Dave Arquati wrote:
I was talking about the effect on people who lived in the residential
area through which the Westway was constructed.

I don't know about then but taking Portobello Road as an example (the
Westway runs close). Has it had a negative effect on that road or will
the extended CG zone have a worse effect?

Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all
over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new
traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would
divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might
force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of
West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic
passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the
pollution and noise wouldn't be).

Now what journey would you now make in a car on the M25 that you could
otherwise make on public transport? There is a railway line on the
"West Cross Route" that goes from Clapham through Kensington up to
Willesden, and there's another line that goes to Harrow. Now if they
improved the service on those lines and made them better known (they
don't appear on underground maps) then more people might consider using
them.

The obvious example of traffic generation is the M25. Many people make
more journeys by car specifically because the M25 is there - it has
encouraged a vast number of orbital commutes which never existed before
it was built. An urban motorway, similarly, would encourage people to
make a car-based commute (or other journey) across inner London where
they wouldn't have done so before.

And before the M25 was built, there was much higher unemployment. And
part of this is also caused by house prices continuing to rise thus
forcing people to live further away from their place of work and make a
longer commute. People move jobs far more frequently than they used to
and can't always find a job close to home (much that we'd like to). New
industrial estates open just off these motorways because they are now
easier to get to, and land is cheaper there.

As a result, many businesses have moved out to these business parks,
they have a lot of car-parking and very poor public transport
facilities. Car-pooling would be ideal but impractical if people don't
actually start and finish work at exactly the same time each day.
However it may certainly be the way to go.

Limited funds are available, and railway and motorway projects are both
extremely expensive. It's one or the other, and the project which
increases car journeys significantly is not likely to win. "They" should
definitely improve railway (and other public transport) connections -
but they shouldn't start building urban motorways.

But roads are not just limited to cars - buses and lorries also use
them. Railways are not so environmentally friendly either, as you need
electrification and normally that means overhead cables. You need far
more land. Crossing them is much harder, and generally they can take
you only to one place.

Either way, it's very expensive, with new road costs now in the many
millions of pounds per kilometre.

Good investment though. It cost a lot of money to build the GWR too,
but now as a result we have it.

Firstly, since a new road will generate new traffic that surrounding
roads will have to absorb, a new road project is only likely to cut
traffic queues on certain parts of the network for a certain number of
years before the situation worsens again (see the M25 and associated
widening projects).

If the road is good then there'll be no need for rat-running. But it
may generate more business in the area (as it will be easier to get
access) so more business will open, more superstores, etc, and you may
get people leaving the main road to use the facilities.

Secondly, when factoring in revenue lost through congestion, it's time
to start factoring in the increased cost of pollution-related illness
and disbenefits and road accidents, as well as the less-easily
quantifiable social exclusion and general environmental effects.

But the optimal speed for reducing pollution is 56mph. Going through
urban streets at an average of 12mph stop/start is thus very much more
polluting.


Other people are debating the truth in that, but, as always, junctions
often limit capacity on a network, and urban motorways will have plenty
of those. In addition, although a smaller point, it's worth noting that
the road capacity as described is only available to those with access to
a car, whereas rail capacity is (theoretically) available to all.

But if they also ran buses on those routes that would also be available
to all.

The congestion charge raises money to fund public transport
improvements, not the roads.

which seems to be more silly bus routes, carrying 8 passengers or so,
going down narrow roads totally inappropriate for a bus, stopping
everytime something comes the other way, still very poor service come
6-7pm (when many are still commuting home from work).

I'd rather see more express bus routes, infrequent stops, going along A
roads, particularly primary ones (generally more orbital).

Nope... but I lived next to a motorway for 18 years, and I wouldn't wish
it upon anyone. I live in the west of London (which already has urban
motorways, one of which is extremely close to my home), but I don't
drive (and neither do a large number of people in this are) - and
therefore I get a rather disproportionate share of the disbenefits of
urban motorways compared to the benefits.

I live close to the end of the M1 and close to where the A406 meets the
A1 and the A41 is also close by so I am surrounded by primary dual
carriageways. That actually makes car travel fairly convenient (while
the Northern Line is useful only if you want to go to Central London or
to Edgware). Most of the residents would prefer to see the old plans of
the A406 tunnel go ahead. I think it would be satisfactory simply to
have the A406 connect at both ends of the A1 via a tunnel without any
other tunnel links at all - it would at least reduce a vast amount of
the traffic at that junction.

I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and
the end of 2003.

Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I was talking about the effect on people who lived in the residential
area through which the Westway was constructed.

I don't know about then but taking Portobello Road as an example (the
Westway runs close). Has it had a negative effect on that road or will
the extended CG zone have a worse effect?

Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their
surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7
metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and
disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices
for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those
properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution.

In addition, despite the motorway being elevated, some 20 acres of land
were left derelict (although use has now been found for a proportion of
that). Severance was (and is) a significant issue in some locations,
particularly Latimer Road which was cut in half by the junction for the
West Cross Route.

The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess -
but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of
the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many
people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect
of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is
likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington
& Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be
significantly lower.

Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all
over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new
traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would
divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might
force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of
West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic
passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the
pollution and noise wouldn't be).


Now what journey would you now make in a car on the M25 that you could
otherwise make on public transport? There is a railway line on the
"West Cross Route" that goes from Clapham through Kensington up to
Willesden, and there's another line that goes to Harrow. Now if they
improved the service on those lines and made them better known (they
don't appear on underground maps) then more people might consider using
them.


I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference
to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport
alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has
encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have
considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed.

The obvious example of traffic generation is the M25. Many people make
more journeys by car specifically because the M25 is there - it has
encouraged a vast number of orbital commutes which never existed before
it was built. An urban motorway, similarly, would encourage people to
make a car-based commute (or other journey) across inner London where
they wouldn't have done so before.

And before the M25 was built, there was much higher unemployment.

The M25 *may* have had a positive effect upon unemployment but that
statement is rather disconnected. Unemployment levels are subject to a
wide range of economic factors; it's extremely likely that the M25 was
constructed in response to increasing employment levels and increasing
economic activity, rather than the other way around.

And
part of this is also caused by house prices continuing to rise thus
forcing people to live further away from their place of work and make a
longer commute. People move jobs far more frequently than they used to
and can't always find a job close to home (much that we'd like to). New
industrial estates open just off these motorways because they are now
easier to get to, and land is cheaper there.

People travel further to reach jobs partly because they can, and partly
because those jobs move further away as a result of new road
construction. The benefits of new road construction aren't always that
clear-cut, as the road will generally alter the way employment is
distributed anyway (e.g. centralisation). That has both positive and
negative aspects.

As a result, many businesses have moved out to these business parks,
they have a lot of car-parking and very poor public transport
facilities. Car-pooling would be ideal but impractical if people don't
actually start and finish work at exactly the same time each day.
However it may certainly be the way to go.

Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by
public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to
make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can
avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction
and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car. The M25
has encouraged a wide pattern of orbital car commuting across the South
East which is virtually impossible to cater for attractively with public
transport. Any new urban motorways in London will similarly encourage
new car-based orbital commuting around London for which it will be very
difficult to provide an attractive public transport competitor.

Limited funds are available, and railway and motorway projects are both
extremely expensive. It's one or the other, and the project which
increases car journeys significantly is not likely to win. "They" should
definitely improve railway (and other public transport) connections -
but they shouldn't start building urban motorways.

But roads are not just limited to cars - buses and lorries also use
them. Railways are not so environmentally friendly either, as you need
electrification and normally that means overhead cables. You need far
more land. Crossing them is much harder, and generally they can take
you only to one place.

The environmental friendliness of railways versus motorways has been
debated many times before in this group and elsewhere. I totally
disagree with your other points. Railways do not need far more land -
they use far less! I'm not sure why crossing them is "much harder" -
railways are narrower than motorways, so bridges are likely to be
cheaper. The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle
service between two stations with no onward connections at either end.
Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide
variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus
services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you
have to consider access to and from the railway too.

Either way, it's very expensive, with new road costs now in the many
millions of pounds per kilometre.


Good investment though. It cost a lot of money to build the GWR too,
but now as a result we have it.

I don't think it's particularly good to invest in infrastructure which
will lead to an increase in traffic, a rise in pollution levels, blight
upon homes and an increased reliance on the private car which then leads
to an increasing gap in mobility levels between those who can and cannot
run a car, and to an increased dependence of our economy upon oil.

Firstly, since a new road will generate new traffic that surrounding
roads will have to absorb, a new road project is only likely to cut
traffic queues on certain parts of the network for a certain number of
years before the situation worsens again (see the M25 and associated
widening projects).

If the road is good then there'll be no need for rat-running. But it
may generate more business in the area (as it will be easier to get
access) so more business will open, more superstores, etc, and you may
get people leaving the main road to use the facilities.

And therein lies the problem. No road is an island... traffic from
motorways never starts or finishes on motorways, it has to perform those
parts of the trips on the local road network. Since a new motorway will
lead to a rise in traffic, even though congestion on the roads it
relieves will fall initially, there will be a gradual and sustained rise
in the levels of traffic on all other nearby roads.

Secondly, when factoring in revenue lost through congestion, it's time
to start factoring in the increased cost of pollution-related illness
and disbenefits and road accidents, as well as the less-easily
quantifiable social exclusion and general environmental effects.

But the optimal speed for reducing pollution is 56mph. Going through
urban streets at an average of 12mph stop/start is thus very much more
polluting.

I agree that stop-start driving is quite polluting - but since the new
motorway will lead to an increase in traffic on a whole number of roads
used to access it, then any saving made from having a freer-flowing
through route is eroded by increased congestion on the access roads.

Incidentally, I remain unconvinced that free-flowing traffic at 56mph
causes less pollution than free-flowing traffic at a lower speed. Isn't
it just that 56mph is a point beyond which the increases in fuel
consumption and therefore pollution rise much faster than the increase
in speed? (i.e. below 56mph, assuming free-flowing traffic, the
relationship is fairly linear)

Other people are debating the truth in that, but, as always, junctions
often limit capacity on a network, and urban motorways will have plenty
of those. In addition, although a smaller point, it's worth noting that
the road capacity as described is only available to those with access to
a car, whereas rail capacity is (theoretically) available to all.

But if they also ran buses on those routes that would also be available
to all.

Hardly. How many buses run on the Westway and the West Cross Route? Some
long-distance coach services use them, but these are of no benefit to
the local areas the urban motorway is meant to serve - and any local bus
service using an urban motorway bypasses most of the population it
should be serving.

The congestion charge raises money to fund public transport
improvements, not the roads.

which seems to be more silly bus routes, carrying 8 passengers or so,
going down narrow roads totally inappropriate for a bus, stopping
everytime something comes the other way, still very poor service come
6-7pm (when many are still commuting home from work).

Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a
higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and
more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less
likely to get a car than I already was.

I'd rather see more express bus routes, infrequent stops, going along A
roads, particularly primary ones (generally more orbital).

I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good
idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate
town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual
carriageway.

Nope... but I lived next to a motorway for 18 years, and I wouldn't wish
it upon anyone. I live in the west of London (which already has urban
motorways, one of which is extremely close to my home), but I don't
drive (and neither do a large number of people in this are) - and
therefore I get a rather disproportionate share of the disbenefits of
urban motorways compared to the benefits.

I live close to the end of the M1 and close to where the A406 meets the
A1 and the A41 is also close by so I am surrounded by primary dual
carriageways. That actually makes car travel fairly convenient (while
the Northern Line is useful only if you want to go to Central London or
to Edgware). Most of the residents would prefer to see the old plans of
the A406 tunnel go ahead. I think it would be satisfactory simply to
have the A406 connect at both ends of the A1 via a tunnel without any
other tunnel links at all - it would at least reduce a vast amount of
the traffic at that junction.

Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may
improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the
road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will
increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at
Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the
only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is
to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new
capacity.

I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and
the end of 2003.

OK...?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their
surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7
metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and
disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices
for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those
properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution.

So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always
offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the
elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their
buildings.

And the area was already deprived, as you say. So not a cause of the
new road.

The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess -
but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of
the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many
people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect
of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is
likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington
& Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be
significantly lower.

If I were going to extend the zone I would take it along Sussex Gardens
and Bayswater Road, and would also allow access to Hyde Park.

I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference
to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport
alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has
encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have
considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed.

So what? Why shouldn't they? It's nice to be able to get around. And
remember this also includes lorries delivering goods.

Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by
public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to
make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can
avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction
and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car.

I don't think building the M25 was a mistake. If there have been
mistakes it has not be expanding the rail network to include orbital
routes and ensure they have good interchanges with the radial routes.
If people who work in Slough, say, living in, say Finchley, were able
to get to an orbital railway (say approximately round the North
Circular) then interchange at Ealing to get a train to Slough, and then
had a decent bus-service to get them from Slough station to work, more
people would commute that way rather than in their cars. As it is, to
get to Slough from Finchley by train one has to go to Central London
(on an already crowded tube) and then make their way out towards Ealing
on the Central Line - well suffice to say it is not an easy journey.
Now if they can't make such railways lines then maybe buses. We'll come
to that later.

The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle
service between two stations with no onward connections at either end.
Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide
variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus
services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you
have to consider access to and from the railway too.

Crossrail - yet another radial route. I don't want to go to Central
London.

Hardly. How many buses run on the Westway and the West Cross Route? Some
long-distance coach services use them, but these are of no benefit to
the local areas the urban motorway is meant to serve - and any local bus
service using an urban motorway bypasses most of the population it
should be serving.

I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good
idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate
town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual
carriageway.

But just off these main roads there are business parks and shopping
malls . Now if they got the buses to pull off the main roads to serve
these, say every mile or 2 miles (depending on the road), and there
were also buses from these going into the town centres, then you would
have integrated transport. The problem with the public transport system
on the whole I find is total lack of integration. This is noticeable
also in Hampstead where there is no interchange between the Northern
Line and the North London Line.
Similarly the North London Line (Silverlink) has no interchange at
Hackney with WAGN.

Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a
higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and
more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less
likely to get a car than I already was.

15 minutes at a bus-stop is long enough for me to decide next time to
use the car. Again I have found that 2 routes go on approximately the
same route yet they are not spaced properly so both come along at once.
The most annoying thing is after waiting 15 minutes for a bus and
getting on a full one, an empty one passes you a minute later then
shoots off into the distance while your one stops at every single stop.

Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may
improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the
road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will
increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at
Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the
only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is
to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new
capacity.

So with a junction-free route from Palmers Green to Beckton you'd
expect massive traffic queues at Beckton (junction of A406 and A13) yet
I drive there every day and there are none. The only hold-up is
approaching the A12.
Yes, the A12 does provide an alternative route to Docklands just as my
proposed extension of the West Cross Route would provide an alternative
link from the A406 to the A40 (other than the A406 itself). By the way,
much of Cricklewood and Harlesden are relatively undeveloped, and
there's a disused railway line that crosses through Gladstone Park, so
part of the space is already there (albeit not exactly the line I have
drawn).


I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and
the end of 2003.

OK...?

Well for one, I know the roads of London pretty well. I also know that
a large number of minicab drivers are driving empty half the time while
returning to base, and work excessively long hours. If minicab
companies were better integrated (so you pick up where you drop) and if
driver hours were regulated like other professional drivers (to 90
hours every 2 weeks) then a driver could go out, work extensively for
45 hours then go home, and there'd be fewer cars on the road. Also a
number of these minicab drivers could train to drive minibuses instead,
and a "shared-minibus" scheme could be set up for some of the more
popular routes, particularly airports. They have this in other
countries.

Earl Purple wrote:
Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their
surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7
metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and
disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices
for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those
properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution.


So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always
offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the
elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their
buildings.

I doubt that's a benefit worth factoring in when you build a new road.
"I'm afraid we're demolishing the houses next door to put in a six-lane
motorway, but it's OK because you can put a big advert on the side of
your house..."

And the area was already deprived, as you say. So not a cause of the
new road.

The point is that the people who have to suffer the negative
consequences of the new road are not the ones who benefit from it.

The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess -
but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of
the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many
people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect
of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is
likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington
& Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be
significantly lower.

If I were going to extend the zone I would take it along Sussex Gardens
and Bayswater Road, and would also allow access to Hyde Park.

Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL
have done when considering where to draw the boundary?

I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference
to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport
alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has
encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have
considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed.

So what? Why shouldn't they? It's nice to be able to get around. And
remember this also includes lorries delivering goods.

Yes, it's nice to be able to get around. However, this has to be
balanced against worsening air quality and extensive environmental
damage. The M25 is here to stay, and it's changed the way people travel
around London. Its construction was inevitable so there isn't much point
arguing about how good or bad it is.

What I'm saying is that the M25 proves that orbital routes in particular
generate extensive numbers of new or longer car journeys. New or longer
car journeys are not a particularly good thing, as they increase the
damage to the environment, cause more air pollution and increase our
dependence on oil.

If you have an issue with that final point then I suggest we drop this
line of argument, because we won't get anywhere with it.

Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by
public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to
make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can
avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction
and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car.

I don't think building the M25 was a mistake.

As mentioned above, I'm not saying the M25 was a mistake. It's there
now, our region depends on it and it's there to stay. I'm saying the
trip generation it causes proves that we shouldn't build another one,
especially not in inner London.

If there have been
mistakes it has not be expanding the rail network to include orbital
routes and ensure they have good interchanges with the radial routes.
If people who work in Slough, say, living in, say Finchley, were able
to get to an orbital railway (say approximately round the North
Circular) then interchange at Ealing to get a train to Slough, and then
had a decent bus-service to get them from Slough station to work, more
people would commute that way rather than in their cars. As it is, to
get to Slough from Finchley by train one has to go to Central London
(on an already crowded tube) and then make their way out towards Ealing
on the Central Line - well suffice to say it is not an easy journey.
Now if they can't make such railways lines then maybe buses. We'll come
to that later.

I agree that we should improve orbital public transport (as is now
beginning with the ELL extensions and NLL/WLL improvements) - but
orbital public transport can *never* compete properly with orbital
journeys by private transport, because of the huge number of different
origins and destinations involved. Therefore, don't build new roads
which will generate new orbital journeys, because the majority of
travellers just won't choose public transport for those journeys.

The ORBIT multi-modal study recently carried out by the DfT said two
things. Firstly, public transport improvements will make a negligible
difference to traffic levels on the M25. Secondly, creating new orbital
road capacity (e.g. widening the M25 or improving/providing other
orbital roads) will generate enough new traffic within a few years to
negate the benefit of the new capacity - and the only way to avoid that
scenario is to toll the road.

The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle
service between two stations with no onward connections at either end.
Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide
variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus
services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you
have to consider access to and from the railway too.

Crossrail - yet another radial route. I don't want to go to Central
London.

You brought it up before. You may not want to go to central London, but
hundreds of thousands of other people do - and their journeys can be
catered for by public transport, whereas growth in employment around
motorways like the M25 cannot.

I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good
idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate
town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual
carriageway.

But just off these main roads there are business parks and shopping
malls . Now if they got the buses to pull off the main roads to serve
these, say every mile or 2 miles (depending on the road), and there
were also buses from these going into the town centres, then you would
have integrated transport.

The catchment area of an employment or commercial destination built
deliberately next to a high-capacity road is *much* wider than the
narrow band alongside the main road that public transport would serve.
You may attract some people to public transport along these roads, but
only a small proportion of the people who use cars.

People are also unwilling to change that many times on public transport
- and even changes on a totally integrated service add time to the journey.

It can also be extremely difficult to devise effective routes to link
business parks etc. on a trunk route (which generally bypass town
centres) with the town centres themselves.

The problem with the public transport system
on the whole I find is total lack of integration. This is noticeable
also in Hampstead where there is no interchange between the Northern
Line and the North London Line.
Similarly the North London Line (Silverlink) has no interchange at
Hackney with WAGN.

I think total lack of integration is a bit too far, especially in
London. At Hammersmith, I can get off a Tube service and go upstairs
into a bus station to catch a bus for the final leg, or change between
buses with ease. At Victoria, I can walk straight out of the station and
onto a bus. At Stratford, I can change between the DLR, two Tube lines,
an orbital rail route, high frequency rail services to Essex and soon
international trains to Europe and local trains to Stansted Airport.

Of course there are bad examples, but there are good ones too. The bad
examples tend to be the result of historical construction that is
expensive to rectify, and sometimes it can be difficult to justify the
benefits. Providing an interchange at Hampstead would cost in the
hundreds of millions of pounds, since both lines are in deep tunnels
underneath the hill. Hackney is annoying, but the result of historical
construction which would also be quite expensive to fix.

Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a
higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and
more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less
likely to get a car than I already was.

15 minutes at a bus-stop is long enough for me to decide next time to
use the car.

That's a shame. I find it difficult to justify the expense of a car from
a 15-minute wait. But I rarely find myself needing to wait that long.

Again I have found that 2 routes go on approximately the
same route yet they are not spaced properly so both come along at once.
The most annoying thing is after waiting 15 minutes for a bus and
getting on a full one, an empty one passes you a minute later then
shoots off into the distance while your one stops at every single stop.

That's also a frustrating experience but not one that I share
particularly regularly.

Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may
improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the
road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will
increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at
Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the
only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is
to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new
capacity.

So with a junction-free route from Palmers Green to Beckton you'd
expect massive traffic queues at Beckton (junction of A406 and A13) yet
I drive there every day and there are none. The only hold-up is
approaching the A12.

Well, there's the next bottleneck for you. There may not be massive
queues at Beckton - but when the capacity of the road is increased with
improvements at Henleys Corner, then more cars will use the road, which
will fill up that capacity, causing congestion at the next limited
point. If the road were I suspect that's Hanger Lane rather than
Beckton. In any case, it's a fact of traffic engineering, and I direct
you to your local library or university to look it up if you don't
believe me.

Yes, the A12 does provide an alternative route to Docklands just as my
proposed extension of the West Cross Route would provide an alternative
link from the A406 to the A40 (other than the A406 itself). By the way,
much of Cricklewood and Harlesden are relatively undeveloped, and
there's a disused railway line that crosses through Gladstone Park, so
part of the space is already there (albeit not exactly the line I have
drawn).

I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and
the end of 2003.

OK...?

Well for one, I know the roads of London pretty well. I also know that
a large number of minicab drivers are driving empty half the time while
returning to base, and work excessively long hours. If minicab
companies were better integrated (so you pick up where you drop) and if
driver hours were regulated like other professional drivers (to 90
hours every 2 weeks) then a driver could go out, work extensively for
45 hours then go home, and there'd be fewer cars on the road. Also a
number of these minicab drivers could train to drive minibuses instead,
and a "shared-minibus" scheme could be set up for some of the more
popular routes, particularly airports. They have this in other
countries.

That's an interesting idea (which is used sometimes in this country too
at places like Bicester and Banbury) but is it really relevant to the
rest of the conversation? Sorry if I misunderstand.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their
surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway
as 7 metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight,
pollution and disruption during construction - all in an
already-deprived area. Prices for those properties closest to the
Westway are still depressed as those properties still experience
noise, visual and atmospheric pollution.


So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always
offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the
elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their
buildings.

I doubt that's a benefit worth factoring in when you build a new
road. "I'm afraid we're demolishing the houses next door to put in
a six-lane motorway, but it's OK because you can put a big advert
on the side of your house..."

I always thought that fixed adverts next to motorways weren't allowed on
safety grounds, and that this explains why our motorways generally
aren't lined with adverts, in contrast to some other countries. But
this rule, if it exists, doesn't seem to apply to the elevated section
of the M4, where not only are buildings used as advertising hoardings,
but purpose-built advert towers have been erected on land beside the A4
to distract drivers on the M4. Anyone know if such a rule exists?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:26:20 GMT, Richard J. wrote:

I always thought that fixed adverts next to motorways weren't allowed on
safety grounds, and that this explains why our motorways generally
aren't lined with adverts, in contrast to some other countries. But
this rule, if it exists, doesn't seem to apply to the elevated section
of the M4, where not only are buildings used as advertising hoardings,
but purpose-built advert towers have been erected on land beside the A4
to distract drivers on the M4. Anyone know if such a rule exists?

Its up to the relevant highway agency to object to the planning permission,
in every case on the M4 they didn't bother (or couldn't be even bothered to
consider it).

For all signs along the elevated section the signs were refused permission
by the council (on local environment grounds), but the firms building these
things are huge and just build it anyway then put in appeals to overrule
the council later on. Some of the signs use the loophole on adverts on
"building sites" anyway.

Steve

Dave Arquati wrote:
The point is that the people who have to suffer the negative
consequences of the new road are not the ones who benefit from it.

Maybe but not everyone can gain all the time. Much of the location of
the road I was suggesting was on relatively undeveloped ground i.e.
Harlesden near Scrubs Lane and Cricklewood near Staples Corner
(although they are planning new development there). If you've been
through Harlesden - well Willesden Junction is like the Clapham
Junction of the North West and there's just a whole network of railways
lines all over the place. As a result much of the area is industrial /
warehouses. Some of the freight can come into London on trains, but
then they will need lorries to distribute it around London (and also to
places where there are no railway lines). A good road suitable for
lorries would obviously be useful.

The main section that would be a problem is north of Harrow Road until
the A5. This area would probably be best tunnelled, with a junction to
the A407, although it's difficult to know where to put this junction.

Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL
have done when considering where to draw the boundary?

During my time as a minicab driver I probably drove more in those areas
than any of them have. North Kensington is not that congested. Not even
Ladbroke Grove, but if traffic is pushed from Ladbroke Grove onto
Scrubs Lane (which it will be), then Scrubs Lane itself definitely will
not be able to take the capacity. Harrow Road will also reach capacity
between Ladbroke Grove (B450) and Scrubs Lane (A219) as traffic coming
from Kensal Rise will be diverted. And the plucky little B451 - how the
hell did that road get classified? It's a small residential road with
not enough room for 2 vehicles to pass each other.

What I'm saying is that the M25 proves that orbital routes in particular
generate extensive numbers of new or longer car journeys. New or longer
car journeys are not a particularly good thing, as they increase the
damage to the environment, cause more air pollution and increase our
dependence on oil.

Or maybe other demographic factors, for example the decentralisation of
industry (i.e. more businesses outside of the centre of London), and
the high cost of living.

If you have an issue with that final point then I suggest we drop this
line of argument, because we won't get anywhere with it.

No, I agree it would be good to cut pollution. We all want to cut
pollution.
And alternative fuels may eventually lead to reducing the need for oil.

I agree that we should improve orbital public transport (as is now
beginning with the ELL extensions and NLL/WLL improvements) - but
orbital public transport can *never* compete properly with orbital
journeys by private transport, because of the huge number of different
origins and destinations involved. Therefore, don't build new roads
which will generate new orbital journeys, because the majority of
travellers just won't choose public transport for those journeys.

Some will always use their cars. But ask commuters why they use their
cars to get to work and many will tell you they have no choice - i.e.
there is no viable alternative.

No, you can't provide for every point but you can for the most common
ones, for example those parts of Thames Valley where there is a lot of
business. Driving to work can be stressful.

The ORBIT multi-modal study recently carried out by the DfT said two
things. Firstly, public transport improvements will make a negligible
difference to traffic levels on the M25.

Do you have a link to this study?

Secondly, creating new orbital
road capacity (e.g. widening the M25 or improving/providing other
orbital roads) will generate enough new traffic within a few years to
negate the benefit of the new capacity - and the only way to avoid that
scenario is to toll the road.

I never said that we should have the roads for free, and other
countries like the USA toll their roads, however they pay very little
in fuel duty whereas we pay a much higher amount, thus also paying to
use the roads by that means instead.

You brought it up before. You may not want to go to central London, but
hundreds of thousands of other people do - and their journeys can be
catered for by public transport, whereas growth in employment around
motorways like the M25 cannot.

And lots of people go into Central London not because it's their final
destination but it's the only place they can change trains.

Besides the fact that a lot of people use public transport into Central
London because it's there. So if you do work in Central London then
obviously you are going to choose that mode of transport.

The catchment area of an employment or commercial destination built
deliberately next to a high-capacity road is *much* wider than the
narrow band alongside the main road that public transport would serve.
You may attract some people to public transport along these roads, but
only a small proportion of the people who use cars.

People are also unwilling to change that many times on public transport
- and even changes on a totally integrated service add time to the journey.

It can also be extremely difficult to devise effective routes to link
business parks etc. on a trunk route (which generally bypass town
centres) with the town centres themselves.

We need to look at a case in point. If we had a bus service that served
the Western stretch of the M25 then it might pull off somewhere near
junction 13 into a bus station, which might also have a shopping area
attached to it. From there you could get another (local) bus to Staines
or Egham, either to the town centre or to a place of work just outside.

What you wouldn't want is a bus heading off the M25 right into the town
centre of Staines, then going back to the M25 to serve the next point.
It would cause far too much delay for those who do not want to stop in
Staines (and would not be that convenient for Egham-based passengers
either).

An express bus serving the A30 may also pull into the same bus-station
to provide a decent interchange.

Obviously during peak hours these buses must run fairly frequently. If
you have to wait 20 minutes for your change or even 15 minutes you'll
go back to your car. If you have to wait 5 minutes it will probably be
acceptable.

And as for starting destinations, maybe I will do a part of my journey
by car but then the ability to do that has been reduced as parking
anywhere near a station has become discouraged with restrictions and
excessive car-parking charges. That should be addressed too (i.e. park
and ride).


That's an interesting idea (which is used sometimes in this country too
at places like Bicester and Banbury) but is it really relevant to the
rest of the conversation? Sorry if I misunderstand.

As far as reducing congestion overall, and part of an integrated
transport system which includes taxis and private hire.

On 8 Aug 2005 03:45:31 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:
....
Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL
have done when considering where to draw the boundary?

During my time as a minicab driver I probably drove more in those areas
than any of them have. North Kensington is not that congested. Not even
Ladbroke Grove, but if traffic is pushed from Ladbroke Grove onto
Scrubs Lane (which it will be), then Scrubs Lane itself definitely will
not be able to take the capacity. Harrow Road will also reach capacity
between Ladbroke Grove (B450) and Scrubs Lane (A219) as traffic coming
from Kensal Rise will be diverted.

I live in that area and agree - it can get congested if the horsey
army is on the clip-clop from Hyde Park out up Scrubs Lane, or if
something goes pear shaped in Acton but otherwise it is just not
congested. I think Dave's faith in TfL's research is mis-placed: the
intended boundaries for CC2006/7 are probably well chosen for placing
cameras but definitely not for the official aim of reducing congestion
(as there is little enough of that). This is also shown by the other
possible plans: boundary at HolPkAve, boundary one street up from LGr
tube stn - these would be harder to enforce without cameras every 10
metres. It is about earning revenue for bonds to invest in PT, esp.
buses. Admit that and Ken could move on to making payment easier for
residents without having to sign up for that fleet car cover!

What is annoying to me is excluding Sainsbury's and also excluding the
soon-to-open v. massive White City shopping centre will lead to real
congestion all around the imminent west CC zone. Can't preach car
limits on the one hand while allowing the size of retail park which
can only encourage it in the first place (notwithstanding an extra
tube stn).



--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

Colum Mylod wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 03:45:31 -0700, "Earl Purple"


I live in that area and agree - it can get congested if the horsey
army is on the clip-clop from Hyde Park out up Scrubs Lane, or if
something goes pear shaped in Acton but otherwise it is just not
congested.

Yes, the name of the road becomes Wood Lane after the junction of North
Pole Road (and not at the A40 which is where I always think of it
changing name). It is this stretch that won't be able to take the
capacity, particularly with the bus lane.

It is notable that Willesden Junction station, just outside the new
zone, is in Zone 3. The CG zone is generally zone 1. My proposed
extension would keep it primarily zone 1.

(notwithstanding an extra [white city] tube stn)

That happens to be about 200 yards from the northern end of the
previous station's platform

If they had instead opened an exit at the north end of Shepherds Bush
(H&C) to McFarlane road, or perhaps a covered footbridge past TVC (with
an staff exit ) there wouldn't be anyneed for a white city entrance.