In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2014\05\12 20:46, wrote:
In article ,
(David Walters) wrote:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...r-22mile-ringr
oad-tunnel-under-london-9354896.html

Plans to transform central London with a 22-mile-long
underground ring road can be revealed today.

Costing £30 billion to construct, it would remove tens of
thousands of cars from the crowded streets above.

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities
and why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

This looks like 1960s car insanity to me, likely to generate a lot more
traffic.

It'll reduce jams on the M25 though! ;-)

Initially maybe but it would grow total traffic and jams would return very
soon. Did they learn nothing in the 1960s and 70s?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 12 May 2014 19:56:16 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 14:46:55 -0500
wrote:
In article ,
(David Walters) wrote:


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...r-22mile-ringr
oad-tunnel-under-london-9354896.html

Plans to transform central London with a 22-mile-long underground
ring road can be revealed today.

Costing £30 billion to construct, it would remove tens of
thousands of cars from the crowded streets above.

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities and
why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?


This looks like 1960s car insanity to me, likely to generate a lot more
traffic.

Unless its a replacement for the north circular.

It's a lot further in than the north circular. It also doesn't seem to
'replace' much, the only talk of replacement I've heard is making Tower
Bridge into a bus lane.

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:27:39 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:29:30 on
Mon, 12 May 2014, David Walters remarked:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...n-9354896.html

Plans to transform central London with a 22-mile-long underground
ring road can be revealed today.

I wonder how may tube lines it'll cross, and whether over or under.

(Subsurface lines presumably "under")

There are a few bits where I don't quite understand where they will fit it
all in. For example Highbury Corner already has a couple of underground
railways so I assume the new road tunnel would need to be very deep to
go under them which then means very long portal tunnels.

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:46:55PM -0500, wrote:

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities and
why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using
it.

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

We found no search results for "crotchet". Did you mean "crotch"?

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:46:55PM -0500,
wrote:

What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their
localities and why would it divert anything from the streets in
central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using it.

I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate new
traffic.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 12:22:55
on Wed, 14 May 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities and
why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using
it.

Ah yes, the "South Circular"; once described as a 'collection of
signposts' rather than an actual road.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
12:22:55 on Wed, 14 May 2014, David Cantrell
remarked:
What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities
and why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using it.

Ah yes, the "South Circular"; once described as a 'collection of
signposts' rather than an actual road.

Still is, I believe, where I come from (Putney).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 14/05/2014 17:07, wrote:
[...]
What a hare-brained idea! What would the portals do to their localities
and why would it divert anything from the streets in central London?

It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using it.

Ah yes, the "South Circular"; once described as a 'collection of
signposts' rather than an actual road.

Still is, I believe, where I come from (Putney).

Same can be said of the whole thing - almost all of it is single
carriageway, the only thing it shares with the North Circular is half a
name.

That said, the signposts are better than they once were - I think it was
in the mid/late 90's when there was a big resigning project by the
Traffic Director for London (which was a kind of pseudo-agency of the
Department of Transport) on the trunk routes around the metropolis, and
TfL keeps them up to scratch - beforehand they'd degenerated into a bit
of a mess.

In the pre satnav days I've a recollection of being asked several times
for directions to Dover by continental car drivers in various places
around south London - I think many were either searching for or had
mislaid the South Circular!

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:31:52AM -0500, wrote:
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:
It would certainly make a big difference to the bits next to the
laughable south circular. That road is sufficiently awful that I often
find it quicker to just drive straight across London instead of using it.

I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate new
traffic.

So do railways. So clearly it's pointless to build or upgrade railways
because they'll only get clogged up with pesky passengers.

But anyway, you, my friend, appear to have not absorbed the lessons of
how junctions and conflicting movements impede traffic flow. THAT's the
problem of the south circular.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Irregular English:
ladies glow; gentlemen perspire; brutes, oafs and athletes sweat

In message , at 11:21:23
on Fri, 16 May 2014, David Cantrell remarked:
I don't think you have absorbed the lessons of how roads generate new
traffic.

So do railways. So clearly it's pointless to build or upgrade railways
because they'll only get clogged up with pesky passengers.

Same with airports. Another runway or terminal, and all that happens is
more passengers clog them up.

On the other hand, we are told that better transport links grow the
economy, but Colin doesn't want that in his back yard, it seems.
--
Roland Perry