Coulsdon bypass.
 

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I will; the Coulsdon bypass
opened sometime yesterday,18-12-06. It was closed when I went to work,
but had opened by the time I came home.

I haven't seen it in daylight yet, but I noticed something strange this
morning. I catch my bus from a stop on the section of road which has
been bypassed, and since about September the traffic has been even
worse than usual; it's not just school traffic, as it's still bad
during half-term week, and later in the morning, when schools have
started; I don't know the reason.

This morning,looking up at the new bridge over Marlpit Lane, there was
a fair ampunt of traffic on the bypass, but the main road seemed to be
just as busy as before. I can't believe that the new road has caused a
sudden increase in traffic overnight. For much of the time the traffic
on the main road was at a standstill, as indeed was that on the bypass.
there seemed to be serious congestion at the new northern junction, by
the Methodist Church, where the bypass traffic re-joins the main Road.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Conductor in Charge of.......... wrote:

Well don't forget there is a nice big chunk of the bypass taken up with
bus lanes so that will not help traffic much!

I'm not a great fan of bus lanes anyway; they have to start somewhere,
and usually that involves a reduction in the width of the road
available for other traffic, and therefore a tailback at that point in
which all traffic, including the buses, gets caught up. Most of the
bus lane itself is empty, and a waste of road space.

What is the point of a bus lane on the bypass? Surely the buses need
to serve the stops on the main road, which would be bypassed. The
three routes which I can use, 60, 405 and 166 all still go that way.
The only one of these which could, in theory, use the bypass would be
the 405, but then it wouldn't serve my stop, and I wouldn't be happy.
The only other use I could see for a bus lane would seem to be for the
National Express coaches, but there are so few of them that would be an
even bigger waste of space. Am I missing something?

This morning the concestion did seem better than yesterday, but I don't
think much better than usual; there were still considerable delays at
the new north junction traffic signals. So far I'm not too impressed
for, £33 million was it?

Coulsdon bypass.
 

wrote:
Conductor in Charge of.......... wrote:

Well don't forget there is a nice big chunk of the bypass taken up with
bus lanes so that will not help traffic much!

What is the point of a bus lane on the bypass? Surely the buses need
to serve the stops on the main road, which would be bypassed.
Am I missing something?

It isn't just a bus lane; it's a lane for 'priority traffic'. It can be
used by lorries and motorcycles as well as any buses that are using the
by pass. And it doesn't take away road space from other traffic as it
is an additiional northbound lane. The bypass has one lane for general
traffic in each direction and thus matches the road network to the
north and south and therefore has the same (or more) capacity as the
rest of the network.

One of the main benefits of the new road is to get the bulk of the
through traffic out of the town centre and to let it get back to being
a proper town centre. The congestion at the north end of the bypass
(for northbound vehicles) will not be cured permanently until Purley is
sorted out, as traffic often queues all the way back into Coulsdon.
However, some of the current congestion may be due to the need to fine
tune the signal timings once the traffic has settlled down into its new
patterns and everyone has got used to the road. That often takes a
couple of weeks until some drivers eventually get to understand the
layout and stopped dithering about.

Peter

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Peter Heather wrote:

It isn't just a bus lane; it's a lane for 'priority traffic'. It can be
used by lorries and motorcycles as well as any buses that are using the
by pass.

Sounds like most traffic except cars; is that about right. That would
make more sense than a purely bus lane; there are a lot of HGVs using
the bypass, but very few, if any, buses.

And it doesn't take away road space from other traffic as it
is an additiional northbound lane.

I was talking more about Bus Lanes in general, where one lane is
generally taken away from general traffic, to make room for them. Have
I understood you correctly; there is a northbound priority lane, but
not a southbound one? What is the reason for that?

The bypass has one lane for general
traffic in each direction and thus matches the road network to the
north and south and therefore has the same (or more) capacity as the
rest of the network.

One of the main benefits of the new road is to get the bulk of the
through traffic out of the town centre and to let it get back to being
a proper town centre.

What seems strange to me is that there still seems to be almost an much
traffic on the main road through the town centre, despite the fact that
there is also a considerable amount on the bypass. It seems almost as
if we have gained extra traffic overnight, which surely cannot be the
case. I was epecting to see a major reduction in traffic on the main
roadd yesterday morning, and that just wasn't the case.

The congestion at the north end of the bypass
(for northbound vehicles) will not be cured permanently until Purley is
sorted out, as traffic often queues all the way back into Coulsdon.
However, some of the current congestion may be due to the need to fine
tune the signal timings once the traffic has settlled down into its new
patterns and everyone has got used to the road. That often takes a
couple of weeks until some drivers eventually get to understand the
layout and stopped dithering about.

That certainly sounds possible; I do hope the situation yesterday
morning was not typical of how it is going to be in future.

I still haven't been able to take a look at the bypass in daylight yet.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

wrote:

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I will; the Coulsdon bypass
opened sometime yesterday,18-12-06. It was closed when I went to work,
but had opened by the time I came home.

Is there a point to the Coulsdon bypass? All it will do is shift the
usual traffic jams half a mile up the road to where it rejoins the old
A23. I can't believe digging up all those green fields not to mention
the millions it must of cost was really worth it.

B2003

Coulsdon bypass.
 

wrote:

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I will; the Coulsdon bypass
opened sometime yesterday,18-12-06. It was closed when I went to work,
but had opened by the time I came home.

I am not very familiar with that area, but I found this press release
about the opening of the bypass.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=988

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Boltar wrote:
wrote:

Nobody else seems to have mentioned it, so I will; the Coulsdon bypass
opened sometime yesterday,18-12-06. It was closed when I went to work,
but had opened by the time I came home.

Is there a point to the Coulsdon bypass? All it will do is shift the
usual traffic jams half a mile up the road to where it rejoins the old
A23. I can't believe digging up all those green fields not to mention
the millions it must of cost was really worth it.

That is the point of the bypass - it is supposed to move the traffic
jams from Coulsdon town centre to somewhere else. I don't think there
were many green fields dug up - at least half the bypass is through the
site of Coulsdon North station and carriage sheds.

John.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Boltar wrote:

I can't believe digging up all those green fields not to mention
the millions it must of cost was really worth it.

"Must of" is illiterate.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

Boltar wrote:

can't believe digging up all those green fields not to mention
the millions it must of cost was really worth it.

"Must of" is illiterate. Troll. I don't think digging up Coulsdon North
station was a bad thing.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

John Watkins wrote:

That is the point of the bypass - it is supposed to move the traffic
jams from Coulsdon town centre to somewhere else. I don't think there

True , but you'll probably find that once other drivers find the town
centre is now clear of traffic they'll use it as a rat run to somewhere
else. Someone else has already mentioned how traffic in the centre
doesn't seem to have dropped much.

B2003

Coulsdon bypass.
 

wrote:

Boltar wrote:

can't believe digging up all those green fields not to mention
the millions it must of cost was really worth it.

"Must of" is illiterate. Troll. I don't think digging up Coulsdon North
station was a bad thing.

Actually it was a typo when I was tired. And I'm glad you shared your
feelings about the old station , a worthwhile addition to the
discussion. Now run along and play with your friends, teacher will want
you back in class soon.

B2003

Coulsdon bypass.
 

"Must of" is illiterate. Troll. I don't think digging up Coulsdon North
station was a bad thing.

Actually it was a typo when I was tired. And I'm glad you shared your
feelings about the old station , a worthwhile addition to the
discussion. Now run along and play with your friends, teacher will want
you back in class soon.

Coulsdon North station wasn't dug up; the site where it used to be was.
The station had been gone for twenty years when construction of the
bypass started. At present I am living about one minutes walk from the
site of the station, and I can think of few stations more worthy of
closure. I believe that it used to have platforms on the quarry line,
but the only trains which served it were those on the terminating
service from London; I'm pretty sure this was because the LBSR overhead
system finished there. This service was transferred to Smitham
station, just a few tens of metres away. Since the quarry line was
built for the fast trains I can't see any reason why you would want to
stop any of them there. To have three stations, on three different
lines, so close together made no sense anyway; it's a pity tht they
couldn't have closed all three, and built one new one, serving all
lines. The site was doing nothing useful, it was overgrown, and piles
of rubble and scrap metal were dumped on parts of it. The subway still
existed, and part of it was briefly revealed when the site was cleared.
If you need some land to build a road and a site such as this is in
just the right place, then using it for that purpose seems like a
pretty sensible idea. If the station was still operational, was the
only one for miles around, and was heavily used, then I would agree
with you. The major demolition was at the site of the north junction,
where I think a total of twelve houses had to go. A car-washing
business was displaced from the land between the Brighton Road and
Marrpit Lane, where the central piers of the new bridge now stand. I'm
not sure what was previously on the land south of that point. The
bridge is an interesting design, it has six beams, but carried on just
four bearings.

Whether the bypass was worth its cost, said to be £33 remains to be
seen, it's only been open for a few days, and will always be a matter
of opinion; I'm undecided as yet. The stated purpose of the road was
to improve the town centre, not the lives of drivers, which I think it
is unlikely to do to any great extent. If that was the aim then I
think you would have had to extend it to Purley Cross, from where much
of the traffic would take the routes via Pampisford Road or the Purley
Way; The cost would have been many times greater to do that.

Coulsdon bypass.
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Since the quarry line was
built for the fast trains I can't see any reason why you would want to
stop any of them there.

The Quarry line was built as an avoiding line for Redhill. Until the early 1980s
stopping services used the western tracks (i.e. the current fast lines) between
Coulsdon and Victoria.

D A Stocks

Coulsdon bypass.
 

In article . com, () wrote:

Whether the bypass was worth its cost, said to be £33

If it really cost that, I suppose it must have been worth it!

--
Colin Rosenstiel