First drivers are on strike so there are barely any buses currently on the road. 61% of forum users in another poll believe that things are better without them. I too think traffic flows a lot more freely without these giant boxes blocking things up, not pulling in properly, pulling out abruptly, etc. The reduction in noise pollution and the clearer air is very noticeable, especially on main roads. If it was up to me we'd get rid of buses altogether, but there are some who do need this antiquated and inefficient mode of transport. As the next best thing, I propose scrapping the bus lanes that were stolen off the road tax paying car drivers. On most major roads this will obviously reduce congestion by almost 50%, Ecclesall Road being a classic example. There simply aren't enough buses or people on them to warrant a dedicated 50% section of the road. My proposal would be to turn these bus lanes into rush hour lanes, whereby no parking, waiting, etc, was allowed between 8am and 9.30am and then again between 4pm and 6.30pm. Obviously buses would still need to drop off/pick up in these lanes, but otherwise a dual carriageway would actually be a DUAL carriageway during the rush hour, and a normal lane for parking/driving in at all other times. Bus services would also be "encouraged" to offer a more skeleton like service to avoid the situation we have at the moment where buses running outside of rush hour carry about 3 passengers. Your views please.

Why not go all the way and declare buses illegal?! :loopy:

Foolish boy.

Originally posted by t020
61% of forum users in another poll believe that things are better without them. I too think traffic flows a lot more freely without these giant boxes blocking things up, not pulling in properly, pulling out abruptly, etc. The reduction in noise pollution and the clearer air is very noticeable, especially on main roads. If it was up to me we'd get rid of buses altogether, but there are some who do need this antiquated and inefficient mode of transport. As the next best thing, I propose scrapping the bus lanes that were stolen off the road tax paying car drivers. On most major roads this will obviously reduce congestion by almost 50%, Ecclesall Road being a classic example. There simply aren't enough buses or people on them to warrant a dedicated 50% section of the road. My proposal would be to turn these bus lanes into rush hour lanes, whereby no parking, waiting, etc, was allowed between 8am and 9.30am and then again between 4pm and 6.30pm. Obviously buses would still need to drop off/pick up in these lanes, but otherwise a dual carriageway would actually be a DUAL carriageway during the rush hour, and a normal lane for parking/driving in at all other times. Bus services would also be "encouraged" to offer a more skeleton like service to avoid the situation we have at the moment where buses running outside of rush hour carry about 3 passengers. Your views please.

The first half of your post is nothing but naive. 61% of forum users think we're better off without buses? This figure is only meaningful if you know what percentage of this 61% are car drivers.

You'd scrap buses altogether? What's your alternative? Lack of foresight on that one.

Ecclesall Road- The bus lanes are filled with parked cars most of the day. The congestion there is nothing to do with buses, but is due to lots of people wanting to go there in their cars. The road and parking facilities just aren't sufficient to cope with the volume of traffic.

Tax issue- you think bus fares don't include a tax contribution?

The second half of your post makes sense, almost. Most dual carriageways in Sheffield are no parking zones during rush hour. Your suggestions have been tried already and have failed.

Ecclesall Road being a classic example. There simply aren't enough buses or people on them to warrant a dedicated 50% section of the road. My proposal would be to turn these bus lanes into rush hour lanes, whereby no parking, waiting, etc, was allowed between 8am and 9.30am and then again between 4pm and 6.30pm. Obviously buses would still need to drop off/pick up in these lanes, but otherwise a dual carriageway would actually be a DUAL carriageway during the rush hour, and a normal lane for parking/driving in at all other times.

They already are (for the moment). The lanes are peak time only. It's just that very few motorists appear to be able to read the large signs saying so - yourself included?

Most of the city's bus lanes are peak times only. Although I note that new "all day" restriction signs are ready to be unveiled on the section of road over the uni concourse.

Originally posted by hotphil
They already are (for the moment). The lanes are peak time only. It's just that very few motorists appear to be able to read the large signs saying so - yourself included?

Most of the city's bus lanes are peak times only. Although I note that new "all day" restriction signs are ready to be unveiled on the section of road over the uni concourse.

And we are getting more and more of them and serve little purpose.

For example:
West Bar
Pitsmoor Road
Chesterfield Road (Woodseats to Esso garage section into town)

Even at peak times all they do is stop traffic flowing freely.

Does anybody know Western Bank?

It is attrocious with the bus lane in force.

I think there should be no bus lanes as it make life harder for drivers who are in a hurry and those people getting to work on time.:mad:

The whole point of bus lanes is to reduce bus journey times, and in turn to encourage car drivers to use buses. Indirectly, they stop traffic flowing freely, but if more people stopped insisting on using their cars then traffic would also flow more freely.

Originally posted by chrisjm
Does anybody know Western Bank?

It is attrocious with the bus lane in force.

I think there should be no bus lanes as it make life harder for drivers who are in a hurry and those people getting to work on time.:mad:

No bus lanes would make life harder for bus-users who are in a hurry and are trying to get to work on time. :loopy:

Originally posted by Herbaliser
The whole point of bus lanes is to reduce bus journey times, and in turn to encourage car drivers to use buses. Indirectly, they stop traffic flowing freely, but if more people stopped insisting on using their cars then traffic would also flow more freely.

But its futile to suggest that people will stop using their cars just because you make them harder to use. If I worked in town left at 8.30 in a morning and returned around 5 at night I would probably catch a bus. Unfortunately, many, many, many people do not do this so why penalise them just because some people do?

The road users of this country pay a vast amount in taxes to drive on the roads yet we are obsessed with a council who wants to take the money from these taxes but not give the driver anything back.

Originally posted by Herbaliser
No bus lanes would make life harder for bus-users who are in a hurry and are trying to get to work on time. :loopy:

Some bus lanes would make life harder for car-users who are in a hurry and are trying to get to work on time. :loopy:

Originally posted by hotphil
They already are (for the moment). The lanes are peak time only. It's just that very few motorists appear to be able to read the large signs saying so - yourself included?

Most of the city's bus lanes are peak times only. Although I note that new "all day" restriction signs are ready to be unveiled on the section of road over the uni concourse.

No you miss the point. The bus lanes wouldn't be peak only, they'd be non-existent. No parking would be allowed during peak times, but other than that the roads would be free from anti-car crap.

But more people aren't going to be bullied into using buses are they.

As mentioned by chrisjm, the Western Bank bus lane is a joke.

On arrival at the roundabout at the bottom you've got cars needing to get into the left hand lane, and buses needing to get into the centre lane. Chaos, or what. When this bus lane becomes 24hr the traffic from Clarkson St has nowhere to go. A busy dual carriageway with one lane? Now that's good planning!

Concidering that car drivers can be just as bloody-minded as bus drivers, imagine the chaos that could be caused if cars moved, nose to tail, into the left hand lane at the bottom stopping buses moving across.:loopy:

Originally posted by Herbaliser
No bus lanes would make life harder for bus-users who are in a hurry and are trying to get to work on time. :loopy:

So why don't bus users join the queue like everyone else trying to get to work?:loopy:

Originally posted by markham
So why don't bus users join the queue like everyone else trying to get to work?:loopy:

Precisely! Why do bus users think they have this god given right to be put first? Buses are an ineffective, antiquated and highly polluting form of public transport - nothing to get high and mighty about.

Originally posted by t020
Precisely! Why do bus users think they have this god given right to be put first? Buses are an ineffective, antiquated and highly polluting form of public transport - nothing to get high and mighty about.

When you don't live on a Supertram route, the bus is your ONLY available form of public transport, and living in Stannington which has an appallingly bad bus service anyway without this strike, do you expect me to be housebound?!

And don't just tell me to walk everywhere, because as you may or may not be aware, I suffer from mobility difficulties, which means I can't walk far without getting quite bad backache to put it mildly.

And no, I have no intention of becoming wheelchair bound, because I live in a 2 storey house, and I have no intention of having to sleep downstairs and everything just to satisfy the fact that YOU dislike buses.

Originally posted by MobileB
But its futile to suggest that people will stop using their cars just because you make them harder to use. If I worked in town left at 8.30 in a morning and returned around 5 at night I would probably catch a bus. Unfortunately, many, many, many people do not do this so why penalise them just because some people do?

The road users of this country pay a vast amount in taxes to drive on the roads yet we are obsessed with a council who wants to take the money from these taxes but not give the driver anything back.

It may be futile in your opinion, but that is what the Government are trying to do nationwide. It's exactly the premise that congestion charging is based on. Non-essential journeys are penalised. I'm sure I don't need to explain the rationale behind this.

Road use tax helps to maintain the roads. It's by no means an entitlement to a congestion free journey. Like I said before, bus users pay tax too- driving would be cheaper without tax, as would bus fares.

As for those many people who choose not to use the bus, they have a choice. Some people do not have a choice but to use a bus. Likewise, some car drivers don't have a choice but to use a car. Neither of these groups should be penalised, but unfortunately it's those who do have a choice yet still choose their car for convenience who cause unnecessary congestion.

Originally posted by Rich
When you don't live on a Supertram route, the bus is your ONLY available form of public transport, and living in Stannington which has an appallingly bad bus service anyway without this strike, do you expect me to be housebound?!

And don't just tell me to walk everywhere, because as you may or may not be aware, I suffer from mobility difficulties, which means I can't walk far without getting quite bad backache to put it mildly.

And no, I have no intention of becoming wheelchair bound, because I live in a 2 storey house, and I have no intention of having to sleep downstairs and everything just to satisfy the fact that YOU dislike buses.

There are of course plenty of disabled car drivers too, so that argument just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

Originally posted by t020
Precisely! Why do bus users think they have this god given right to be put first? Buses are an ineffective, antiquated and highly polluting form of public transport - nothing to get high and mighty about.

This post and your previous post indicate that you are completely missing the point.

We live in a large city that can't cope effectively with the number of people wanting to drive cars. There's only so much room for roads. Hence, the council, like in every other city in the country, are looking at ways to reduce the number of cars on the road. One of the most effective ways to do this is to make public transport more attractive. Only once enough people start using public transport will there be enough room on the roads for people like yourself to be happy about the situation.

Bus passengers pay extortionate fees for riding on those things
you could probably run a Rolls for the price of a three stop fare.
If I perceived a future where I would be forever reliant on busses I would want some way of maxxing out for the money I was being charged. Bus lanes therefore for me would be one way of gaining a time advantage on travel. However, as an owner of cars
I see both sides of the coin.
I have a love hate relationship with busses and bus lanes.
The answer is easy really.
Make it so damn cheap and reliable for me to travel that I consider it madness to get out one of my cars and use them.
This system worked in the past before that demon of deregulation (Thatcher) appeared and destroyed all things public and good!
As for scrapping busses altogether, practically impossible and here's a pratical example of that, the Hallmamshire hospital staff for instance would have no chance! as even if they drove to work they'd have no where to park!
Bear a thought for all those essential hospital staff on earlies this sunday, who have to be on the wards for 6.45 am, no busses for them,that is one reason why these First employees make me throw.

Originally posted by t020
There are of course plenty of disabled car drivers too, so that argument just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

That's a completely illogical, ignorant and irrelevant point to make.

Originally posted by chrisjm
Quote:
Does anybody know Western Bank?

It is attrocious with the bus lane in force.

I think there should be no bus lanes as it make life harder for drivers who are in a hurry and those people getting to work on time.

And getting home from football matches and such like.

I'm sure if Sheffield Council do ever decide to scrap bus lanes, they'll use the space to make the pavements even wider. :loopy:

At least then buses will have to wait just like everyone else.

:mrgreen:

Originally posted by Herbaliser
That's a completely illogical, ignorant and irrelevant point to make.

Then surely the same is true about the post I was responding to that applied to disabled people using buses.

Originally posted by Herbaliser
This post and your previous post indicate that you are completely missing the point.

We live in a large city that can't cope effectively with the number of people wanting to drive cars. There's only so much room for roads. Hence, the council, like in every other city in the country, are looking at ways to reduce the number of cars on the road. One of the most effective ways to do this is to make public transport more attractive. Only once enough people start using public transport will there be enough room on the roads for people like yourself to be happy about the situation.

There was enough room for the number of cars before the council halved road capacity on most major roads by creating bus lanes.

Ever thought that there is a reason that they are trying to make it so hard for cars? Whatever you say about buses, they are much better for the enviroment. As well as creating less pollution, they also use less fuel, and as we are both killing the planet, and running out of oil at an alarming rate, buses make the most sense. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Snook
Ever thought that there is a reason that they are trying to make it so hard for cars? Whatever you say about buses, they are much better for the enviroment. As well as creating less pollution, they also use less fuel, and as we are both killing the planet, and running out of oil at an alarming rate, buses make the most sense. :thumbsup:

"(Buses) creating less pollution" You're having laff!

Originally posted by MobileB
"(Buses) creating less pollution" You're having laff!

You think a bus makes more pollution than 50 cars?

Originally posted by Snook
Ever thought that there is a reason that they are trying to make it so hard for cars? Whatever you say about buses, they are much better for the enviroment. As well as creating less pollution, they also use less fuel, and as we are both killing the planet, and running out of oil at an alarming rate, buses make the most sense. :thumbsup:

Wrong. In terms of fuel used per passenger, buses use more fuel. This is probably because so many buses run throughout the day choking out all that burned diesel for 3 passengers.

Originally posted by t020
Wrong. In terms of fuel used per passenger, buses use more fuel. This is probably because so many buses run throughout the day choking out all that burned diesel for 3 passengers.

You think a bus full of 50 people uses more fuel than 50 cars? Where did you read this?

Originally posted by Snook
You think a bus full of 50 people uses more fuel than 50 cars? Where did you read this?

I dont know the answer to this but it would be interesting to know what the average passenger per journey per mile is on buses in South Yorkshire. Perhaps then that could be compared with Mr Average car and eh presto, argument settled.

Originally posted by Snook
You think a bus full of 50 people uses more fuel than 50 cars? Where did you read this?

But that's exactly the point isn't it? Surely you can see that. Obviously the fuel per passenger is averaged out, which I clearly alluded to in my previous post. A bus is really only ever full at peak times, so throughout the day it is burning the same amount of fuel for very few passengers on board. Averaged out, fuel per passenger use is higher with buses than cars.

Originally posted by t020
But that's exactly the point isn't it? Surely you can see that. Obviously the fuel per passenger is averaged out, which I clearly alluded to in my previous post. A bus is really only ever full at peak times, so throughout the day it is burning the same amount of fuel for very few passengers on board. Averaged out, fuel per passenger use is higher with buses than cars.

Yeah, i understand that point, but where do you get that information from... where does it say that it is higher? If that is true, than obviously the point is that more people should leave their cars at home and use the bus, because that would cut down on pollution and fuel use.

It's never going to happen. Cars are more convenient. I'm sick of the powers that be discriminating against drivers, especially given the astronomical levels of tax we pay for the privilege. Instead of being anti-car it's about time a new approach was adopted where instead of finding alternatives to cars and punishing drivers, roads were improved and cars prioritised. This approach would ease congestion and pollution and would provide a good base for the arrival of hydrogen powered cars, when the pollution card can't be played at all.

Q.what is congestion?
A.congestion is too many vehicles occupying too many linear kilometers of road for the road network to function, especially at peak times.

Q.how is congestion reduced?
A.assuming the same number of people need access to all points on the road network, the only solution is to make more effecient use of roadspace.

Qhow is roadspace used more effeciently?
A.roadspace is used more effeciently by using less of it to transport more people.

Q.How can this be achieved?
A.By leaving the car at home and coming into the city by bus, tram, cycle or foot.

If there was a "car strike" do you think the congestion would be worse, equal to or better than the congestion during a bus strike?

Of course buses are an antediluvian method of transport, which is why so many leading cities wolrdwide dont have them.

Q. How is congestion reduced?
A. More roadspace gained by reclaiming the bus lanes, roads extended and new roads built.

Originally posted by t020
It's never going to happen. Cars are more convenient. I'm sick of the powers that be discriminating against drivers, especially given the astronomical levels of tax we pay for the privilege. Instead of being anti-car it's about time a new approach was adopted where instead of finding alternatives to cars and punishing drivers, roads were improved and cars prioritised. This approach would ease congestion and pollution and would provide a good base for the arrival of hydrogen powered cars, when the pollution card can't be played at all.

You didn't actually tell me where you got your info on fuel consumption..?

Well I for one would welcome the bus lanes going, providing that...

a. The existing two lanes remain for all transport.
b. Small district trams are installed to all district centres around the city - and that includes Fulwood / Ranmoor.
c. The City Council remove their office car parks for all but essential users.

It's never going to happen is it?

The dichotomy of public transport is that most people, now they have cars, think that everyone else (i.e. not them) should use the bus. The bus companies and transport authorities see no further than public transport, and no-one (virtually) is integrating any of it.

The simple truth is that MORE must be done to get people out of cars, whether it's onto the bus, tram, bike, car sharing, works transport, walking... whatever.

Here's a radical idea... Whack up the fuel duty and pay people to keep cars off the road.

I think car pool lanes are a good idea, but we don't have enough room to add another lane. Maybe cars that have three or more passengers should be allowed to use bus lanes, as you hardly ever see any.

See i can’t afford a car, and i obviously don’t like them so much as to have one as my little picture thingy.

I’d go the other way and ask for Bus only roads. Nothing annoys me more at rush hour to see a bus crammed with 70 odd people being held up in traffic by scores of cars each only carrying 1 person!!!!

It’s worse when it’s those great big beast size cars more like tanks. Surely for amount of congestion per person, busses full of people are more acceptable then 4x4 with a single occupant, if you want to stop congestion why not limit these people?

Originally posted by t020
Q. How is congestion reduced?
A. More roadspace gained by reclaiming the bus lanes, roads extended and new roads built.



Please try and think about this question from a radical view point. Those of us without cars.

While bus lanes may be seen as a problem to you for people on busses they are a godsend. If we were to get rid of bus lanes it would make travelling better for those with cars but it would be to the detriment to bus users as journeys would become much slower, to the point were public travel isn’t an option any more and i’d have to get a car.


Now you may think congestion is bad now but next time you are in rush hour traffic count how many busses you see. Then imagine every passenger on every bus in a car on their own sat in rush hour. would we need just roads without bus lanes then, or do you think Eccy road could cope with that kind of traffic?

Building a new road will solve congestion. But that encourage more people to travel by car, more cars on the road so eventually you get back to congestion but just on a new or bigger road. If your answer then is to just build another road then you’ll wake up one day to find a giant motorway covering the whole city.

Sticking with the imagination game next time you are on eccy road in rush hour. Count all the cars with one person in. Then imagine 1 bus being in the place of 70 of those cars or even 4 people sharing a car getting rid of 75% of those cars.

t020 you are being very short sighted.

The government predicts traffic levels will grow by up to 30% in the next 10 years.

If you get rid of the bus lanes they will soon be full of cars. Building new roads isn't the answer either as again they will soon be chock-a-block full of cars.

The buses need to made much cheaper... and I mean alot cheaper to encourage more people to use them. Sure stick to your car if you must but you'll get clobbered with the no doubt forthcoming congestion charge.

It will all come down to cost in the end.

I think everyone here is missing the point. Busses are needed for those who don't have a car, can't drive, are too far away from town/work, etc., but I do agree with the need to scrap bus lanes, it amazes me the thought process that bus drivers go through when they are using these lanes and find that another bus in front has stopped to pick up pssengers. Do they wait a few seconds? No, they force their way into the outside lane, sometime hurling abuse at other drivers and then proceed to move back into the inside lane because the bus in front has pulled away!

As for the problem with congestion, no matter how much the government (local or central) dislike traffic in the city, it is always going to be there. They can tax us for using the roads, increase fuel duty, but people will still pay to use their cars unless there is a significant investment and improvement in public transport.

Investment in public transport is never going to happen as the only interest by the companies that run the busses, trains, trams are only interested in profits for their shareholders, therefore the prospect of a bus running by your house very 5 minutes throughout the day is a dream. Government will not invest, they are too interested in wasting our money on hair-brained schemes or making sure the non-tax payers are looked after.

There needs to be some compromise with improvements to roads and pedestrian access areas (classic example is Hanover Way with several pedestrian crossings in the space of a few hundred yards). This could be in the form of inteligent traffic signals, variable speed limits, crossovers for pedestrians and proper refuges for busses to collect and drop off passengers.

I do believe there should be more education for all road users on the correct way to drive, (how many times have you tried to overtake a slow moving vehicle in the outside lane of the ring road and they refuse to move into the inside lane because they will be turning right a couple of miles up the road?) this would include bus drivers, cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians. Perhaps it's time for the highway code to have a major review.

I'd support the idea to scrap them. The section of road they occupy could be made use of instead of often been empty during peak periods.

the traffic seems less as a lot of people have decided not to go into town during the strike. Especially the elderly....

Now if less people thought it neccessary to drive into work and used public transport or walked then congestion would be less...

These kind of topics seem to be started and backed by people who drive everywhere. (undoubtedly on their own and not in a car share situation)

Its people who drive in on their own in a car who cause congestion not busses.

In theory, it's all well and good promoting public transport as a means to getting to and from work and using less roadspace. In reality, waiting at a bus stop in the rain and getting to work dripping wet, sweaty from an over crowded bus and facing the prospect of having to travel home the same way is just too much to face for most people. It's time we accepted that cars are the only real choice for many people and stop trying to penalise those people.

Actual numbers of cars being driven on the roads have not risen for 5 years, yet in the same period journey times have increased. Make no mistake, much of the congestion we see is very much manufactured by the government and councils as a means to try to justify the introduction of congestion charges, as well as further tax rises on fuel and road tax.

No, certainlo do not scrap bus lanes - I don't want my journey home from work making longer.

What should be done is ENFORCE them PROPERLY, especially on Abbeydale Road where the bus never manages to run the full length without coming up against a car parked in it, which then means pulling out into the lane of slow traffic, which is easier said than done, and makes that lane even slower!

Originally posted by KangaREW
I think everyone here is missing the point. Busses are needed for those who don't have a car, can't drive, are too far away from town/work, etc., but I do agree with the need to scrap bus lanes, it amazes me the thought process that bus drivers go through when they are using these lanes and find that another bus in front has stopped to pick up pssengers. Do they wait a few seconds? No, they force their way into the outside lane, sometime hurling abuse at other drivers and then proceed to move back into the inside lane because the bus in front has pulled away!

As for the problem with congestion, no matter how much the government (local or central) dislike traffic in the city, it is always going to be there. They can tax us for using the roads, increase fuel duty, but people will still pay to use their cars unless there is a significant investment and improvement in public transport.

Investment in public transport is never going to happen as the only interest by the companies that run the busses, trains, trams are only interested in profits for their shareholders, therefore the prospect of a bus running by your house very 5 minutes throughout the day is a dream. Government will not invest, they are too interested in wasting our money on hair-brained schemes or making sure the non-tax payers are looked after.

There needs to be some compromise with improvements to roads and pedestrian access areas (classic example is Hanover Way with several pedestrian crossings in the space of a few hundred yards). This could be in the form of inteligent traffic signals, variable speed limits, crossovers for pedestrians and proper refuges for busses to collect and drop off passengers.

I do believe there should be more education for all road users on the correct way to drive, (how many times have you tried to overtake a slow moving vehicle in the outside lane of the ring road and they refuse to move into the inside lane because they will be turning right a couple of miles up the road?) this would include bus drivers, cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians. Perhaps it's time for the highway code to have a major review.

A lot of people use their cars becuase public transport is not convient for them. If busses were more regular than this would defeat the polluation angle as most would be empty (52 & 51 anyone) most of the time:loopy: its a catch 22 situation. Some people need to use their cars as busses are impossible. My wife has three kids (8mths, 3 yrs and a 7 yrs disabled) nigh on impossible to do this by bus, more so in rush hour as the busses will be full, she'll have to fold up the tandem pushchair and try and get 3 kids on the bus and get a seat for her and at least the 7 year (becuase of his disability)

Sometimes when she is picking (or after dropping them off) her car looks empty becuase you can't easily see the babyseat, even if its wasn't there at some point the car may have to be empty on one of the legs, sometimes (in fact a lot of times) this is during evening peak.

On the other point the highway code is fine, just more people need to follow it.

Jubby

Can any of the for bus lanes explaint the need for 24 hour bus lanes.

Peak bus lanes not a problem with, or long operating hours on very busy roads, like arundel gate, but why 24 hour bus lanes when we don't even have a 24 hour bus service.

To allow the Formula 1-wannabe taxi drivers a clearer run at reaching 60mph in a 30 zone.

Originally posted by t020
To allow the Formula 1-wannabe taxi drivers a clearer run at reaching 60mph in a 30 zone.

So basicly they are there to aid in law breaking. Still not needed as the roads are clear, maybe one or two people at traffic lights but not 100's even when the arena kicks out it clears quick.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If there was a "car strike" do you think the congestion would be worse, equal to or better than the congestion during a bus strike?



Err fuel protests. 2000. Country virtually came to standstill and on its knees.

Bus Strike 2004. Traffic flowing freely.

Cities around the world using efficient bus systems? Go on then. Name em. Paris? Have you ever tried to get around Paris? New York? Nope. Go on then .....

Originally posted by jubby
Can any of the for bus lanes explaint the need for 24 hour bus lanes.

Peak bus lanes not a problem with, or long operating hours on very busy roads, like arundel gate, but why 24 hour bus lanes when we don't even have a 24 hour bus service.

Frankly no. Bus lanes only really need to operate 7am to 7pm in most cases.

I think we should have 24 hour bus services by the way, but that's a totally different discussion!

Originally posted by t020
There are of course plenty of disabled car drivers too, so that argument just doesn't hold up I'm afraid.

Yeah - like that David Blunkett chap.

Nomme

Originally posted by t020
Precisely! Why do bus users think they have this god given right to be put first? Buses are an ineffective, antiquated and highly polluting form of public transport - nothing to get high and mighty about.

Superb idea, ban buses totally and let all the people who rely on them go on the dole.

You really are a genuis!

Originally posted by MobileB
Err fuel protests. 2000. Country virtually came to standstill and on its knees.

Bus Strike 2004. Traffic flowing freely.

Cities around the world using efficient bus systems? Go on then. Name em. Paris? Have you ever tried to get around Paris? New York? Nope. Go on then .....

hehe.

I guess the difference between a bus strike and a fuel blockade isn't really clear enough.

a bus strike is where all the bus drivers stay at home and don't drive the buses.

a fuel blockade is where a small number of people stopped movements of fuel (for cars and buses) and all the terribly clever car drivers thought it would be a good idea to get down the station and stock up, promptly emptying the forecourts and causing a crisis.

A "car strike" is in quotes because no such thing exists. But, if all the car drivers were to stay at home and not drive their cars, how freely do you think the traffic would flow? Take your time, no hurry.

As for successful and efficient bus services, pick more or less any scandivian, german or dutch city and you will find a widely used and well regarded tram/bus system in my experience.

That magnets for humanity such as New York, Paris and London have a traffic problem is not down to too many buses, but too many cars and insanely high populations.

And the London bus system is actually pretty good under the circumstances;especially the night bus network, which can spirit you accross the city faster than tube.

So efficient, congestion/pollution reducing buses can be reality, you just have to let go of the "me first, on my own, in my personal airconditioned square metal box" attitude a little and be more supportive of buses in general.

Anything that moves large numbers of people where they want for a reasonable price with reduced emissions and congestion may seem like a utopia to you; but it is full realisable, provided there is what amounts to a revolution of conciousness in the car enthusiast constituency.

Originally posted by brownieblade
Superb idea, ban buses totally and let all the people who rely on them go on the dole.

You really are a genuis!

you know what you aint the first to notice he's a "genius", and I doubt you will be the last.

Welcome to Sheffield Forum!

How about congestion charges in the city?

Anyone that is disabled or even has a company car (as i assume they are given to those that need to use them for work) is exempt?

Put in park and ride schemes all around the city that link up with bus services that are cheap and effective. It works in York and Chester, why not here?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
hehe.

a fuel blockade is where a small number of people stopped movements of fuel (for cars [b]and buses) and all the terribly clever car drivers thought it would be a good idea to get down the station and stock up, promptly emptying the forecourts and causing a crisis.


Ah but the buses didn't stop running during the fuel blockade because supplies were maintained and so all the car drivers promptly stop using their cars and moved on to the buses. And the country still came to a standstill.

And Brownie, wtf are you doing on here at 11.20 pm. Obviously the pubs not open m8.

Originally posted by MobileB
Ah but the buses didn't stop running during the fuel blockade because supplies were maintained and so all the car drivers promptly stop using their cars and moved on to the buses. And the country still came to a standstill.

all the car drivers moved onto the buses.

perhaps you are confusing real life with a dream you had.

Nevertheless, bus strike and fuel blockade are not comparable in this instance, as I have tried to explain twice.

Originally posted by MobileB
Err fuel protests. 2000. Country virtually came to standstill and on its knees.

Bus Strike 2004. Traffic flowing freely.

Cities around the world using efficient bus systems? Go on then. Name em. Paris? Have you ever tried to get around Paris? New York? Nope. Go on then .....

yes because the selfish I only care about myself and will only do what suits ME best car drivers stop there being an efficient traffic system....If the only people driving into work were those who used their car for work there would be no problem...

But you wont use public transport with the commoners will you?

Originally posted by fuzzy
How about congestion charges in the city?

Anyone that is disabled or even has a company car (as i assume they are given to those that need to use them for work) is exempt?

Put in park and ride schemes all around the city that link up with bus services that are cheap and effective. It works in York and Chester, why not here?

Company cars are definitely not just for those that need one for work, I can assure you of that.

As for York, I've driven there in rush hour before and the traffic is worse there than in Sheffield, believe me. Part of it was at a literal standstill, and this wasn't just a one off as I have driven around York at rush hour on several occasions. If that's an example of effective traffic management I'd rather we didn't bother.

Originally posted by KangaREW
Investment in public transport is never going to happen as the only interest by the companies that run the busses, trains, trams are only interested in profits for their shareholders, therefore the prospect of a bus running by your house very 5 minutes throughout the day is a dream. Government will not invest, they are too interested in wasting our money on hair-brained schemes or making sure the non-tax payers are looked after.


Yes, why should money grabbing private companies like First Bus get full advantage of road use, why should they be treated different from any other private motorists earning their livings. If we are going to have bus lanes then lets have publically funded buses i.e. local authority controlled buses, there to serve the public not share holders and fat cats.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
all the car drivers moved onto the buses.

perhaps you are confusing real life with a dream you had.

Nevertheless, bus strike and fuel blockade are not comparable in this instance, as I have tried to explain twice.

So cut the left wing ideological rubbish and inform where in world cities with the public transport services you advocate exist. Please. Support with facts and I am very open minded to ideas. Honest.

Originally posted by robbie
yes because the selfish I only care about myself and will only do what suits ME best car drivers stop there being an efficient traffic system....If the only people driving into work were those who used their car for work there would be no problem...

But you wont use public transport with the commoners will you?

Actually Robbie, I was going out in town a Friday two weeks ago. I was staying at my parents for the night so I checked out the bus timetables on the SYPTE website and saw there was a bus into town every 15 minutes. I went to the bus stop at 7.25 pm for the 7.30 bus. I was pleased to see a queue waiting. By 8.05 pm when no bus had arrived I flagged down a taxi. If this is standard is it surprising people want to do away with them.

Originally posted by t020
As for York, I've driven there in rush hour before and the traffic is worse there than in Sheffield, believe me. Part of it was at a literal standstill, and this wasn't just a one off as I have driven around York at rush hour on several occasions. If that's an example of effective traffic management I'd rather we didn't bother.

I have used the park and ride schemes in both cities and had no problems, they have good bus lanes and the buses sail through. I have also driven into Chester (as i missed the turning i wanted) and i agree as a driver it is mad. This to me shows that there park and ride scheme works and it is only people that refuse to get out of there cars that cause there own traffic problems.

Originally posted by fuzzy
How about congestion charges in the city?

Anyone that is disabled or even has a company car (as i assume they are given to those that need to use them for work) is exempt?

Put in park and ride schemes all around the city that link up with bus services that are cheap and effective. It works in York and Chester, why not here?

Obvoiusly someone who isn't a disabled driver.

In areas where a congestion charge appiles, disabled badge holders are exempt, but have to pay a "resonable" admin charge. For London this is currently £10 per year. If you do not register and pay this charge (note still a charge) you will have to pay the congestion charge the same as any other driver. This fine if you live in London or know you will make more than two journies a year. The more cities that put in place a congestion charge the more admin charges disabled people will have to pay, also the headache of applying for all this exemptions. They should be one big register and one admin fee.

Also we have park and ride schemes. One at Middlewood, Valley Centretainment, Nunnery Square, Tesco's Abbeydale. Other people please fell free to add to this list.

Originally posted by MobileB
So cut the left wing ideological rubbish and inform where in world cities with the public transport services you advocate exist. Please. Support with facts and I am very open minded to ideas. Honest.

OK jousting aside then.

Here is an account of a public transport system I have been using on and off almost all my life.

Malmö (approx popn 350,000) has a superb bus system covering the whole city and its environs. The buses are quieter and greener than diesels as they are running predominantly on either LPG or natural gas. Buses are plentiful, and frequent. Of course there are problems, but for the most part, you can always get a seat, you never wait more than 10 mins, there are separate bus roads entirely in some places, in addition to bus lanes.

At peak times longer flexi-buses come into operation on main routes. Bus links with the rest of the country are also good. Bus and train integrate well, with many bus services using the main station as an interchange, and a fully electrified train network (possibly barring the far north of the country).

The buses all charge a standard ticket price which gives you one hours travel on all services with a maximum of two changes. Reductions and passes are in place for oaps, children and schools. All buses have at least one exit door, most have two or three, meaning the entrance by the driver is just that, an entrance only.

You can prepay on buses by obtaining a bus card and charging it with journeys at convenient dispensers throughout the city, on the street in newsagents etc. Prepay offers savings too.

Having a mid bus exit and a rear exit on almost all buses means that passenger set down times are shortened enormously compared to buses where buggies and passengers are all trying to fight their way on and off through the same door.

They are fast, clean, safe and comfortable, the city depends on them and citizens tend to take a bus over a car for daily journies. As a result driving cars in the city is a much more pleasant experience too...

Also during the worst of the swedish weather, buses still run, even with snow chains if required.

As a result of the reduction in congestion, Malmö is now making large swathes of the city "low traffic zones" which means speed controls, wider cycle paths, speed bumps and many more pavement cafes and the like, sprining up in the low pollution climate thus created.

And now the bridge to Copenhagen has opened, the Malmö/København bus services now integrate with each other, and both airports too. This is integrated transport policy in action. It's not perfect, nothing is, but it is an object lesson in how buses (and cycle lanes) can improve a city in so many aspects.

It just works.

The main thing sheffield is *really* fighting, as far as transport is concerned, is the sheer amount of gradient in the city and the very very compact city centre. Sheffield city centre is smaller than some town centres, yet serves a huge population as a major transportation centre.

This means that the roads have to do a lot more work in providing traction to haul all these vehicles up hills, and slow them down on the descent. The amount of punishment the roads in sheffield take, compared say to hull, is enormous.

Its a wonder that most of the tarmac on Sheffield's roads doesn't end up in a big heap at forge.

It also means that there is an enormous number of people heading in and out of centre (within the inner 'ring' road) from points all accross the city and beyond.

Its an over simplification, but when I think of mass road transport I tend to think in term of linear metres of asphalt available for driving on.

The number of vehicles using the network divided by the number of car lengths of available asphalt gives you a number. When the quotient reaches one, you have literal gridlock, although I imagine the figure for total traffic cataclysm is much higher.

The only long term solution is to stabilise and then reduce the number of vehicles using the roads simultaneously.

Originally posted by t020
As for York, I've driven there in rush hour before and the traffic is worse there than in Sheffield, believe me. Part of it was at a literal standstill, and this wasn't just a one off as I have driven around York at rush hour on several occasions. If that's an example of effective traffic management I'd rather we didn't bother.

I'm originally from York, and can agree that York is much worse than Sheffield for rush hour traffic, despite heavy investment in bus and cycle lanes.

If you think Sheffield council is anti-car, you should see York! For example parking - it is around 3x the cost of parking in Sheffield centre, and you have to pay even at night (when there are NO bus services running as an alternative)

They have Park and Ride services, but because you pay per-person, if there is more than one person in the car, it is more expensive than parking (unless you are staying all day).

There are 'bus priority' lanes - basically where they put 2 sets of traffic lights across a bus lane and standard lane - when a bus approaches in the bus lane, their lights go to green and the normal traffic goes to red - supposedly letting the bus overtake all the traffic. However, they are useless, since it takes longer for the buses to slow down, stop, wait for the lights to change, start from standing and continue - so the bus drivers just pull out of the bus lane and go through in the normal lane - keeping the traffic flowing much more efficiently!