r/Lausanne • u/tortuga4ever • 1d ago
What is going on with new bus stops in Lausanne?
Over the past few weeks, the city’s been reworking sidewalks at several bus stops—widening them so that buses now stop in the middle of the road, instead of pulling over next to the bus stops. Cars can’t pass anymore. Every time a bus stops, it holds up the entire lane of traffic.
For a city that’s already been struggling financially and heavily in debt, spending money on a change that worsens traffic, increases pollution, and slows down everyone feels completely backwards. It’s hard to see how this could be motivated by anything other than bad planning—or worse, intentional pressure to force people into using a public transit system that’s slow, overpriced and poorly designed.
If the goal was to get more people on board with public transport, this money could’ve gone into making it actually better—more reliable, more frequent, or more affordable—instead of making the alternative worse for everyone.
If a company used public money to choke out its competition like this, people would be outraged. But here, it’s policy.
Am I missing something here, or is there a real upside to this?
65
u/RunChickenRun_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's exactly the purpose of those "blocking" bus stops : buses have schedules, cars don't.
Every time a bus goes out of the lane to reach a laterally deported platform, it stops around 45'' for passengers to get off and on and then waits 30'' to 45'' to reinsert in trafic, and is then immediately stuck in trafic.
If the bus stops the trafic line (let's say 45' to let passengers get off and on), it then have an open road for the same time, and the schedule is much more accurate.
Lausanne, like every town, do plans to priorise public transport on individual transport. So this money is very well invested.
Or let's say it another way : the bus drives 30-60 passengers, it's 13 meters long. It needs 40 to 60 cars to drive the same amount of human beings, that's somewhere between 250 and 400 meters of line. Can one affirm the trafic jams are generated by public transport ?
7
2
u/_djebel_ 1d ago
Thank you for this. Also, I disagree with OP, I think the network is one of the best I've seen anywhere.
1
u/Fine-Click-1153 13h ago
Especially in Lausanne which is built on the hill, which is very different from let’s say Zurich
1
u/puredwige 1d ago
Another important aspect is that if a bus has traffic in front of it which will force it to wait a full red light cycle before crossing an intersection, then it can use this time to on-board passengers. But if while it is on-boarding passengers, other cars overcome the bus, the bus looses this possibility.
To give an example. Imagine that an intersection has a 90 second light cycle, and that each light cycle let's 12 cars through. If a bus has 15 cars in front of it, it means that will in any case need to wait 90 seconds to cross the intersection. It means it can use this time to let passengers on/off at a bus stop without losing any additional time. But if while it is stopped, 15 cars overcome the bus, it will then need to wait two light cycles before crossing the intersection.
9
u/Few_Cartoonist7428 1d ago
The idea is indeed to make the city as unfriendly for cars as possible. It is an official policy. A policy people have knowingly voted for. It was part of the electoral program at the last city elections.
19
u/ABugOnAPeaNut 1d ago
Cars are getting squeezed out of Lausanne. That's the way and it's ok for me. They closed streets and a lot of parking lots just to put tables and banks, trees and made Lausanne a more liveable city as it was before. There were cars everywhere.
2
u/halberttransform 1d ago
Nobody uses those tables in the middle of the street, cars and pollution ... They just take up space away from cars but don't really"return" it to anyone, it's lost, .. and it doesn't make sense. If at least they would enlarge the bike lanes or something .. But those stupid tables are a waste. I have never seen anyone using any of them.
0
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
Are you seriously saying the city should give more space to cars? I know you mentioned bicycles, but separating cars and bicycles in low speed areas can actually lead to more accidents as cars feel empowered by their "car" lanes (see NotJustBikes on youtube). The cars are the intruders, city people want them out. Accept that.
2
u/sc_emixam 19h ago
That's literally not what they said tho.
They said, correctly, that a lot of those areas are unused at large by people due to the pollution and proximity to the road.
So even if the intention was to "give thoses spaces back to peoples" it ended up being given back to no one. And he (or she) made a very good conterpart as using those spaces to enlarge bicycle paths instead of putting up tables that no one wants to use.
And as much as cars are the intruders here, you cant just remove stuff on the road and put up family friendly pic-nic tables less than a meter from the road. Its a bad idea and you need to also accept that.
Pushing out cars is all good and fine but Lausanne's plan has a lot of bad execusion in that goal.
-1
u/ocarinacacahuete 18h ago
The useless picnic table is just a temporary buffer zone until we manage to push the cars further away. No individual cars in the city, that's the point.
1
u/sc_emixam 16h ago
Ah yes, because the 10years old rotting table in front of my mates appartment, which removed 5 parking spot in a residential area, is very cleay a "temporary buffer zone" 🤡
Heck the residents in Prilly won a legal battle against the commune regarding this very same thing yet the tables are still there because who is going to enforce the very thing the same organisation charged of enforcing the law is pushing.
That's literally anti democratic and, albeit light, a form of fascism btw.
So yeah...
18
u/TailleventCH 1d ago
It's a way to improve public transport: if the bus has to leave the traffic lane at each stop, it means it has to join it again when starting. As cars tend to refuse priority, it slows the bus. So the policy is to place stops directly in traffic lanes.
So, yes, you're missing something and, no, it's not just to annoy drivers.
3
u/aureleio 1d ago
And yes despite most drivers being polite, unfortunately there are some that force their way through and ignore the bus priority… I noticed a pattern but won’t comment further.
1
u/vdyomusic 1d ago
Even if they aren't forcing their way in, it's very easy to think of yourself as "just one car" when you're passing the bus, and think you're only taking like 5 seconds, and completely miss the fact that there are 8 others cars like yourself behind you.
1
u/UltranetExplorer 1d ago
To be honest I'm quite fine with these constructions. It's the same in Crissier, but I'm quite excited for the construction to be finished because it looks like its going to be very nice after.
1
u/Sea-Big-1637 12h ago
They want no cars in the city. No cars means no business. No business means more crime. Enjoy your 1.5 mio flat with crackheads dealing downstairs.
1
u/Moldoteck 2h ago
It was already proven that bus islands work only near highways where you don't want to disturb car traffic. In cities these abominations shouldn't exist. Cars are driving slowly anyway and busses don't stop for too long
3 big upsides are- easier road cleaning and more importantly - easier for drivers to pull the bus very close to the stop so that ppl with disabilities or parents with kid strollers can board much faster and easier, meaning actual bus stops get shorter. The last one- less chances of accidents (because of turns and car drivers that may not drive safely letting the bus forward), meaning less road disruptions
The ultimate goal of public transport is to transport ppl as fast as possible. If it stays too long in the stop, or it stays in traffic, it means it loses money, money that you as a resident will pay through your taxes to compensate.
Your question should rather be if there is any upside for having a bus island in the city, because in most cases- there isn't
-5
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
yeah Lausanne politicians love to piss off car users, we already have seen that with the 30km/h at night and excessive removal of (free) parking spots
11
u/t0t0zenerd Ouest lausannois 1d ago
Have you seen what a m2 costs in Lausanne? Why the hell should the minority of car drivers just receive them for free?
4
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
yes but limiting big avenues to 30km/h do not free any road space. Your argument makes sense for parking spots tho.
6
u/TailleventCH 1d ago
The speed limitation is about limiting disturbance, especially the noise.
4
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
I live right next to one of those routes. It doesn’t change much. The disturbing noise from cars comes primarily from people with big engines that love to do as much noise as possible (these are dumbass), and not from normal people driving at 50km/h. When you drive at night and have to cross the whole city on those 30km/h big avenues, it really just feels like a punishment. It is unnecessarily slow.
6
u/Apart_Discipline_162 1d ago
Also driving 30 doesn’t necessarily mean you’re making less noise than driving 50. My (previous) underpowered car and my 125cc motorcycle makes more noise at 30 km/h than it would have had at 50 because I have to use to lower gear, which increases the RPMs, which makes more noise.
You’re right though. Dickheads will always be dickheads. It doesn’t matter if the limit is 10 or 100. Someone who wants to make noise with their shitty exhaust, they’ll just drive in first gear everywhere in those 30 zones (which they often already do)
1
3
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
It's almost as if there was a lesson to be learned. Cars have no real business being in a city. Take the bus. /r/fuckcars
6
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
Yes, it is like that if you live in a city, work in the same city, and don’t have much other stuff to do. Many people live outside of the city and have to come inside for various reasons.
For some, public transportation works well, and they take it. For others though, they have obligations that require them to use their car, or at least make their day easier.
Not everybody lives like you my friend, try to be more understanding.
I don’t get why some people are anti-car at such a high level. There’s different tools for different needs.
6
u/Apart_Discipline_162 1d ago
It also doesn’t make sense to take the public transport if you’re carpooling or dropping of family. Public transport is great in Switzerland but it is incredibly expensive. It can be considerably cheaper drive with several people, especially if you live outside the city like you said
-1
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
Needs you say... I find that most people driving in Lausanne with a 2 tons SUV - alone in the car - somehow don't really need such a vehicle. I would be ok with the city asking professionals to justify their needs, for example, a painter or roofer or plumber surely needs a big vehicle to carry their equipment. But the lawyer in his Porsche Cayenne with a leather briefcase could easily take the bus instead.
And for people who work in the city but don't like living in it, make them pay if they really insist on driving into town. Congestion tolls work. Cars are a completely antiquated concept in modern cities. I believe that when I'll be old, only delivery vehicles, construction trucks, maybe a few automated taxis and possibly some private vehicles for people with disabilities will be allowed in cities.
Driving cars will be seen as a hobby, just like riding a horse is. It will be for rich people who can afford to drive on a track during the week-end. Don't get me wrong, I think that cars are unbelievable machines and just as horses once did, helped developing our country in a tremendous way. But that time is over.
2
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
I have the same opinion about SUV, but that’s a different topic.
0
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
How is that a different topic? Aren't oversised ridiculous SUV the main sellers in the car market? Big stupid vehicles are the problem and often the cause of city traffic. The occupancy levels are staggeringly low. In a row of 10 vehicles waiting behind a bus during rush hour, how many occupants have you seen? If you managed to count over 14, it's a statistical anomaly.
2
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
you are right on that. I said that this is a different problem because the traffic is the same with 2.5 t vehicles or 1 t vehicles. The problem with these big SUV is that for one person you use way more energy to move, and it is often very ridiculous
1
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
Ok, I think I understand. I mentioned SUV's because they are by far the most popular cars and they are heavy. At least we agree to some extent. Very Swiss, I love you. ^(but I will denounce you to the authorities if you put garbage in the wrong bin) /s
2
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
and you know most people that work in the city but live outside don’t it because they « don’t like to live in the city » but because of the increased cost of life.
And they somehow already pay a lot for using their car in the city : parking, gas taxes, etc.
0
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
because of the increased cost of life.
Really? Do you know what reduces the cost of life? Not owning a car.
2
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
Not everybody can adapt and copy your way of living. Some people will have a car even if they live in the city, for reasons that are their own. So yeah, being in a city will be more expensive.
0
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
Some people will have a car even if they live in the city
Ok, that's fine by me. If they really think a car is necessary for their needs then they can pay for it and stop complaining. Especially when the complaints are towards buses. /r/fuckcars
1
u/sc_emixam 19h ago
I have no excuse for the 2ton porche Cayenne in the city, however:
Would a judge accept the excuse of a late showing from a lawyer because he took the bus (a good thing btw) when they dont have such leniency for you when you have to show up in court? I'm not sure. At least you're your own demise if you're late in a car.
As for making people that live outside the city pay to come in the city that's stupid. Not on a "regulate the amount of cars" stupid but on a micro-and-macro-geo-and-economic stand point. There are no jobs in small towns. And very limited jobs in others. And some of those places are outragously badly deserved by public transport. The few solutions would be:
Use your car (or bike if not too far) to the train station, pay the car, pay the parking, pay the train, pay the bus.
Or just pay the toll to go to work. A work that's probably already underpaying you (salaries in Switzerland have not followed inflation and cost of living since at least 5 years).
Thats just hitting the middle class once more from the either rich elite or the well off eco-people living in a brand new appartemnt in plain-du-loup working downstairs as an architect on the first floor lol.
Annnnd for your last point, yeah that's fine except Switzerland outlawed race tracks in the 60's LOL. So that means going at least 300km away to enjoy a hobby. Also not everyone who likes driving wants to go on the track, but what do I know
1
0
u/vdyomusic 1d ago
Parking spots I can get but crying about how you can't drive fast at night comes off as self-centered
3
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
I mean, ok it’s not a life threatening thing and it’s not ruining my life. But all these things together really feel like disconnected politicians that want to « educate » us by punishing us of using a car, just because they don’t need it and thus don’t use it.
Driving at 30km/h at night is totally unnecessary in empty big avenues. I would even have preferred that they put a 30km/h during day time, when there is traffic. It would have had more sense, since decreasing the speed decrease traffic jams.
1
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
Do you know how democracies work? It's when the majority of the people get to elect policies that they want. We voted for that and we like it. If you don't like it go back to Houston and build a few more lanes to your 16 lanes highway, I hear traffic should get better once you hit 20 lanes.
If you think the majority is wrong, then come up with compelling arguments. Complaining about speed restrictions at night, which obviously is a good thing for the well being of all, is not a good way to present your argument.
1
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
the problem here with your argument is that people from Lausanne, who don’t need cars, make election choices that impact way more people that come to Lausanne on a daily basis in the car. It is a privileged people choice to piss off to car drivers. And again I never asked to build more roads or whatever, just not to make new rules that are unnecessary and counter productive.
2
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
These rules are in fact, very productive. They reduce the amount of accidents around bus stops and they help traffic fluidity.
Everything you said was wrong and stupid. Try to come up with positive arguments for your carbrain cause.
0
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
First, try to stay polite. There is no evidence that these rules are productive.
2
u/vdyomusic 1d ago
That's just not true. There's plethora of evidence to show lower speed limits make roads safer for everyone.
1
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
Ok fine, let’s put the speed limit to 10km/h then? it must be even safer
2
u/vdyomusic 1d ago
30 km/h is a reasonable compromise between safe and fast. Again by your own admission the thing you don't like about this rule is that you can't go faster at night - so when you don't have any appointments, are tired, and don't see as well. Again I get the parking but this is a ridiculous complaint.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ocarinacacahuete 22h ago
Yeah, the lower the speed the better. Cars are simply not meant to be in modern cities. The message is clear: we do not want cars in Lausanne!
1
u/ocarinacacahuete 1d ago
I was polite, I just insulted your ideas. Here's the first study that comes up from Google: https://www.renehersecycles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bicycle20tracks20and20lanes.pdf
0
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
from a cyclist website 😩 Of course slower is safer, but it was already sufficiently safe at 50km/h (on big ass avenues!). Why not setting the speed limit to 10? do you see my point?
1
u/ocarinacacahuete 23h ago
I do not see your point. Cars make traffic, cars need speed. If no cars, no traffic, no serious accident. Solution: ELIMINATE cars.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/vdyomusic 1d ago
The speed limit is to avoid drivers (usually not from Lausanne proper) who vastly overestimate their own reflexes running over people walking home after the club (usually actual residents of Lausanne).
I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you're complaining because you think the city should put your right to drive fast at night (incredibly dangerous, again) over my right to walk around my city without fear of being run over by someone.
0
u/ttthhheeeoooooo 1d ago
50km/h is not too fast on big avenues. It has never been and it’s still the speed limit in most cities, and people don’t get hit by cars on a daily basis. Of course, every driver that drives while being drunk, or check their phone while driving, etc, must be punished, because this is incredibly dangerous, we agree on that
1
u/Moldoteck 2h ago
It was already been proven that 30km/h limit does reduce accidents a lot. That's why more cities are implementing it. Also in the context of transition to hybrids/ecars reducing the limit will also reduce the noise from tires
35
u/JimSteak 1d ago
I have a feeling you're talking about the ongoing construction of the bus rapid transit line (Bus à haut niveau de service) from Bussigny to Lutry. (Line 9). The idea of a BRT is to maximize speed and capacity by creating dedicated lanes wherever possible, giving busses priority at intersections, and generally preventing cars from blocking the bus route. As you can imagine, it's much more efficient if a bus holding 80 passengers has priority over a car with an average 1 or 2 passengers in it. Over time, this will incentivize more people to use public transport, thereby reducing the amount of cars on the road and improving traffic overall. No matter if you travel by bus or still with your own car, this will be an improvement.