SUNNYDENE BUS STOP

[stuart]

I'm not sure how you managed to mine that info Stuart, from what we posted. It's a ridiculous list.

So which items are wrong and why?

The road should have been designed so that when a bus stops traffic can pass around it rather than totally blocking the road when the road is wide enough. With a bit of design it would have been possible to position the bus stop and the central reservation in a way that allows traffic to pass by when a bus stops rather than completely blocking the road.

It's up the the designers to sort that out. In this case they have failed. It shouldn't have been difficult.

At least two people explained why the road is designed this way and what the benefit is. It was not a mistake. You might not like it and want to change it but please try again to understand why it has been done as it is.

I'd quite like, when I drive my car to pick my son up from nursery which is a 30 minutes walk each way, twice a day, (I don't have the time to walk every day, sometimes it's pissing it down with rain or just stupidly cold),

You could, of course, catch that bus. And it wouldn't be 30 minutes if everybody wasn't held up for half that at the St Dunstan's/South Circular junction by vehicles that need not be there.

I suggesting, just ever so gently, is that your journey, not the bus stop, that may be the problem. I'm sorry if you regard that as a ridiculous comment. Are people not allowed to voice differing opinions? That's what I thought forums are about. Was that another mistake?

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

a long "central reservation" is now under construction opposite the bus stop which only makes matters worse. What's happening here bears no resemblance to the original plans - I've just checked them. I've reported this with photos to the engineers and this message has been backed up by local councillors. Let's wait and see what happens.

Presumably this means worse for motorists rather than pedestrians.

It's hard to imagine that Sydenham's councillors, all Labour, put the short term convenience of motorists ahead of the interests of the less well off, without access to their own cars. Every time, social justice calls for priotising public transport.





Source here

[leenewham]

Barry says that this appears to be a mistake and it doesn't follow the plans.

I'm not 'well off' (whatever that means), I know people better off than me who don't have a car and others that are worse off and do have a car. What has that to do with anything. None of it's relevant. Especially as I've just sold my car (I only did a few thousand miles a year).

The issue here is to do with something that appears to have been built that doesn't follow the plans, therefore totally blocking the road when a bus stops. The issue here is NOT 'you occasionally drive a car' or the probably incorrect statement that 'Labour cllrs favour road users to pedestrians' (With all the traffic lights in Sydenham Road, it's a bit like one long car park).

[Tim Lund]

Barry says that this appears to be a mistake and it doesn't follow the plans.

Ah - the plans, what we thought had been agreed. So much for flexibility, should it ever be required.

I'd not been following this thread, so I can't say if this is a case where flexibility is appropriate. Stuart has argued that

At least two people explained why the road is designed this way and what the benefit is. It was not a mistake. You might not like it and want to change it but please try again to understand why it has been done as it is.

so maybe not.

I'm not 'well off' (whatever that means),

Well, according to the Daily Mail - which I don't entirely trust, you need an annual income of $34,000, currently £22,621 to be in the global top 1%. This is based on work by an economist, Branko Milanovic, which on reading leaves me appreciating the need for good quality journalism which will give straightforward answers to the entirely reasonable question you ask as to what well off means. But I find it is also the source for the graph I posted here.

The graphic of Nigel's nightmares

Be that as it may, and discounting Daily Mail exaggeration, can I welcome you to the club?

I know people better off than me who don't have a car and others that are worse off and do have a car. What has that to do with anything. None of it's relevant. Especially as I've just sold my car (I only did a few thousand miles a year).

A second hearty welcome the club! Can I also suggest you now join Zipcar?

... the probably incorrect statement that 'Labour cllrs favour road users to pedestrians'

Did I ever suggest that? On checking, what I wrote was

Presumably this means worse for motorists rather than pedestrians.

It's hard to imagine that Sydenham's councillors, all Labour, put the short term convenience of motorists ahead of the interests of the less well off, without access to their own cars. Every time, social justice calls for prioritising public transport.

So I wasn't criticising road users as such, who include bus passengers, cyclists (we hope), but motorists, specifically those with access to their own cars. I could have been a bit more precise, also recognising the value of those, such as tradespeople, who need the flexibility of commercial vehicles.

Always good to check up on what anyone writes, not just Daily Mail reporters.

That said, do Labour cllrs in sydenham favour private motorists compared with pedestrians? If we compared the spend on roads per motorist with spend on pedestrian improvements per pedestrian, we could make a good case for saying they do, except that it would say more about greater significance of TfL compared to local Councillors. Should we blame TfL? Possibly - they have form in letting themselves be lobbied by "Old men in limos", which probably tempts others to lobby for the private motorist. But I would not blame TflL's technically qualified expert staff, working to implement policies articulated in guidance such as Biscuitman1978 cites, and which clearly are for the benefit of the common citizen.

[Eagle]

Good summary Tim

I am of the opinion that it is good traffic cannot pass buses , whilst at stops.

As a frequent bus traveller I am puzzled why drivers seem to give way to traffic before re entering the stream of traffic.

I always understood that when a bus indicates that it wants to rejoin the flow cars should give way. Regret very rarely happens in this City.


Bus drivers . Be bolder.

I also am puzzled why so many in SE26 seem to require a vehicle or say they do.. Perhaps councils should charge for all pavement parking . Would be a good earner.

[broken_shaman]

But what if another bus wants to get past folks? Or a cyclist is impeded by the queuing traffic? Or an electric car has to queue? Or an ambulance or fire engine gets delayed by a few minutes? Or a pedestrian doing their bit for the environment gets knocked down by a car because they are obscured by a huge bus right by a crossing point?

As a pedestrian, it doesn't look like I have any more space anyway, because there is now a huge bus shelter in the middle of the pavement. Experience of passing bus stops tells me there will be people standing in the gap in between the shelter and the road too, distracted by conversation, mobile phones or straining their eyes up the road to see if their bus has managed to make its way through the backed up traffic, requiring me to navigate through their shopping bags.

[Eagle]

Surely it is the authorities intention to slow up private vehicles. By doing this they hope to discourage people in built up areas from taking to their cars when they need not,

As far as I am aware this has been policy for years.

Of course emergency vehicles should be able to get through.

[stuart]

But what if another bus wants to get past folks? Or a cyclist is impeded by the queuing traffic? Or an electric car has to queue? Or an ambulance or fire engine gets delayed by a few minutes? Or a pedestrian doing their bit for the environment gets knocked down by a car because they are obscured by a huge bus right by a crossing point?

No road layout is optimum for all conditions. This layout is set to maximise the flow of bus passengers in order to maximise the flow of people along the road. Buses are, by far, the most efficient use of road space (I put up a rather telling graphic recently if you don't believe me). This will penalise (ever so slightly) bicycles, cars and lorries. You don't get owt for nowt. What Lee and Barry appear to be proposing is to give cars priority which, at least in theory, reduces the capacity of the road and maximises the inconvenience to bus passengers.

I don't think we should underestimate what the changes in road space allocation and other measures over the last decade has done to improve bus mobility in our very congested city. You only have to go, as I do, to Birmingham to see how poorly the buses there do in less trying conditions resulting in longer journey times making them a less attractive option. The results show - passenger numbers booming in London, declining elsewhere.

And every person who swops from car to bus benefits both. It's a win-win.

As a by-product of the layout being implemented pedestrians get a wide pavement - hence minimising the obstruction of families with buggies having to squeeze past a bus queue - as they have to do higher up the road and a central reservation to help cross the road.

The emergency vehicle conflict would centre on the central reservation section. They normally pass such obstructions by passing the wrong side (the traffic there pulling over to the left or mount the pavement if absolutely necessary).

Stuart

[Rachael]

That new central reservation will be excellent for the the kids crossing morning and evenings to and from the school. Because of the existing small island, we (parents and children) would follow the lollipop man half way over, then pile up in the middle waiting to complete the crossing, spilling over into the traffic lanes. Not very safe.

The island combined with the hugest pavement I've every seen have created a very narrow lane with no option to pass. If that was the plan, so be it. But if it wasn't, and Riney (or whoever are doing the work) have messed up, then it should be looked into. Because if it's wrong, it might just make life worse for the bus passengers too. Stuart's arguments are sound in general, but may be based on false assumptions in this particular case.

[stuart]

Stuart's arguments are sound in general, but may be based on false assumptions in this particular case.

Of course this implementation may not be optimal. I was trying to explain the road engineering principles that underlie the policy of not putting lay-bys in certain places. They have been shown to be a good thing overall. Roads in Sydenham are not like New York grids and we do get unexpected interactions between different features. So this plan may work, it may not. IMHO it isn't a real issue atm because the pinch point is probably the Kent House Road junction. But if that was optimised for Sydenham Road traffic then it would put more pressure on this bit of the road.

Stuart

[broken_shaman]

As a by-product of the layout being implemented pedestrians get a wide pavement - hence minimising the obstruction of families with buggies having to squeeze past a bus queue - as they have to do higher up the road and a central reservation to help cross the road.

Looking back in time on google maps, it does not appear that pedestrians get more space, as most of it appears to be taken up by a large bus shelter which was not present before.

Both the central reservations are also still there, so I'm not really sure anything has changed except for the lobbing in of a huge bus shelter in the middle of the pavement, which has had to be widened, thereby narrowing the road.

The emergency vehicle conflict would centre on the central reservation section. They normally pass such obstructions by passing the wrong side (the traffic there pulling over to the left or mount the pavement if absolutely necessary).

The point I was making was not that such a vehicle would be blocked by the design, but that the congestion such a design contributes to may slow their passage down the road.

[broken_shaman]

Surely it is the authorities intention to slow up private vehicles. By doing this they hope to discourage people in built up areas from taking to their cars when they need not,

As far as I am aware this has been policy for years.

Not working very well is it?

Just ban anyone who can't reverse or parallel park or is caught using a mobile phone, for life and I'm sure we'll see much less congested roads.

[nasaroc]

I've had a reply from Lewisham's head road engineer. The reason that a long central island was constructed was to help the school crossing patrol and pedestrians contend better with a busy 2-lane section, which I think is something we'd all like to see.

However, he is going to see if his colleagues can find a way to shorten the island or move it so that it still provides a help for people crossing but allows vehicles to pass a stationary bus held at the stop.

The other hold up down there is that the traffic lights at Kent House Road are being "held" too long between the pedestrian crossing phase and the Sydenham Road phase.

London traffic lights are adjusted by a team from TfL who are due to attend when the job is completed (which should be in approx. three weeks).

Barry Milton