While I can see that capacity problems at the Strand/Lancaster Place
junction might be an argument for the underpass to be northbound-only during
the morning rush-hour, and possibly the evening rush hour too, it seems
obvious to me that it should be southbound-only at all other times. There's
no real need for a northbound underpass when the roads are not crammed full,
and a southbound underpass would cut about 300 metres off a lot of journeys,
saving a lot of time, money and fuel. Tidal flow might have been rocket
science 50 years ago, but it surely couldn't cost much these days.

"John Rowland" wrote:
While I can see that capacity problems at the Strand/Lancaster Place
junction might be an argument for the underpass to be northbound-only
during the morning rush-hour, and possibly the evening rush hour too, it
seems obvious to me that it should be southbound-only at all other times.
There's no real need for a northbound underpass when the roads are not
crammed full, and a southbound underpass would cut about 300 metres off a
lot of journeys, saving a lot of time, money and fuel. Tidal flow might
have been rocket science 50 years ago, but it surely couldn't cost much
these days.

Out of interest, where did this spring from? Are there talks of making it
into some sort of tidal flow system?

Personally I say you're talking ****e. I've seen lots of queuing at varying
times of day on the approach to that junction from Waterloo Bridge, due to
lots of different movements - traffic from different directions, buses,
pedestrians, where the underpass has been a godsend, but never once had an
issue getting from North to South (Kingsway to Waterloo Bridge),even at busy
times of day - the traffic flow is just so much better. Probably to do with
the fact that (a) there are lots more pedestrians around the junction near
the Savoy, and (b) it's the last main junction before Trafalgar Square, so
it's all fairly slow and stop-start (more stop than start) from there to
Trafalgar Square. Nor have I ever known significant queuing on Fleet Street
approaching Aldwych from the East. And cutting 300 metres of journeys is
inconsequential when you consider the extra fuel that'll be wasted with lots
more people sitting stationary at traffic lights. There's plenty of
cross-London traffic in all sorts of directions during rush hour - it's
foolish (IMHO) to think that around there there's one clear flow heading
away from town.

And sorry for not structuring this better and making it more readable,
paragraph-wise.

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

AstraVanMan wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote:
While I can see that capacity problems at the Strand/Lancaster Place
junction might be an argument for the underpass to be northbound-only
during the morning rush-hour, and possibly the evening rush hour
too, it seems obvious to me that it should be southbound-only at all
other times. There's no real need for a northbound underpass when
the roads are not crammed full, and a southbound underpass would cut
about 300 metres off a lot of journeys, saving a lot of time, money
and fuel. Tidal flow might have been rocket science 50 years ago,
but it surely couldn't cost much these days.

Out of interest, where did this spring from?

My head,

Are there talks of
making it into some sort of tidal flow system?

Not AFAIK.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:07:45 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


While I can see that capacity problems at the Strand/Lancaster Place
junction might be an argument for the underpass to be northbound-only during
the morning rush-hour, and possibly the evening rush hour too, it seems
obvious to me that it should be southbound-only at all other times. There's
no real need for a northbound underpass when the roads are not crammed full,
and a southbound underpass would cut about 300 metres off a lot of journeys,
saving a lot of time, money and fuel. Tidal flow might have been rocket
science 50 years ago, but it surely couldn't cost much these days.


The queues on Waterloo Bridge were very often horrific both day and
night during the late summer when the underpass was closed for the
ramp to be rebuilt (I'm not sure if it's reopened yet as I'm not
working down there at the moment). You cannot have experienced those
queues or you would not be making this suggestion!

"John Rowland" wrote:
Out of interest, where did this spring from?

My head,

Are there talks of
making it into some sort of tidal flow system?

Not AFAIK.

Right. Well either way, I would definitely say it's absolutely fine as it
is. As I said, the southbound flow (Kingsway Waterloo Bridge) is *much*
better than the opposite going Northbound. Mainly, I suppose, because quite
simply the traffic isn't affected by the Lancaster Place/Strand/Aldwych
junction thanks to the way the one-way system around Aldwych is designed.
With the underpass taking the Northbound flow out of the equation,
everything works rather well.

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

Peter Frimberley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:07:45 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


While I can see that capacity problems at the Strand/Lancaster Place
junction might be an argument for the underpass to be
northbound-only during the morning rush-hour, and possibly the
evening rush hour too, it seems obvious to me that it should be
southbound-only at all other times.

The queues on Waterloo Bridge were very often horrific both day and
night during the late summer when the underpass was closed for the
ramp to be rebuilt (I'm not sure if it's reopened yet as I'm not
working down there at the moment). You cannot have experienced those
queues or you would not be making this suggestion!

You're right, I didn't, but the jams were perhaps caused by failure to
temporarily modify the traffic lights to cope with the increased northbound
traffic, rather than the fact that there was too much traffic for the
physical layout.