Turning bus lanes into HOV lanes
Discussion
See the Times here: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2541088,00.html
But note the highlighted sentence. It seems to me that the main purpose of this idea is to justify the introduction of further bus lanes when they know that they're not needed and that there aren't enough HOVs anyway. It is therefore to make congestion worse.
Times said:
Car sharers will be allowed to use the quietest bus lanes
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Motorists carrying at least one passenger will be allowed to drive in underused bus lanes in an initiative intended to encourage car-sharing.
The measure will also appease those drivers who protest at having to waste time in queues alongside empty bus lanes.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has published guidance for local authorities on how to introduce “high occupancy vehicle”, or HOV, lanes. It says that trials on dual carriageways in Leeds and the outskirts of Bristol show that HOV lanes produce faster journeys for all drivers.
In the morning rush hour, the journey time in the HOV lane on the A4174 Avon ring road fell from 21 minutes to four minutes. In the other lane, open to all vehicles, the journey time fell to five minutes. In Leeds, journeys in the morning rush hour in the A647 HOV lane fell by four minutes and by 1½ minutes in the other lane.
In the Bristol HOV lane, the proportion of cars carrying more than one person increased from 20 per cent to 27 per cent. The HOV lane carried only 31 per cent of the vehicles but accounted for 48 per cent of the people travelling.
On all roads, an average of 60 per cent of cars contain only the driver. Average car occupancy fell in Britain from 1.62 people in 1991 to 1.59 people in 2004.
A European research project involving nine cities, including Leeds, found that up to a third of car users could share without suffering great inconvenience. However, the DfT guidance states that the trend towards more flexible working hours will make it harder for some people to share cars because they travel outside conventional commuting times.
The DfT says that a number of local authorities are considering creating HOV lanes that could be reserved either for vehicles carrying a minimum of two people or a minimum of three. They can be installed either to “utilise spare capacity in existing bus lanes [or] where the introduction of new bus lanes cannot be justified on bus frequency grounds”.
The RAC Foundation said that HOV lanes could work in some areas but doubted whether many drivers would be willing to share their cars. Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “People see their cars as their personal space.” He thought that car-sharing schemes were more likely to be successful if run by employers.
The DfT guidance says that local authorities could consider creating special parking areas on the outskirts of cities where people could meet others wanting to share cars.
The department admits that enforcement of HOV lanes is a problem because the cameras used to monitor bus lanes cannot accurately record how many people are in a car.
In Leeds, the local authority pays the costs of enforcement by police who stand at the roadside and check vehicles, pulling over suspected offenders.
The fixed penalty in Leeds is £30, rising to a maximum of £200 if the case goes to court. Police enforcement is supplemented by council officers standing at the roadside and noting down number plates of offending vehicles. The details are passed to the police, who issue warning letters.
The DfT is also planning to introduce a car-sharing lane on the M1 at the end of 2008 between junction 7, near St Albans, and junction 10.
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
Motorists carrying at least one passenger will be allowed to drive in underused bus lanes in an initiative intended to encourage car-sharing.
The measure will also appease those drivers who protest at having to waste time in queues alongside empty bus lanes.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has published guidance for local authorities on how to introduce “high occupancy vehicle”, or HOV, lanes. It says that trials on dual carriageways in Leeds and the outskirts of Bristol show that HOV lanes produce faster journeys for all drivers.
In the morning rush hour, the journey time in the HOV lane on the A4174 Avon ring road fell from 21 minutes to four minutes. In the other lane, open to all vehicles, the journey time fell to five minutes. In Leeds, journeys in the morning rush hour in the A647 HOV lane fell by four minutes and by 1½ minutes in the other lane.
In the Bristol HOV lane, the proportion of cars carrying more than one person increased from 20 per cent to 27 per cent. The HOV lane carried only 31 per cent of the vehicles but accounted for 48 per cent of the people travelling.
On all roads, an average of 60 per cent of cars contain only the driver. Average car occupancy fell in Britain from 1.62 people in 1991 to 1.59 people in 2004.
A European research project involving nine cities, including Leeds, found that up to a third of car users could share without suffering great inconvenience. However, the DfT guidance states that the trend towards more flexible working hours will make it harder for some people to share cars because they travel outside conventional commuting times.
The DfT says that a number of local authorities are considering creating HOV lanes that could be reserved either for vehicles carrying a minimum of two people or a minimum of three. They can be installed either to “utilise spare capacity in existing bus lanes [or] where the introduction of new bus lanes cannot be justified on bus frequency grounds”.
The RAC Foundation said that HOV lanes could work in some areas but doubted whether many drivers would be willing to share their cars. Edmund King, the foundation’s director, said: “People see their cars as their personal space.” He thought that car-sharing schemes were more likely to be successful if run by employers.
The DfT guidance says that local authorities could consider creating special parking areas on the outskirts of cities where people could meet others wanting to share cars.
The department admits that enforcement of HOV lanes is a problem because the cameras used to monitor bus lanes cannot accurately record how many people are in a car.
In Leeds, the local authority pays the costs of enforcement by police who stand at the roadside and check vehicles, pulling over suspected offenders.
The fixed penalty in Leeds is £30, rising to a maximum of £200 if the case goes to court. Police enforcement is supplemented by council officers standing at the roadside and noting down number plates of offending vehicles. The details are passed to the police, who issue warning letters.
The DfT is also planning to introduce a car-sharing lane on the M1 at the end of 2008 between junction 7, near St Albans, and junction 10.
But note the highlighted sentence. It seems to me that the main purpose of this idea is to justify the introduction of further bus lanes when they know that they're not needed and that there aren't enough HOVs anyway. It is therefore to make congestion worse.
"In the morning rush hour, the journey time in the HOV lane on the A4174 Avon ring road fell from 21 minutes to four minutes. In the other lane, open to all vehicles, the journey time fell to five minutes. "
So Ben Webster has cleverly identified the data that proves that vehicles sharing the road more of less equally can do the same journey in about the same time and in any case between 4 and 5 times faster than when a bus lane is in use. Presumably the bus lane is mostly empty or this would not apply?
Which presumably means about 4 or 5 times less pollution though the negative side for the Exchequer might be somewhat less tax take on fuel.
I cannot think of any more damning indictment of bus lanes frankly.
Webster needs to be quoted far and wide.
So Ben Webster has cleverly identified the data that proves that vehicles sharing the road more of less equally can do the same journey in about the same time and in any case between 4 and 5 times faster than when a bus lane is in use. Presumably the bus lane is mostly empty or this would not apply?
Which presumably means about 4 or 5 times less pollution though the negative side for the Exchequer might be somewhat less tax take on fuel.
I cannot think of any more damning indictment of bus lanes frankly.
Webster needs to be quoted far and wide.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 11th January 23:14
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 11th January 23:15
herewego said:
What I read here is a proposal to use bus lanes for HOVs and to create HOV lanes where there aren’t many buses. HOV lanes encourage HOVs. HOVs reduce congestion, local pollution and fuel consumption. Good things surely?
And what I see is that the more vehicles are permitted to use bus lanes, the shorter the transit times. Logical conclusion - get rid of the bus lanes; as Clarkson once said 'why should poor people get there before me?'
Einion Yrth said:
herewego said:
What I read here is a proposal to use bus lanes for HOVs and to create HOV lanes where there aren’t many buses. HOV lanes encourage HOVs. HOVs reduce congestion, local pollution and fuel consumption. Good things surely?
And what I see is that the more vehicles are permitted to use bus lanes, the shorter the transit times. Logical conclusion - get rid of the bus lanes; as Clarkson once said 'why should poor people get there before me?'
I didn't realise Clarkson is the Messiah, but he doesn't have to come last, he would be allowed on the bus or to share his car.
Einion Yrth said:
herewego said:
What I read here is a proposal to use bus lanes for HOVs and to create HOV lanes where there aren’t many buses. HOV lanes encourage HOVs. HOVs reduce congestion, local pollution and fuel consumption. Good things surely?
And what I see is that the more vehicles are permitted to use bus lanes, the shorter the transit times. Logical conclusion - get rid of the bus lanes; as Clarkson once said 'why should poor people get there before me?'
herewego said:
Einion Yrth said:
herewego said:
What I read here is a proposal to use bus lanes for HOVs and to create HOV lanes where there aren’t many buses. HOV lanes encourage HOVs. HOVs reduce congestion, local pollution and fuel consumption. Good things surely?
And what I see is that the more vehicles are permitted to use bus lanes, the shorter the transit times. Logical conclusion - get rid of the bus lanes; as Clarkson once said 'why should poor people get there before me?'
I didn't realise Clarkson is the Messiah, but he doesn't have to come last, he would be allowed on the bus or to share his car.
He isn't, he's a humourous journalist; I just happen to agree with him on this point, as any sane motorist would.
Ben Webster said:
The HOV lane carried only 31 per cent of the vehicles but accounted for 48 per cent of the people travelling.
As these figures come from "on high", are we to worry that the 48 per cent of people travelling figure above includes buses?! - wouldn't surprise me in the least. Car sharing is a great idea, but the reality of people having to work flexibly makes it very difficult sometimes to reliably give lifts. Edited by tigger1 on Friday 12th January 09:34
"In the morning rush hour, the journey time in the HOV lane on the A4174 Avon ring road fell from 21 minutes to four minutes. In the other lane, open to all vehicles, the journey time fell to five minutes. In Leeds, journeys in the morning rush hour in the A647 HOV lane fell by four minutes and by 1½ minutes in the other lane. "
I must be having a senior & blonde day all combined in one.
Why were the Bristol road times previously 21 minutes and 5 minutes? That implies that people were queuing up for an extra 17 minutes.
Agreed that it does seem to make the argument that bus lanes cause more congestion and if vehicles are allowed to share road space more equitably them flow increases.
Anyone want to set up a No10 petition to get rid of bus lanes, might even beat the travel tax one.
The more noise that motorists make it will eventually penetrate the couple of brain cells that politicians might have regarding how many votes there are in all this.
I must be having a senior & blonde day all combined in one.
Why were the Bristol road times previously 21 minutes and 5 minutes? That implies that people were queuing up for an extra 17 minutes.
Agreed that it does seem to make the argument that bus lanes cause more congestion and if vehicles are allowed to share road space more equitably them flow increases.
Anyone want to set up a No10 petition to get rid of bus lanes, might even beat the travel tax one.
The more noise that motorists make it will eventually penetrate the couple of brain cells that politicians might have regarding how many votes there are in all this.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff