on the route in recent years. A suggestion could be a shortened down route from Bank/Aldgate to Ilford and avoiding Central London. Ideal in that it is the most crowded part of the route and with CS2 recently opening, the part of CS2 between Aldgate and Stratford only has about 3 or 4 bus stops - mainly on Whitechapel High Street (although I imagine this changes when the refurbished entrance to Whitechapel station opens) and 1 I think near Queen Mary's which are part of the cycle path, most of the cycle path avoids bus stops and goes behind them.

 

[Mojo]

I'm one of those that has deserted the bus network in the past year; I regularly used to catch a bus to/from Archway station but have all but given up due to the traffic chaos caused by the bizarre redevelopment of the roundabout there to create a pedestrian piazza (which is already looking tatty thanks to misuse and the fact there isn't really anything in the middle of the ex-roundabout that makes someone want to go there).

Of the six bus routes from there to my house you could previously exit the station, not need to cross the road and wait at one bus stop [technically there were two flags but the stops were in the same place] for whichever bus came first. Now these six routes are spread out across four different stops in totally different locations and on different sides of the road. This is then combined with the fact that the buses sit in traffic jams all day long as what was previously a multi-lane approach to a roundabout is now single lanes from almost every direction, including at one approach where the bus lane ends immediately before traffic lights for an unnecessary build-out of the road making it very difficult for the bus to pull off.

Things like Wi-fi are unnecessary gimmicks in urban areas (except on LU!) where chances are most customers that want to go online will have a data package that will be much quicker than signing in to a Wi-fi splash page.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm one of those that has deserted the bus network in the past year; I regularly used to catch a bus to/from Archway station but have all but given up due to the traffic chaos caused by the bizarre redevelopment of the roundabout there to create a pedestrian piazza (which is already looking tatty thanks to misuse and the fact there isn't really anything in the middle of the ex-roundabout that makes someone want to go there).

Of the six bus routes from there to my house you could previously exit the station, not need to cross the road and wait at one bus stop [technically there were two flags but the stops were in the same place] for whichever bus came first. Now these six routes are spread out across four different stops in totally different locations and on different sides of the road. This is then combined with the fact that the buses sit in traffic jams all day long as what was previously a multi-lane approach to a roundabout is now single lanes from almost every direction, including at one approach where the bus lane ends immediately before traffic lights for an unnecessary build-out of the road making it very difficult for the bus to pull off.

Things like Wi-fi are unnecessary gimmicks in urban areas (except on LU!) where chances are most customers that want to go online will have a data package that will be much quicker than signing in to a Wi-fi splash page.

I think your post should be sent to TfL, the Mayor and all London Assembly members concerned with bus transport (which should, but won't be, all of them). It is almost as if Uber had been put in charge of organising bus travel, with a view to seeing its complete elimination within a decade. It is a tragedy what is happening, even for someone like me who is mostly following it from a distance. I don't which is stronger, my sadness or my anger: I suspect if I was in London more it would definitely be the latter. My London homes over the decades (and my sister's flat now where I stay when in London) have never been anywhere near the Underground system, nor were any train services anywhere near 'Metro' levels, so I've been reliant on decent bus services. After that period of gradual decline from the 1960s to the 1990s, resulting in some seriously bad services in places around the latter decade, the Congestion Charge introduction and Peter Hendy being put in charge of bus transport, with Leon Daniels to back him up, saw many innovations and much-improved bus routes, with increased frequency and (for a while) fewer traffic delays overall. It's all being undone now, and it can't all be put down to a wicked Tory government refusing TfL's rightful due, because even with sufficient funds I suspect a lot would be wasted on the sort of ridiculous scheme you describe.

 

[Mikey C]

A lot of the decisions are political, and have consequences.

Removing buses from Oxford Street may be appealing, but when useful and historic bus links are chopped in two to allow it, it suddenly doesn't seem so beneficial. Similarly, the growth in cycle lanes and priority had had an impact on buses.

The Borismasters may be flawed, but they are quite a clever design, with their completely flat floor, whereas the popular Volvo B5 hybrids have quite a compromised rear half of the lower deck. It would be interesting to see if they're quicker than conventional DDs, with open boarding, 2 staircases and 3 doors. And for the brief time the open platform was available, I certainly used it to get on and off in traffic.

 

[Antman]

A lot of the decisions are political, and have consequences.

Removing buses from Oxford Street may be appealing, but when useful and historic bus links are chopped in two to allow it, it suddenly doesn't seem so beneficial. Similarly, the growth in cycle lanes and priority had had an impact on buses.

The Borismasters may be flawed, but they are quite a clever design, with their completely flat floor, whereas the popular Volvo B5 hybrids have quite a compromised rear half of the lower deck. It would be interesting to see if they're quicker than conventional DDs, with open boarding, 2 staircases and 3 doors. And for the brief time the open platform was available, I certainly used it to get on and off in traffic.

That was the whole point of the LT, an open platform and conductor and they were popular while they lasted. The buses themselves are fine, obviously there's a few little flaws the same as with any bus.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The road changes at Archway are a disaster. It used to be as quick for me to get the bus to Muswell Hill from there as Highgate station, but not anymore.

As for Oxford Street, there needs to be some buses that run through, but the number needs to be lower. I think curtailing the 73 at Oxford Circus is a positive step. Turning buses at the near end of the street, not the far end, is a good thing. Most people can, and do, walk the length of the street, and the Hopper fare should deal with the rest.

 

[Busaholic]

The road changes at Archway are a disaster. It used to be as quick for me to get the bus to Muswell Hill from there as Highgate station, but not anymore.

As for Oxford Street, there needs to be some buses that run through, but the number needs to be lower. I think curtailing the 73 at Oxford Circus is a positive step. Turning buses at the near end of the street, not the far end, is a good thing. Most people can, and do, walk the length of the street, and the Hopper fare should deal with the rest.

The 73 used to run from Stoke Newington to Hounslow, though it's been a decade or four since 'through' journeys were possible, and then only on a Sunday. Gradually it got cut back at the western end, first to Richmond, then Hammersmith, then diverted at Hyde Park Corner to Victoria, a move which did wonders for the route. Now it's Oxford Circus and I wouldn't be surprised to see that become Kings Cross within two or three years, or disappear altogether like the 13, with some rejigging of two or three other services to supposedly cover. And who will mourn it? Only the thousands of ex-passengers who made it their regular choice for convenience and value and have now had to find alternatives, or given up altogether.

I would challenge your statement that 'most people can, and do, walk the length of the street' if you mean Marble Arch tube to TCR ditto. Certainly most time-deprived working people would not choose this on a regular basis .I'm sure TfL would like all these people to use the Central Line to rake the fares in but that's not a good enough reason.

 

[carlberry]

That was the whole point of the LT, an open platform and conductor and they were popular while they lasted. The buses themselves are fine, obviously there's a few little flaws the same as with any bus.

They were never conductors. They were there to reduce the risks involved in having a large hole in a moving vehicle, now dealt with by not having a hole.

 

[plcd1]

I think your post should be sent to TfL, the Mayor and all London Assembly members concerned with bus transport (which should, but won't be, all of them). It is almost as if Uber had been put in charge of organising bus travel, with a view to seeing its complete elimination within a decade. It is a tragedy what is happening, even for someone like me who is mostly following it from a distance. I don't which is stronger, my sadness or my anger: I suspect if I was in London more it would definitely be the latter. My London homes over the decades (and my sister's flat now where I stay when in London) have never been anywhere near the Underground system, nor were any train services anywhere near 'Metro' levels, so I've been reliant on decent bus services. After that period of gradual decline from the 1960s to the 1990s, resulting in some seriously bad services in places around the latter decade, the Congestion Charge introduction and Peter Hendy being put in charge of bus transport, with Leon Daniels to back him up, saw many innovations and much-improved bus routes, with increased frequency and (for a while) fewer traffic delays overall. It's all being undone now, and it can't all be put down to a wicked Tory government refusing TfL's rightful due, because even with sufficient funds I suspect a lot would be wasted on the sort of ridiculous scheme you describe.

The obsession with traffic schemes and gyratory removal is doubly damaging. You get 18 months of utter chaos during the works which deters bus ridership because of delays. Afterwards you get awkward junctions, low junction capacity, negligible bus priority and useless bus stop positions. Although I have not been to Archway for nearly two years - deliberately - the works there are clearly an utter disaster. The "consultation" process was completely botched and several Assembly members have criticised the end result. Quite how you end up with such an unmitigated mess in terms of bus stands and stops that even Metroline and Arriva publicly objected to the scheme I do not know. Normally bus operators keep quiet.

I think I am now past the "angry" stage. I just think the bus network is going to decline for years and years because no one is an advocate for it. There is no political support for it at City Hall from the Mayor nor from the London Assembly. Even mentioning "bendy buses" in their report is a huge mistake because it just distracts from the chronic underlying problems. The public have voted with their feet and will continue to do so until TfL take some radical action and stop kowtowing to the "crawl along at 5mph" and "bikes and pedestrians are king" advocates that are destroying cost effective bus operation. I fear the current Mayoral regime will go down as the worst to date in terms of mismanaging transport issues and that takes some doing after Boris's 8 years at City Hall.

 

[Via Bank]

The obsession with traffic schemes and gyratory removal is doubly damaging. You get 18 months of utter chaos during the works which deters bus ridership because of delays. Afterwards you get awkward junctions, low junction capacity, negligible bus priority and useless bus stop positions. Although I have not been to Archway for nearly two years - deliberately - the works there are clearly an utter disaster. The "consultation" process was completely botched and several Assembly members have criticised the end result. Quite how you end up with such an unmitigated mess in terms of bus stands and stops that even Metroline and Arriva publicly objected to the scheme I do not know. Normally bus operators keep quiet.

I think I am now past the "angry" stage. I just think the bus network is going to decline for years and years because no one is an advocate for it. There is no political support for it at City Hall from the Mayor nor from the London Assembly. Even mentioning "bendy buses" in their report is a huge mistake because it just distracts from the chronic underlying problems. The public have voted with their feet and will continue to do so until TfL take some radical action and stop kowtowing to the "crawl along at 5mph" and "bikes and pedestrians are king" advocates that are destroying cost effective bus operation. I fear the current Mayoral regime will go down as the worst to date in terms of mismanaging transport issues and that takes some doing after Boris's 8 years at City Hall.

I am going to say something that is almost certainly not going to make me popular.

We can not afford not to make bikes and pedestrians king. People are being killed, routinely, by appalling air quality, and in crashes. The other day someone was hit by a lorry while locking up their bike on the pavement at the Marble Arch gyratory. Pedestrians are being killed and critically injured on Oxford Street like clockwork.

This makes too much of London hostile for walking and cycling - and also, I might add, for bus users (who are, by definition, pedestrians.)

My view is that traffic should be prioritised in the order pedestrian > cycle > bus > everything else. This can be done. Have a look at the Bank Junction scheme, which bars everything except buses and cycles between 7am-7pm on weekdays. Buses glide through like silk. Pedestrians and cyclists can proceed at ease, only needing to keep an eye out for a small number of buses and the odd white-van driver or cabbie who's incapable of reading signs.

This kind of scheme is a net positive - but it only applies on weekdays, much like the congestion charge. And it only applies at one junction in inner London.

Private car ownership in London is on the rise again - no doubt part, in thanks, to the availability of cheap credit, but also because there has not been enough effort to disincentivise the use of private motor vehicles for short journeys. That is the problem here. Not pedestrians, or cyclists, whose main goal when using the road is 'don't get killed.' The problem is the volume of private motor cars being used and stored on our streets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We can not afford not to make bikes and pedestrians king.

Yes, we can.

What we need to do is to segregate, so all of these can coexist in the efficient, safe and effective manner they do in the Netherlands. London is starting down that path, but it needs to do it so much more, and that will be by banning (not taxing) the private car in many areas, not by simply making the car the preserve of the rich. And by restricting how, when and where large vehicles can make deliveries without having to trans-ship onto smaller, slower, safer ones.

Buses should get a clear run in bus lanes unimpeded by other traffic of any kind. Though we should also rationalise the bus network in the manner of other European cities to simplify it and reduce the huge number of bus routes in central London down to maybe 30 at absolute most. For bigger flows, rail (including tram) are hugely superior, and trams, being more predictable in movement, coexist much better with pedestrians and cyclists. Look at Manchester - trams manage to get through a crowded pedestrianised city centre without hitting people by and large - can you imagine buses doing that?

Cycles in bus lanes are madness. It's hard to imagine two classes of vehicle that are less compatible.

Cyclists need dedicated space (and a lot of it!) unimpeded by pedestrians.

Pedestrians need dedicated space unthreatened by other vehicles, cycles included, i.e. the pavement. Shared-use paths are all very well on things like the relatively quiet "country lane like" MK Redways but they are utterly ineffective and in many ways downright dangerous (for pedestrians) in busy city centres.

Then, and only then, should the car, taxi, lorry, van etc get what's left.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Private car ownership in London is on the rise again - no doubt part, in thanks, to the availability of cheap credit, but also because there has not been enough effort to disincentivise the use of private motor vehicles for short journeys. That is the problem here. Not pedestrians, or cyclists, whose main goal when using the road is 'don't get killed.' The problem is the volume of private motor cars being used and stored on our streets.

I certainly do, however, agree with this part of your posting.

 

[Via Bank]

Yes, we can.

What we need to do is to segregate, so all of these can coexist in the efficient, safe and effective manner they do in the Netherlands. London is starting down that path, but it needs to do it so much more, and that will be by banning (not taxing) the private car in many areas, not by simply making the car the preserve of the rich. And by restricting how, when and where large vehicles can make deliveries without having to trans-ship onto smaller, slower, safer ones.

Buses should get a clear run in bus lanes unimpeded by other traffic of any kind. Though we should also rationalise the bus network in the manner of other European cities to simplify it and reduce the huge number of bus routes in central London down to maybe 30 at absolute most. For bigger flows, rail (including tram) are hugely superior, and trams, being more predictable in movement, coexist much better with pedestrians and cyclists. Look at Manchester - trams manage to get through a crowded pedestrianised city centre without hitting people by and large - can you imagine buses doing that?

Cycles in bus lanes are madness. It's hard to imagine two classes of vehicle that are less compatible.

Cyclists need dedicated space (and a lot of it!) unimpeded by pedestrians.

Pedestrians need dedicated space unthreatened by other vehicles, cycles included, i.e. the pavement. Shared-use paths are all very well on things like the relatively quiet "country lane like" MK Redways but they are utterly ineffective and in many ways downright dangerous (for pedestrians) in busy city centres.

Then, and only then, should the car, taxi, lorry, van etc get what's left.

Quite - this is what I've been trying to get at.

We must have high quality, convenient pedestrian crossings and pavements. We must have wide, protected cycle tracks, which continue across junctions and link up with other cycle tracks, and which bypass bus stops (as on Blackfriars Road) in a predictable and clear way. And we must have clear, unimpeded bus lanes that operate all seven days of the week (and preferably all night too.)

Whether there is the political will to do this in London is another matter. Unfortunately the Mayor seems timid to make positive moves in order to be politically acceptable. He's dawdled over the closure of the Regent's Park outer circle for CS11 for over a year, seemingly because he doesn't want to upset affluent local residents who use Regent's Park as a rat run. And the recent Nine Elms scheme that TfL consulted on was pretty dreadful for bus users, cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We must have high quality, convenient pedestrian crossings and pavements. We must have wide, protected cycle tracks, which continue across junctions and link up with other cycle tracks, and which bypass bus stops (as on Blackfriars Road) in a predictable and clear way. And we must have clear, unimpeded bus lanes that operate all seven days of the week (and preferably all night too.)

Yep, this.

Other than people with disabilities, and those requiring special security measures such as the Prime Minister, there is fundamentally absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to use private cars or taxis within Zone 1.

There are also other options (increasingly so) than large vans and lorries for deliveries.

Therefore, it seems obvious to me that these vehicles should come last on the pecking order.

 

[Antman]

They were never conductors. They were there to reduce the risks involved in having a large hole in a moving vehicle, now dealt with by not having a hole.

Well yes their role was slightly different to traditional conductors but lets be honest, they do more than most train guards do. No offence to anybody who is a train guard btw.

 

[Antman]

I am going to say something that is almost certainly not going to make me popular.

We can not afford not to make bikes and pedestrians king. People are being killed, routinely, by appalling air quality, and in crashes. The other day someone was hit by a lorry while locking up their bike on the pavement at the Marble Arch gyratory. Pedestrians are being killed and critically injured on Oxford Street like clockwork.

This makes too much of London hostile for walking and cycling - and also, I might add, for bus users (who are, by definition, pedestrians.)

My view is that traffic should be prioritised in the order pedestrian > cycle > bus > everything else. This can be done. Have a look at the Bank Junction scheme, which bars everything except buses and cycles between 7am-7pm on weekdays. Buses glide through like silk. Pedestrians and cyclists can proceed at ease, only needing to keep an eye out for a small number of buses and the odd white-van driver or cabbie who's incapable of reading signs.

This kind of scheme is a net positive - but it only applies on weekdays, much like the congestion charge. And it only applies at one junction in inner London.

Private car ownership in London is on the rise again - no doubt part, in thanks, to the availability of cheap credit, but also because there has not been enough effort to disincentivise the use of private motor vehicles for short journeys. That is the problem here. Not pedestrians, or cyclists, whose main goal when using the road is 'don't get killed.' The problem is the volume of private motor cars being used and stored on our streets.

Excellent post, a calm and rational view on the subject rather than ranting and moaning that we normally get.

 

[plcd1]

I am going to say something that is almost certainly not going to make me popular.

We can not afford not to make bikes and pedestrians king. People are being killed, routinely, by appalling air quality, and in crashes. The other day someone was hit by a lorry while locking up their bike on the pavement at the Marble Arch gyratory. Pedestrians are being killed and critically injured on Oxford Street like clockwork.

This makes too much of London hostile for walking and cycling - and also, I might add, for bus users (who are, by definition, pedestrians.)

My view is that traffic should be prioritised in the order pedestrian > cycle > bus > everything else. This can be done. Have a look at the Bank Junction scheme, which bars everything except buses and cycles between 7am-7pm on weekdays. Buses glide through like silk. Pedestrians and cyclists can proceed at ease, only needing to keep an eye out for a small number of buses and the odd white-van driver or cabbie who's incapable of reading signs.

This kind of scheme is a net positive - but it only applies on weekdays, much like the congestion charge. And it only applies at one junction in inner London.

Private car ownership in London is on the rise again - no doubt part, in thanks, to the availability of cheap credit, but also because there has not been enough effort to disincentivise the use of private motor vehicles for short journeys. That is the problem here. Not pedestrians, or cyclists, whose main goal when using the road is 'don't get killed.' The problem is the volume of private motor cars being used and stored on our streets.

My concern is the relative balance of priority. I don't mind decent cycle paths and pedestrian areas being provided. However a lot of work to date has been to the detriment of effective bus operation. That is a ridiculous thing to do when buses used to carry over 6m jnys a day. TfL have effectively been told to implement a policy that involves shooting themselves in the foot. That is a ludicrous policy position.

I am afraid I am going to quibble over the level of injuries and deaths. I believe the rise of mobile / smart phones and people locking themselves inside their own personal audio worlds is a real issue. People not paying attention to what is going on around them makes them culpable for these accidents. We never had injury and death rates like this in the past and buses moved faster in the past than they do now. I do not agree with one sided analysis that makes bus drivers solely responsible for every accident. A small minority of accidents are down to wreckless and irresponsible driving - by all means prosecute those drivers and kick them off the job. No one wants bad bus drivers. However we have had a politically and personally motivated campaign on "bus safety" for several years which has had no counter balance against it.

If you read the draft Mayor's Transport Strategy you will several aspects that are in absolute contradiction. That is a stupid place to start from. The end result will be a much worse, less attractive and less used bus network. That is to no one's benefit.

I agree with you that there are too many cars and too much usage of cars in London. However making the bus network worse does nothing to provide an alternative. Not everyone will or wants to walk or cycle even for local trips even if there is better infrastructure. I live in an area where Mini Holland works are partly complete and also ongoing. All we have is a load of blocked side roads with cycle access points and a few "cycle hubs" with secure parking. Many side roads have the appallingly dangerous "Copenhagen kerbs" which drivers don't know to use with the result that people end up nearly being killed because they don't realise they're actually walking on a road rather than a pavement. At peak times all the main roads are jammed solid meaning bus journeys take 4 or 5 times longer than they used to do. There are no fewer cars in total nor are there lots of cycles whizzing around. There are policy gaps like utterly insufficient numbers of cycle parking stands in areas like the High Street where they'd make sense. What's the point of cycling if there is nowhere to secure your bike safely and securely while you do the shopping?

It might all come right in a few years time for Mini Holland areas given the scheme isn't complete and behaviour takes time to change but there's not a lot of positive evidence to date. Given that much of what is in a Mini Holland scheme is what the Mayor says he wants to do more generally you will understand my scepticism about the future. My point about there being no advocate for the positive contribution that buses can make to solving transport problems remains. No one in the Mayoralty is doing that nor is anyone at TfL. I thought Val Shawcross would be more vocal but she has said very very little other than the odd reference to more buses to development areas which is no different to the policy adopted under Boris Johnson's second term at City Hall.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would challenge your statement that 'most people can, and do, walk the length of the street' if you mean Marble Arch tube to TCR ditto. Certainly most time-deprived working people would not choose this on a regular basis .I'm sure TfL would like all these people to use the Central Line to rake the fares in but that's not a good enough reason.

Most people visiting Oxford Street can, and do, walk the length from Oxford Circus to Marble Arch, going on all the shops. For those who cannot walk then the Hopper fare allows them to travel on a second bus for free.

The biggest problem on Oxford Street is the volume of traffic, both buses and taxis. FWIW I'd cut most buses at one end or the other, running a limited numbef of buses through, and ban taxis and rickshaws from the street. It should be for pedestrians; look at how pleasant it is when it is shut at Christmas.

I don't generally disagree with the gyratory removal scheme- Old Street should have gone years ago- it just hasn't really worked at Archway. I think traffic lights work better than roundabouts and gyratories in most cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The biggest problem on Oxford Street is the volume of traffic, both buses and taxis. FWIW I'd cut most buses at one end or the other, running a limited numbef of buses through, and ban taxis and rickshaws from the street. It should be for pedestrians; look at how pleasant it is when it is shut at Christmas.

To me the nicest way to run transport on Oxford St would be trams, they work well in pedestrianised areas like Manchester city centre. I think I'd also provide a marked cycle lane.

 

[Busaholic]

Most people visiting Oxford Street can, and do, walk the length from Oxford Circus to Marble Arch, going on all the shops. For those who cannot walk then the Hopper fare allows them to travel on a second bus for free.

The biggest problem on Oxford Street is the volume of traffic, both buses and taxis. FWIW I'd cut most buses at one end or the other, running a limited numbef of buses through, and ban taxis and rickshaws from the street. It should be for pedestrians; look at how pleasant it is when it is shut at Christmas.

There is no space available at Marble Arch, Oxford Circus, Tottenham Court Road Station (Centre Point) or Piccadilly Circus to enable any more buses to terminate there, according to TfL anyway. When Crossrail got the go-ahead it might have been relatively easy (but costly) to purchase or lease more land at TCR and around Hanover Square for stand space or, in an ideal world, a proper bus station facility. Now we have the 3 and 15 cut back from Oxford Circus to Trafalgar Square, the 8 and 176 from OC to TCR and the proposal for the 25 to chuck its passengers off on Holborn Viaduct. The 137, formerly parking outside BHS on Oxford Street, has gone the way of that store! It now dumps its passengers at Marble Arch or, rather, a bus stop on the west side of Park Lane facing five or six lanes of traffic, a Philip Green-like two fingers up to bus passengers.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Many side roads have the appallingly dangerous "Copenhagen kerbs" which drivers don't know to use with the result that people end up nearly being killed because they don't realise they're actually walking on a road rather than a pavement.

They are walking on a pavement! As you allude in the beginning of your post, it's the drivers who don't realise they're driving on a footpath!

 

[Busaholic]

Private car ownership in London is on the rise again - no doubt part, in thanks, to the availability of cheap credit, but also because there has not been enough effort to disincentivise the use of private motor vehicles for short journeys. That is the problem here. Not pedestrians, or cyclists, whose main goal when using the road is 'don't get killed.' The problem is the volume of private motor cars being used and stored on our streets.

An interesting 'comment' piece appeared in the Times a few days ago; I'm afraid I got rid of the paper and can't recollect the name of the author, but his main point was that, as an electric car owner in Inner London, his travel to and from work now cost virtually nothing, as opposed to the nearly £6 he used to pay on his Oyster every day. He doesn't have to pay the Congestion Charge, didn't have to pay any Road Tax up to April this year, gets 4 hours parking in Westminster for the same price as a diesel/petrol driver would pay for 10 minutes and even has (at the moment) a free re-charge point. He admits to being quite well-off, and doesn't really see why he and his kind should be the recipients of such perks, to which I can only say Hear! Hear!

 

[HSTEd]

You could always dig up Oxford Street, bury a busway underneath and then build a pedestrianised street above it.

 

[plcd1]

They are walking on a pavement! As you allude in the beginning of your post, it's the drivers who don't realise they're driving on a footpath!

And therein lies the problem with introducing a new concept that drivers have no clue about. Having nearly been run over several times on these wretched kerbs and seen little kids nearly killed I think they are an utter liability. I now pause at what would be the kerb line and check both ways before carrying on walking. At least that way if something does happen I can say, if I survive, that I took reasonable steps to protect myself.

Are Copenhagen Kerbs even recognised in the Highway Code or taught to drivers undergoing driving lessons / taking their test? (checks Highway Code - not a single reference for pedestrians or drivers. That is a serious failng, IMO).

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is a Copenhagen kerb?

 

[Via Bank]

What is a Copenhagen kerb?

A Copenhagen kerb is one where the footway (and the cycle track, if there is one) continues across a T-junction with no break. There's a picture of one here. People turning into or out of the side road must give way to pedestrians or cyclists going straight ahead, just like how people turning out of the side road must give way to motor traffic on the main road.

And therein lies the problem with introducing a new concept that drivers have no clue about. Having nearly been run over several times on these wretched kerbs and seen little kids nearly killed I think they are an utter liability. I now pause at what would be the kerb line and check both ways before carrying on walking. At least that way if something does happen I can say, if I survive, that I took reasonable steps to protect myself.

Are Copenhagen Kerbs even recognised in the Highway Code or taught to drivers undergoing driving lessons / taking their test? (checks Highway Code - not a single reference for pedestrians or drivers. That is a serious failng, IMO).

Hmm. A cursory reference to the Highway Code reveals that Give Way markings - which all the Copenhagen crossings in Waltham Forest (where I assume you live) are marked - are there.

Rule 170 of the Highway Code also says...

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

And Rule 172 says...

The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

I struggle to see the problem with street design that gives pedestrians continuous visual priority along the street, which they should already have by law. It is true, perhaps, that drivers have trouble understanding how 'give way' markings work (I could've told you that, with video evidence, after around 20 minutes of cycling around Canning Town.) But if we continue with the street design we're used to in the UK, which suggests priority to driving over walking, nothing will ever change.

 

[Mojo]

Hmm. A cursory reference to the Highway Code reveals that Give Way markings - which all the Copenhagen crossings in Waltham Forest (where I assume you live) are marked - are there.

I struggle to see the problem with street design that gives pedestrians continuous visual priority along the street, which they should already have by law. It is true, perhaps, that drivers have trouble understanding how 'give way' markings work (I could've told you that, with video evidence, after around 20 minutes of cycling around Canning Town.) But if we continue with the street design we're used to in the UK, which suggests priority to driving over walking, nothing will ever change.

I wonder if part of the problems with could be with pedestrians not expecting to see a car turning is because there are a number of roads in Walthamstow that have been blocked off as part of the "Mini Holland" scheme, in a similar manner but using bollards or planters to physically block the road. With the exception of the lack of a physical block, the pavement in the photo above looks similar to roads which have actually physically been stopped.

There's a similar concept in Bristol on Welsh Back (streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/RjcTmzoABtR2) where give way signs are used to get road users to stop in order to allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road, there is a shared cycle and footway on both sides. I remember about a decade ago a Tiger Crossing (a Zebra crossing that also allows cyclists to travel over) was being trialled in Aylesbury, but this didn't seem to make it very far, but this seems to be the same principle - although I think perhaps the Cyclists and Pedestrians only sign should be tilted to 90 degrees away from the road?

 

[Mikey C]

There is no space available at Marble Arch, Oxford Circus, Tottenham Court Road Station (Centre Point) or Piccadilly Circus to enable any more buses to terminate there, according to TfL anyway. When Crossrail got the go-ahead it might have been relatively easy (but costly) to purchase or lease more land at TCR and around Hanover Square for stand space or, in an ideal world, a proper bus station facility. Now we have the 3 and 15 cut back from Oxford Circus to Trafalgar Square, the 8 and 176 from OC to TCR and the proposal for the 25 to chuck its passengers off on Holborn Viaduct. The 137, formerly parking outside BHS on Oxford Street, has gone the way of that store! It now dumps its passengers at Marble Arch or, rather, a bus stop on the west side of Park Lane facing five or six lanes of traffic, a Philip Green-like two fingers up to bus passengers.

And TfL wonder why fewer people are using buses.

 

[PermitToTravel]

So many of these Walthamstow kerbs are actually at very wide junctions, with the actual height change of the carriageway being very gentle. Many drivers here won't stop when turning off a main road unless entirely necessary, as this is typically done at a high speed - there's no consequence to not giving way to pedestrians, and there's never anything unexpected round the corner right

You can seriously narrow the junction and stick a bell right on the corner (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4...4!1sWD2NbyzoGX2YJv9zdZU2_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). If it's not a turn large vehicles need to make, allowing parking on the side road close to the junction could be effective too

I wonder whether increasing the gradient so that the sensation is similar to that of actually driving up a kerb would help. I think the ramp of these humps might be about right - not going to pop any tyres unless you're doing 30+, but not even vaguely comfortable at much more than cyclist speed