Moderator: Site Management Team
The direction signs for "private road" and "all other routes" are horrible too - they shouldn't be flag signs as they are in advance of the junction. I doubt that "Private Road" is a legitimate destination legend. Why not just signpost St Ives, Huntingdon and wherever else properly to the left and leave the right turn unmarked?Bryn666 wrote:Yes, I hope that supplementary plate beneath the No Entry sign is site-approved...! And in any case it should read "Except for CGB buses"
Looks like you'd be able to get a train from there...Big Nick wrote:Funny looking bus stop
Reads like the no entry only applies to the CGB Buses!Entrance to bus park compound. Questionable signage.
The bus probably won't be able to go as fast on the busway as on a (relatively free-flowing) dual carriageway. And it will still get stuck in traffic on reaching Cambridge. A a single broken down bus on the guided busway would, I guess, have a similar effect on journey times as a breakdown on the A14.B1040 wrote:The local paper is now grumbling because the schedule for the guided bus allows the same time as the regular bus which takes its chances on the A14.
Just a thought........ Seeing as it is a former railway and all, why not just reopen the thing.murphaph wrote:Why didn't they just lay a road? It's hard to imagine this thing could be cheaper than standard asphalt construction, and as mentioned a breakdown looks like it would cause havoc.
They were going to build one of these on the old Harcourt alignment in Dublin but thankfully were forced to build a tram instead.
I must say, I've never really gotten the guided bus thing.
I don't really get it either - I went on the O-Bahn in Adelaide which is essentially the same thing, and it was just strange. IIRC the speed limit on the O-Bahn was 100 km/h. In Brisbane they had a segregated bus route but it was basically just a separate (paved) road for buses only, which I would have thought would work much better.murphaph wrote:Why didn't they just lay a road? It's hard to imagine this thing could be cheaper than standard asphalt construction, and as mentioned a breakdown looks like it would cause havoc.
They were going to build one of these on the old Harcourt alignment in Dublin but thankfully were forced to build a tram instead.
I must say, I've never really gotten the guided bus thing.
Me neither. Looks to me like all the disadvantages of a railway combined with none of the advantages (other than that the same vehicles can use the rest of the road network).murphaph wrote:I must say, I've never really gotten the guided bus thing.
Guided busways are most useful when a short length of guided route is to be provided on an otherwise conventional bus route. Here we have the opposite, the buses will spend most of the time on the dedicated track, only visiting normal streets at each end. For that, it would be cheaper and easier to lay nomal railwyas (tranmway) lines, using tram tracks for the street running. That's what Croydon did, very succesfully.A8000Bob wrote:Just a thought........ Seeing as it is a former railway and all, why not just reopen the thing.murphaph wrote:Why didn't they just lay a road? It's hard to imagine this thing could be cheaper than standard asphalt construction, and as mentioned a breakdown looks like it would cause havoc.
They were going to build one of these on the old Harcourt alignment in Dublin but thankfully were forced to build a tram instead.
I must say, I've never really gotten the guided bus thing.
. According to Wikipedia the total (one-way) length in Leeds is 3.5km.t1(M) wrote:There are very few examples of guided busways in the world, and most of them are in the UK
[snip]
Leeds (about 800m: like the A64(M), it's much longer in one direction than the other)
The justification given is that the busway is following the old railway alignment, which is too narrow for a standard S2 road. If they had just put down standard tarmac in the available footprint, it wouldn't be wide enough for two buses to safely pass each other without slowing right down -- therefore the only way to fit buses into the railway's width was to build a busway so that they can pass close together at high speed safely.murphaph wrote:Why didn't they just lay a road? It's hard to imagine this thing could be cheaper than standard asphalt construction, and as mentioned a breakdown looks like it would cause havoc.
With the wind behind you and on flat ground, it could be done in just over an hourBig Nick wrote:How far to Cambridge?! Wish I could get a bus...
even if going a little slower, 90 mins would be acceptable for cycling it.Couldn't they have just rebuilt the railway?CJ wrote:The justification given is that the busway is following the old railway alignment, which is too narrow for a standard S2 road. If they had just put down standard tarmac in the available footprint, it wouldn't be wide enough for two buses to safely pass each other without slowing right down -- therefore the only way to fit buses into the railway's width was to build a busway so that they can pass close together at high speed safely.murphaph wrote:Why didn't they just lay a road? It's hard to imagine this thing could be cheaper than standard asphalt construction, and as mentioned a breakdown looks like it would cause havoc.
Of course, "safely" is a relative term when it seems like some local youth could dump a brick on the busway track and derail a bus, sending it flying off into the river, but I'm sure nothing like that would ever happen...
