please empty your brain below

Speaking of floating bus stops, I read this interesting article about lack of provision for partially sighted pedestrians on the City Metric blog a couple of weeks ago.
But think of all those seats on buses that will be available if we managed to reach 30% cycling rates!
@ Theo - and think of the lovely cuts to bus services that TfL will make if there is a significant reduction in bus usage. This isn't all a virtuous cycle of change. Fine if you can and want to cycle, potentially not so fine if you're left relying on fewer buses.
Chopping down trees - disgusting. All this upheaval and destruction.
I'm confused. Does this mean that pedestrians will be forced to wait for buses on an exposed island / alight from buses on an exposed island with traffic passing by both ways?

@PC ... I totally agree with you. Simply put, there are those of us who will / can never take to cycling, and nor should this be held up as some ideal we should aspire to. Good, regular public transport should be a public right.
Why should public transport be a 'right'? A public good perhaps, a necessary component of a functioning city.. but 'right'?
How do wheelchairs get from the pavement to the bus island? Is there going to be a raised area?

Will the islands have roofs, to keep waiting people dry in inclement weather?

I can see those narrow pavements, with street furniture, being a nightmare for pedestrians with buggies or mobility scooters. I hope they are designing them to cope with the average twin buggy, otherwise they will be forced into the cycle lane. That photo shows a big grey lamppost in the middle of the narrow pavement.

And in the end the cyclists will do whatever they decide they want to do, ignoring the infrastructure put in place for them, and especially ignoring any light that is red. And they'll continue to wear pretentious expensive 'look at me and my flopping cock' lycra, unlike every other country that does cycling. Then they'll drape their damp towel over their chair at work. UGH. Shoot the lot of them, I say!
@sykobee
" Is there going to be a raised area?

Will the islands have roofs, to keep waiting people dry in inclement weather? "

The one shown in the article linked by marc (0610) has both.

The problem with cycle provision is that, perhaps more than any other category of road user, their needs/desires/requirements vary so much.
At one extreme are the MAMILs who are perfectly capable of keeping up with traffic in a 30mph zone, and want a nice direct route unobstructed by anything - including slower cyclists - that might require a loss of momentum - starting from a standstill requires more physical effort for a cyclist than for a motorist or a walker (note how runners jog on the spot when waiting to cross a road).
At the other extreme are the pootlers - kiddiewinks and little old ladies alike - who want a nice quiet traffic-free route and have no objection to having to stop every few minutes. Designing a network that satisfies both would be like trying to use the Jubilee Line for HS2, or a local bus service along the M25.
@ Chris - well why should anything be a 'right'? Life, liberty, freedom of speech, etc.?

Certainly I think that public transport which is accessible by everyone should be more of a 'right', or, at least, policy priority than cycle lanes that can / are only used by a few.
@antipodean

Indeed, what makes anything a 'right'? Without wanting to open a pandora's box, I'm not sure how being able to use good public transport is quite up there with 'freedom of speech'. As for pesky cyclists..
**OFF-TOPIC KLAXON**
Ideal or not, this post gives me hope that they're at least trying to create decent cycle lanes in London. I've been spoilt by living in Stockholm the last few years where the cycle lanes are amazing and (mostly) far from traffic - moving back to London next week and have been nervous about taking my life in my hands if I bring my beloved bike. Fingers crossed it keeps going in the right direction (albeit slowly...).
@PC A reduction in buses meaning one might have to wait 15 minutes for a bus rather than 10? First world problem.
Stop cutting down trees! We need more trees not less. As for cycling, well we "need" to have more people cycling. The population of London is forecast to increase by 1 million in the next ten years...so we'll also need more buses, more lorries and vans making more deliveries, more cars/taxis/cabs journeys will also be made, more people will use the tube, more people will be walking on the pavement, more flights will be made to an fro the airport as more people visit the the more people that live here...creating more jobs that require more workers to live in more homes that need to be built, which mean more lorries on the roads, the same roads that may need to be dug up as the elctricity cables, water pipes and waste pipes can't cope with the more people using them...people of which there be more of who need to go to doctors, hospital and schools, by car, bus, cab or walking...oh think I made my point, klaxon not needed, the message is loud and clear...too many people...not enough space. And please, someone plant some more trees.
@Grumpy Anon
Did you read DG's article? He says they are NOT chopping down trees - except for some small ones which can be easily replaced.
The whole cycle lane initiative seems to me like a huge disruption that will end up satisfying no-one.
I just hope they don't paint them all blue - makes the streets look even uglier, what with all the extra street furniture which will be needed to separate bus islands and lamp-post bypasses...
TfL have a consultation out on making the 25 rerouting via the flyover permanent.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-25-bow

I wonder how many of the actual users will know - although they normally put up notices at stops.

dg writes: I'm already halfway through writing tomorrow's post...
@ ChrisMitch

Small trees that can be replaced... they probably the ones that were planted to try to make up for larger trees that were chopped at some point in the past...so we not gaining, we are losing trees. I don't for one minute believe all that "they" say. If they got the cycle-super-highways (a misnomer if ever I heard one)done properly in the first place (with or without blue paint) then all this disruption would not happening. Some adjustments perhaps but not all this sorry state of affairs. And, as a footnote, I have seen local trees chopped down...with no replacement. Guess trees figure low on the current list of things to do with all the cutbacks(no pun intended)at most councils... especially in inner London boroughs. Trees to me are the same as libraries...once they gone it many times more difficult to get them back. We need more of both...the increase in population in London will "demand" that and if we don't start planting more trees now and reducing pollution now we will end up living in a smog-hell with all the health problems that follow.
I'm not sure I really get the obsession with trees. For every beautiful leafy road there is a scrawny obstructions that just gets in peoples way and tears up pavements for old people and those in wheelchairs.

Clearing London's pavement's of unnecessary obstacles is a great aim (cable cabinets, fences, multiple sign posts and badly placed lamps)and trees are sometimes a part of that.
(Almost) everyone would rather see the same number - or more - trees. But what I don't understand is why we can't move them.
After all, the Dutch manage to, every time they reconfigure a road like this. And Kew Gardens was moving full-grown oak trees with a horse and cart over a hundred years ago, so we have the technology! Why not - if in this instance more carriageway is preferable to a massive width of pavement - move the trees back a bit?
Presumably because it's too expensive, not because it can't be done?










TridentScan | Privacy Policy