adam.L wrote:
I have only used it once or twice, but I think what upsets people is that one of the lanes is virtually unused and the vast majority of the traffic is crammed into 2 lanes while looking across at an empty lane.
Yes, this is all about perception.
If Mr Hammond instead explained how having an "empty" lane before two lanes physically merge at the elevated section helps traffic flow then maybe he could make a move to dispelling this perception, instead of enforcing it.
Naturally, those that get angry about the "empty" lane next to them only imagine themselves driving down it, and not it being choc full of cars.
And of course, the "empty" lane is in fact transporting a large number of people, even if buses/coaches pass by every five minutes.
As it is, getting rid of it looks like it's going to make things worse.
I've been reading the original plan was not to have a bus lane at all, just close it off to improve traffic flow, but then some bright spark had the idea that rather than be completely closed off it could be used to selectively carry vehicles, so it remained sort of empty, but was still useful road space.
adam.L wrote:
I expect that if the bus lane was nose to tail buses people wouldn't moan about it. Isn;t there a roundabout at the end which is only 2 lanes?
Of course then you'd lose the benefit of having the spare capacity at the end of the lane, even I would concede the lane would be useless if it was choc full of buses (save from a small benefit from having a larger number of people squashed into a smaller space).