Bus stop arrangements are generally pretty unexciting, ranging from attractive to awful. However, some more recent layouts have attracted criticism by creating conflicts between different road users. Around the world, there are many examples of exotic designs of bus shelter. In the UK we are less exciting and generally opt for something simpler. One manufacturer of bus shelters was begrudging the fact that local authorities tend to go for the basic design but this is due to limited funding more than any lack of imagination.
Bus stops have gained something of a poor reputation in the media – reporting of incidents refer to harassment, murder and everything in between as taking place ‘at a bus stop’ as if something bad is an inevitability for anyone hapless enough to be there. Why not refer to events ‘in the street’ or a ‘public place’? It all contributes to the populist view that getting a bus is something unsavoury and to be avoided. Some shelters are placed some way from the boarding point or neglected but others are loved with cushions and other comforts provided by locals.
The most controversial arrangements are the ‘floating’ bus stops of which there are two variants. The first is where the bus shelter is adjacent to the kerb with a cycle route passing behind it, the intention being that cyclists give way to anyone going to or from the shelter. In principle this works except that cyclists tend not to want to stop so they are on a collision course with bus users. There are quite a few of these in place, not just in London but in Manchester, Brighton and elsewhere.
Regular users get used to them but anyone with a disability or sight/hearing loss finds themselves in a difficult position. From the point of view of some bus users, they are simply hazardous. The other type that Transport for London has implemented places a cycle route between the shelter and the kerb, a guaranteed conflict between bus and cycle users. Even if people boarding the bus can see cyclists coming, people getting off the bus are unlikely to and if cyclists don’t stop as intended, then a collision occurs.
This arrangement needs to be re-thought because practice shows that it doesn’t work, especially for anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn’t anticipate an impeding conflict. It’s not just disabled people – anyone with a pushchair is likely to wheel it in front of them when they get off the bus and literally put it in the path of an oncoming cyclist. Anyone leaving a bus who is looking where they are going probably won’t rely on peripheral vision to alert them.
The other regular problem is raised kerbing to enable level and step-free boarding and alighting. So often it put is in the wrong place, usually where it can be hit by the front corner of an arriving bus. A straight approach is required which means re-shaping the kerb line or adopting bus boarders where the kerb is built out into the carriageway at bus stops. For many users, level boarding makes the difference between a good journey experience or a problem, possibly not being able to access the bus at all. There is no point legislating for step-free vehicle design if bus stops are not installed properly.
Redefining the humble bus stop can be a useful component of a package of initiatives that promote bus use. Getting the basics right remains elusive in some places so highway designers need to be aware of the requirements and what works best for all concerned. This requires experience and imagination to make getting on and off the bus a good experience.
Nick Richardson, Technical Director, WSP & Chair, CILT Bus and Coach Policy Group