Call for Action,
If you are a regular user of the M3 between junction 1 and 3 you will be
aware of crazy scheme under trial by the Highways agency. Details can be
found on the highways Agency website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14533.aspx

Please sign my petition against this scheme on the 10 Downing Street
website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/m25m3project/

Regards

Robert

In summary
In March 2007 The Highways Agency started a scheme designed to try and
reduce congestion on the M25 at junction 12 and give road users a
consistent and reliable journey time.

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1 lane
through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will have to be
compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining the M3". M3
motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks at peak times. I
understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues at peak times.

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes southbound on
the M3 through the scheme.

"Rob (UK)" wrote in news:465f1444$0$8722
:

Call for Action,
If you are a regular user of the M3 between junction 1 and 3 you will be
aware of crazy scheme under trial by the Highways agency. Details can be
found on the highways Agency website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14533.aspx

Please sign my petition against this scheme on the 10 Downing Street
website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/m25m3project/

Regards

Robert

In summary
In March 2007 The Highways Agency started a scheme designed to try and
reduce congestion on the M25 at junction 12 and give road users a
consistent and reliable journey time.

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1 lane
through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will have to be
compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining the M3". M3
motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks at peak times. I
understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues at peak times.

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes southbound on
the M3 through the scheme.


And the scheme is so wonderfully efficent that it requires a 50mph speed
limit enforced with SPECS....

Why does this seem to sum up this country at the moment?

Rob (UK) ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1 lane
through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will have to be
compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining the M3". M3
motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks at peak times. I
understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues at peak times.

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes southbound on
the M3 through the scheme.

If it really is causing that much chaos for no benefit, it'll be rolled
back at the end of the trial.

Rob (UK) wrote:
Call for Action,
If you are a regular user of the M3 between junction 1 and 3 you
will be aware of crazy scheme under trial by the Highways agency.
Details can be found on the highways Agency website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14533.aspx

Please sign my petition against this scheme on the 10 Downing Street
website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/m25m3project/

Regards

Robert

In summary
In March 2007 The Highways Agency started a scheme designed to try
and reduce congestion on the M25 at junction 12 and give road users
a consistent and reliable journey time.

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1
lane through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will have
to be compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining the
M3". M3 motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks at
peak times. I understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues at
peak times.

If the traffic joining the M3 westbound still queues at peak times,
doesn't it indicate that the trial scheme doesn't give undue priority to
ex-M25 traffic? How long are the M3 tailbacks anyway?

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes
southbound on the M3 through the scheme.

Why do you believe that through traffic on the M3 deserves 2 lanes
against the single lane for traffic joining from *both* directions of
the M25?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

Rob (UK) wrote:

Call for Action,
If you are a regular user of the M3 between junction 1 and 3 you
will be aware of crazy scheme under trial by the Highways agency.
Details can be found on the highways Agency website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14533.aspx

Please sign my petition against this scheme on the 10 Downing Street
website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/m25m3project/

Regards

Robert

In summary
In March 2007 The Highways Agency started a scheme designed to try
and reduce congestion on the M25 at junction 12 and give road users
a consistent and reliable journey time.

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1
lane through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will have
to be compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining the
M3". M3 motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks at
peak times. I understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues at
peak times.


If the traffic joining the M3 westbound still queues at peak times,
doesn't it indicate that the trial scheme doesn't give undue priority to
ex-M25 traffic? How long are the M3 tailbacks anyway?

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes
southbound on the M3 through the scheme.


Why do you believe that through traffic on the M3 deserves 2 lanes
against the single lane for traffic joining from *both* directions of
the M25?

Because I use the M3 everyday. Even at peak traffic time, I believe the
new layout does not reduce the congestion off the M25. All its done is
cause tailbacks back up the M3 to the mile marker. That is not an
improvement. To add insult to the case they have installed a Specs
average speed detection system to ensure that everyone does 50mph
through the scheme. This just serves to compound the reduction to 1
lane. To quote Jeremy Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the number of
lanes from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get the same
number of cars throug per hour", not likely to happen! This scheme was
thought up solely to improve M25 traffic flow at peak times. Which
consequently is the only time the Specs system is useless because
everyone is crawling. So the cameras are there to catch people out at
non-peak times and to fund their project and 24 hour security team.

Robert

Rob (UK) wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

Rob (UK) wrote:

Call for Action,
If you are a regular user of the M3 between junction 1 and 3 you
will be aware of crazy scheme under trial by the Highways agency.
Details can be found on the highways Agency website at
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14533.aspx

Please sign my petition against this scheme on the 10 Downing
Street website at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/m25m3project/

Regards

Robert

In summary
In March 2007 The Highways Agency started a scheme designed to try
and reduce congestion on the M25 at junction 12 and give road
users a consistent and reliable journey time.

In order to achieve this they have reduced the M3 southbound to 1
lane through the junction. They say that "this disbenefit will
have to be compared with the cost benefits to M25 traffic joining
the M3". M3 motorists now have to endure daily southbound tailbacks
at peak times. I understand that M25/M3 slip traffic still queues
at peak times.


If the traffic joining the M3 westbound still queues at peak times,
doesn't it indicate that the trial scheme doesn't give undue
priority to ex-M25 traffic? How long are the M3 tailbacks anyway?

This Petition campaigns for the restoration of the 2 lanes
southbound on the M3 through the scheme.


Why do you believe that through traffic on the M3 deserves 2 lanes
against the single lane for traffic joining from *both* directions
of the M25?

Because I use the M3 everyday. Even at peak traffic time, I believe
the new layout does not reduce the congestion off the M25. All its
done is cause tailbacks back up the M3 to the mile marker. That is
not an improvement.

If you use the M3 every day, how can you assess the improvement or lack
of it on the M25? I would have thought that doubling the number of
lanes on the M25-M3 sliproad would have improved the flow off the M25.

To add insult to the case they have installed a Specs average speed
detection system to ensure that everyone does 50mph through
the scheme.

So what speed limit do you think is sensible for a junction where 2
lanes of heavy traffic join a single lane carriageway? 50 mph sounds
sensible for this unusual configuration on safety grounds.

This just serves to compound the reduction to 1 lane. To quote Jeremy
Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the number of lanes
from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get the same number
of cars throug per hour", not likely to happen!

Clarkson is presumably ignorant of the benefits to traffic flow of
moderating speeds in heavy traffic, hence the use of variable limits on
the M25.

This scheme was thought up solely to improve M25 traffic
flow at peak times.

Yes, with some reduction of flow on the M3, as a way of improving the
majority of journeys. You seem to be selfishly intent on maintaining
your speed on the M3, and sod everyone else.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Rob (UK) wrote:

To quote Jeremy Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the
number of lanes from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get
the same number of cars throug per hour",

Clarkson is having fun at your expense. The stopping distance at 70mph is
approximately double the stopping distance at 50mph, so more cars per hour
can fit through at 50mph. This is why too much traffic causes vehicles to
slow down rather than speed up.

On Jun 1, 12:00 am, "Rob (UK)" wrote:
To quote Jeremy Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the number of
lanes from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get the same
number of cars throug per hour"

Except it's wrong. You have to halve the headway (in time terms),
which only requires doubling the speed if the headway (in terms of
distance) stays the same. If you can halve the distance between cars
then no increase in speed is necessary. Given that stopping distances
at lower speeds are disproportionately shorter, reducing the speed
actually increases throughput.

U

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:00:35AM +0100, Rob (UK) wrote:

To quote Jeremy Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the number of
lanes from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get the same
number of cars throug per hour"

Thus demonstrating that he failed O level physics.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the *square* of a car's speed.
Consequently the safe distance between cars also goes up approximately
with the square of their speed. So in fact increasing speed will reduce
throughput.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

There once a a tramp with "enable"
Whose router used proprietary cables.
When he got ****ed on meths,
He thought "screw IOS",
"Let's apt-get install iptables"

"David Cantrell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:00:35AM +0100, Rob (UK) wrote:

To quote Jeremy Clarkson he said that "If you reduce the number of
lanes from 2 to 1 then you have to double the speed to get the same
number of cars through per hour"

Thus demonstrating that he failed O level physics.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the *square* of a car's speed.
Consequently the safe distance between cars also goes up approximately
with the square of their speed. So in fact increasing speed will reduce
throughput.

ISTR the maximum throughput is achieved at something between 15 and 20
miles/hour.

D A Stocks