Bus Lanes on M25, M6 & M42??
Richard Bullock
I heard in the Daily Mail today (pg 17) that there will be trials of a new
bus-only lane on the M6 and M42 round Birmingham and on the M25 (didn't say
exactly where.) The M6 round Birmingham is already congested without
removing one lane for buses only so this can only cause further congestion
(unless, the government are trying to force everyone on to the BNRR when
it's built.) I don't think I've seen many service buses on motorways (OK
coaches I have but not service buses.) I'm not sure this is a good idea!
Ric
David Hansen
Bullock" <richard...@mcmail.com> wrote this:-
>I heard in the Daily Mail today (pg 17)
You believe what is printed in the Daily Mail? Fascinating.
Paul Smith
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>>I heard in the Daily Mail today (pg 17)
>You believe what is printed in the Daily Mail? Fascinating.
That would be why the original poster put three question marks in the
thread title would it?
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
Tom Sheard
"Richard Bullock" <richard...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
news:8lxi7.11460$Bp3.161353@news2-hme0...
I don't think I've seen many service buses on motorways (OK
> coaches I have but not service buses.)
Surely that's the point, they don't run on motorways as its too slow to be
court up in traffic (i'm thinking of the M6 esp) but with they're own lane
they would.
David Kemper
Tom Sheard <t.d.s...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9mfkma$bia$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
David Kemper
Oliver Keating
I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible, and I can
actually believe it reduces car congestion too. Before the bus lane when the
motorway turned into the elevated section, cars had to merge in, and always
caused a bottleneck. But now, that bottleneck has pretty much been removed,
and it hasn't just been relocated either, with designs such that at no point
along the M4 into London does a lane completey dissapear - at junction 4 one
lane goes off the motorway, but this is advertised well in advance meaning
there are no last minute mergings.
As for other places I am doubtful it could work as well for both car and
bus. One problem is where to locate the bus lane? If you slap it in the
inside lane, then traffic joining the motorway has to cross over the bus
lane - potentially dangerous, and in the outside lane, buses joining have to
cross over two lanes of traffic to get to it. This might be the reason why
there is a permanent 50mph limit on the M4 approach into London, something I
wouldn't like to see happening on other motorways.
Oliver Keating
Mudge
>
>I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible
How can it be sensible when it is so lightly used by buses? Surely other
measures could have been taken to reduce congestion that didn't involve
reducing road capacity for several miles.
--
Peter
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"All errors which a man is likely to commit against advice are far
outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him for his good"
(...John Stuart Mill)
Colum Mylod
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Bullock" <richard...@mcmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8lxi7.11460$Bp3.161353@news2-hme0...
>> Hi there
>>
>> I heard in the Daily Mail today (pg 17) that there will be trials of a new
>> bus-only lane on the M6 and M42 round Birmingham and on the M25 (didn't
>say
>> exactly where.) The M6 round Birmingham is already congested without
>> removing one lane for buses only so this can only cause further congestion
>> (unless, the government are trying to force everyone on to the BNRR when
>> it's built.) I don't think I've seen many service buses on motorways (OK
>> coaches I have but not service buses.) I'm not sure this is a good idea!
>>
>> Ric
>>
>
>I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible, and I can
>actually believe it reduces car congestion too. Before the bus lane when the
>motorway turned into the elevated section, cars had to merge in, and always
>caused a bottleneck.
Maybe in full rush hour, but when I travelled it (6-7 evenings) the
merge could be done sensibly in zip fashion. Either that or it was
jammed solid and merging was a slow 1-1 affair. The new lane is not
really a bus lane but a taxi lane; the buses are few on this stretch
and are usually ovetaken later on the elevated section so I can't see
the usefulness to *public* transport (as opposed to private for-hire
transport which can also use this lane at full speed since the 4
cameras don't cover it).
You gave the game away in this bit:
>there is a permanent 50mph limit on the M4 approach into London, something I
>wouldn't like to see happening on other motorways.
That limit is IMHO the real reason why travel on that section is
somewhat better at crush times, but with 2 lanes instead of 3 to carry
traffic where slower people don't move over the off-peak cruise is
worsened.
Headers spam-proofed. Use cmylod at bigfoot . com
Oliver Keating
"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9mm71p$7d6$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oliver Keating wrote in message <9mm6r6$l7j$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible
>
> How can it be sensible when it is so lightly used by buses? Surely other
> measures could have been taken to reduce congestion that didn't involve
> reducing road capacity for several miles.
Well, if you hadn't snipped the relevant parts of my post then I would have
explained.
To reduce congestion, you need to remove the bottleneck just before the
elevated section where 3 lanes become 2. The only cost-effective way to do
this is to close down the third lane.
Road capacity is limited by the weakest link. That is why I believe that
removing the third lane after J3 has increased capacity, not decreased it.
The fact that there is some space left over means it can be used by buses, a
kind of secondary bonus.
Oliver Keating
Robin Cox
> I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible, and I can
> actually believe it reduces car congestion too. Before the bus lane when the
> motorway turned into the elevated section, cars had to merge in, and always
> caused a bottleneck. But now, that bottleneck has pretty much been removed,
> and it hasn't just been relocated either,
Yes it has been relocated.
The bottleneck now appears around the Heathrow junction, because London-bound traffic
can only use two out of the three lanes *at the next junction ahead*.
On a bad night, the tailbacks reach as far back as the M25.
> with designs such that at no point
> along the M4 into London does a lane completey dissapear
At the end of the bus lane there are still three lanes merging into two.
> This might be the reason why
> there is a permanent 50mph limit on the M4 approach into London, something I
> wouldn't like to see happening on other motorways.
The speed limit is reduced to 40 on the elevated section, for no particular reason.
Robin
Oliver Keating
"Colum Mylod" <cmylod-...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:5npuotkc1ks3s1jjh...@4ax.com...
Any place on a road where there is a pinch is always a very sorry affair.
This is often why by-passes are built single carriageway, not dual.
>The new lane is not
> really a bus lane but a taxi lane; the buses are few on this stretch
> and are usually ovetaken later on the elevated section so I can't see
> the usefulness to *public* transport (as opposed to private for-hire
> transport which can also use this lane at full speed since the 4
> cameras don't cover it).
But I don't really think being useful to PT was the primary aim. I rekon,
some traffic engineer put foreward a proposal to close down lane 3 to reduce
traffic congestion, but one thing led to another, and they used the rest of
the roadspace for a Bus lane.
> You gave the game away in this bit:
>
> >there is a permanent 50mph limit on the M4 approach into London,
something I
> >wouldn't like to see happening on other motorways.
>
> That limit is IMHO the real reason why travel on that section is
> somewhat better at crush times, but with 2 lanes instead of 3 to carry
> traffic where slower people don't move over the off-peak cruise is
> worsened.
I don't especially object to the 50mph limit, mainly because its not long
before you get to the elevated section and London with associated
congestion, so I don't really think driving at 50 for the last little bit
impacts on journey time .
But if it started happening all over the place, that would annoy me. I don't
mind temporary restrictions, but if its permanent, it gets very silly doing
50mph on a motorway at 1:00 am.. I can really see the "M6 around Bham" as a
prime target.
Oliver Keating
Andrew Norman
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
>"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9mm71p$7d6$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Oliver Keating wrote in message <9mm6r6$l7j$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> >
>> >I think the Bus Lane on the M4 in London is relatively sensible
>>
>> How can it be sensible when it is so lightly used by buses? Surely other
>> measures could have been taken to reduce congestion that didn't involve
>> reducing road capacity for several miles.
>
>Well, if you hadn't snipped the relevant parts of my post then I would have
>explained.
>
>To reduce congestion, you need to remove the bottleneck just before the
>elevated section where 3 lanes become 2. The only cost-effective way to do
>this is to close down the third lane.
>
>Road capacity is limited by the weakest link. That is why I believe that
>removing the third lane after J3 has increased capacity, not decreased it.
The bottleneck hasn't been removed, it was just moved a couple of
miles away.
--
Andy Norman an...@norman.cx
Andrew Norman
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>I don't especially object to the 50mph limit, mainly because its not long
>before you get to the elevated section and London with associated
>congestion, so I don't really think driving at 50 for the last little bit
>impacts on journey time .
I think that 50 limit on the M4 is positively dangerous. Normally in a
50 limit I would be doing very close to 50 (about 55 normally).
However if I attempt to do that speed on this section of the M4 I am
agressively tailgated. Because there are only two lanes you can't
escape, you get tail gated in both lanes.
The result of this is that you are basically forced to do 70 in a 50
limit to maintain a sensible distance to the car in front.
Add the fact that there are also speed cameras and it gets even worse
as people slam on the brakes every half a mile...
In contrast the low speed limits on the M25 do work, because there are
3 or 4 lanes so you can get out of the way of the idiots.
--
Andy Norman an...@norman.cx
SimonJ
> I don't think I've seen many service buses on motorways (OK
> > coaches I have but not service buses.)
>
> Surely that's the point, they don't run on motorways as its too slow to be
> court up in traffic (i'm thinking of the M6 esp) but with they're own lane
> they would.
>
>
>
I think you might find that the actual reason that service buses dont use
motorways is beacause there are NO BLOODY BUS STOPS ON MOTORWAYS. Jeez.
David D Miller
news:9mp7g2$b8i$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I think you might find that the actual reason that service buses dont use
> motorways is beacause there are NO BLOODY BUS STOPS ON MOTORWAYS.
... apart from the M8 at Harthill.
Do any other UK motorways have bus stops at service areas? Or on the
roundabouts at junctions?
David D Miller
Edinburgh
Peter Cooper
> >elevated section where 3 lanes become 2. The only cost-effective way to
do
> >this is to close down the third lane.
> >
> >Road capacity is limited by the weakest link. That is why I believe that
> >removing the third lane after J3 has increased capacity, not decreased
it.
>
> The bottleneck hasn't been removed, it was just moved a couple of
> miles away.
Actually.. what Oliver Keating said is true. Bottlenecks generally occur at
the points where a lane is removed.
One great example is the start of the M11 in London. The sliproad from the
North Circular has two lanes (pointless). This slip lane goes on for about
half a mile, then suddenly becomes 1 lane only, EVEN THOUGH there is more
than enough room for 2 lanes in the 1 lane area. This causes there to be a
small traffic jam there for most of the day. It only takes 15 minutes max to
get through, but it's completely pointless, since only 400 yards after the
single lane part, it opens up into 2 again.
They should either only have 1 lane coming off of the North Circular, or
extend the 2 lanes throughout. It's creating a traffic jam for no proper
reason.
Pete
Andrew Norman
<news...@boog.co.uk> wrote:
>> >To reduce congestion, you need to remove the bottleneck just before the
>> >elevated section where 3 lanes become 2. The only cost-effective way to
>do
>> >this is to close down the third lane.
>> >
>> >Road capacity is limited by the weakest link. That is why I believe that
>> >removing the third lane after J3 has increased capacity, not decreased
>it.
>>
>> The bottleneck hasn't been removed, it was just moved a couple of
>> miles away.
>
>Actually.. what Oliver Keating said is true. Bottlenecks generally occur at
>the points where a lane is removed.
And so is what I said. The M4 used to narrow at the elevated section,
it now narrows a couple of miles further West. Nothing has happened to
reduce the effects of the bottleneck, it has just been moved.
--
Andy Norman an...@norman.cx
Robin Cox
> And so is what I said. The M4 used to narrow at the elevated section,
> it now narrows a couple of miles further West. Nothing has happened to
> reduce the effects of the bottleneck, it has just been moved.
And it has been moved to a stretch of road which is already subject to
congestion from the M25 junction and the airport junction.
Add to that all the bus lane traffic (i.e. taxis) which originates at the airport,
joins the M4 in lane 1 and immediately forces its way over to lane 3
because that's where the bus lane is accessed.
Robin