CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Bus Lanes and Taxis

(13 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Kenny
  • Latest reply from le_soigneur

No tags yet.


  1. Kenny
    Member

    My understanding of most bus lanes in Edinburgh is that, when active, only buses, taxis and bicycles are allowed in them. I don't understand why taxis should have this benefit.

    The major problem we have, as I see it, is not the number of cars we have, but is instead the miles that are driven, because that consumes fuel. Taxis save people having to buy cars, but the number of cars we have is not the major problem; it is the amount of fuel being consumed that is the major problem - to our environment. Taxis use just as much fuel as cars (probably more on average), and are in constant use. They are not saving fuel like buses, bicycles, etc. So why allow them to benefit from using bus lanes? If anything, they should be one of the last vehicles allowed to use them.

    Or are there reasons I'm not considering why they should have this perk given to them?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. ih
    Member

    I don't think the idea of bus lanes was ever to save fuel, but to give priority in congested areas to public transport. Taxis were given the right to use them because in a very broad sense, they are public service transport.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. gembo
    Member

    Don't worry Kenny, all vehicles are to be allowed in them in a daft move by cooncil, though I do like all these parking hoops they are putting on existing poles in the city centre.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. Kenny
    Member

    to give priority in congested areas to public transport

    Yep, that was the old reason. But times have changed, and I think there should be less concern about loads of cars existing, but more concern about how much those cars are driving. In other words, it's not the cars, but the fuel that is the real problem. So why are we still allowing taxis to use bus lanes? They are not public transport.

    I think it's time to change the rules, and to stop taxis being allowed to use them, especially if they are allowing motorbikes to use them. Motorbikes don't use much fuel (I assume, since they are light? I could be wrong) so there's a justification for letting them use bus lanes. There is no longer any justification for taxis using them.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Instography
    Member

    There is no logic to it. Just as there is no logic to public funding of car clubs. But then it's not like there's much logic to building paths for green cyclists. What are they going to do: buy a(nother) car? I don't think so. They'll lump it.

    The logic isn't in wholesale replacement. It's that if people don't have cars they make more sensible and appropriate mode choices. With no sunk costs in a car they are relatively free to make journey-specific mode choices. It's not that that journey is still a car but that overall people make fewer car-based journeys (even if some of them still use a car). If I drove to work I'd be using that car for everything. But since I don't, sometimes I walk, sometimes taxis, buses, trains.

    Let's say my office is in central Edinburgh and I need to go to Bruntsfield. I'll get a taxi there to be on time but then walk or get the bus back because time is less important. One fewer car journey. The taxis are, although it might seem paradoxical, essential to modal shift.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. neddie
    Member

    I think there should be less concern about loads of cars existing

    If there aren't too many cars 'existing', then why are so many of them parked in the cycle lanes?

    And why is there 'no room' for segregated lanes? And why can't parking be removed from places like Tarvit St to form the family network?

    Too much car ownership is a problem

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. Min
    Member

    There must be a pretty big environmental cost to building all those cars as well.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. acsimpson
    Member

    I wonder if anyone has ever thought "We could buy a car but since we'd not be able to use the bus lanes we won't"

    I also wonder what percentage of taxi customer's don't own a car and how that percentage differs in the city centre.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Motorbikes don't use much fuel (I assume, since they are light? I could be wrong) so there's a justification for letting them use bus lanes.

    The spectrum of PTWs ranges from 50cc scooters to 2-litre full dress tourers, and fuel economy is typically 120mpg at the little end of the scale and 40mpg at the top end. My enduro-touring bike delivers 47mpg urban and 62mpg on motorways - so only averagely efficient compared with modern bikes. Average CO2 emissions are 190g/mile compared with 300g/mile for an average car and 140g for the mini and supermini market segment.

    Physical space on the road is precisely why PTWs are good for congested areas, and why they become useless when a D2 road is given permanent or peak time nearside bus lanes which become nearly impossible not to enter when attempting nearside filtering. The PTW then occupies a length of road nearly that of a car (or a torpedo!), given that riders are more likely to give themselves room in front. For this reason alone allowing PTWs into bus lanes would be a good thing, especially the West Approach Road which is otherwise still largely off-limits to cycling.

    We ought to consider the range of high-occupancy vehicles allowed to use bus lanes. Even a taxi might only carry six or eight passengers at best, but a bus ten times that on a good day. Private hire cars I do have an issue with, because they are not public transport in the sense of being available to all at point of use, even though a taxi may well be carrying only one or two passengers and a PHC three or four.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. steveo
    Member

    PTW, another one for the glossary.

    Powered Two Wheelers.
    http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/poweredtwowheelers/index_en.htm

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "PTW, another one for the glossary."

    Done - http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6609

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. wee folding bike
    Member

    Well that's a surprise. A big PTW doesn't do much better than a 2.5 l 5 cylinder Volvo S80.

    Is their drag much higher than a car?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. le_soigneur
    Member

    A typical 650cc motorbike will only do 40mpg around town, terrible compared to a small-to-mid sized car if you allow for the lower capacity for passenger & luggage.
    The main reason is that motorbike engines are optimised for
    acceleration with short-bore cyclinders to develop high(90) bhp at high revs(5000-12000rpm)... which means lots of fuel mixture has to be put through. The service life is also lower, 50k-60k miles.
    Car engines are optimised for economy & reliability with long-bore cylinders giving better torque at low revs (1000-3000rpm).
    The only place that motorbikes offer economy is at the 125-250cc capacity (the learner market, which is not mass market compared to the 650cc point) where you can get 80-100mpg. Honda makes one 670cc which is 2 cyclinders from a Honda Jazz car with long bore, and it is the only one in its class to achieve 70-80mpg because it behaves like a car. Boring but efficient, only 50bhp so not a marketing man's favourite.
    The aerodynamic handicap of a motorbike mainly shows up at motorway speeds, not so much around town limited to 30-40mph or less.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin