Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32:13 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote: I would have built a new 2+2 road from Wood Lane to Holland Park roundabout through the development site, and linked the access roads to that. I would then have made the west side of the green two-way, opened the bus-only cut through on the east side of the green to all traffic, made the connection from the green to the roundabout bus/taxi/cycle only, probably one lane each way. This would make the green into a nice place to sunbathe or shop. Ah yes, a scheme to drag the Bush from its lowly status of poundshops, fast food shops and hangout for inebriated persons to a higher plane of niceness. Methinks it would be fought by Hamm council who never did much for this area, and fought by the green-clad monster next door which won't want retail competition outside its control. Lose shopping centre space to a 2+2 road to improve the green to the south and try to cure the eternal traffic jam? Madness! As for accommodating road traffic for the Westfield, isn't it going to be a Bluewater at peak times anyway? Despite the PT options, the sheer size can only pay for itself by sucking in traffic from the wealthy west of London. Crazy place for such a big centre really. The main dosh as far as I can see will be from the Beeb employees next door, and they're going to be purged further by banishment to Salford. White City estates probably won't be the W's main savour. Peeps on tubes usually don't carry 20 bags of goodies home. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
#112
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:48:51 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message .. . Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken could get his grubby mitts on them and downgrade the speed limits, narrow them, or anything else of the sort of thing you'd expexct from him (he never had authority over any of the London motorways - eg, M1, M3(?), M4, M40, M11 - except the ones which were nobbled and handed over to him. That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M) Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses. Why did they need to downgrade it? They didn't downgrade the M4 when they put the bus/politician lane in from Junc2(?) -- Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster. Ken Livingstone 2001. PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please |
#113
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 20, 10:03 am, Colum Mylod wrote:
As for accommodating road traffic for the Westfield, isn't it going to be a Bluewater at peak times anyway? Despite the PT options, the sheer size can only pay for itself by sucking in traffic from the wealthy west of London. Crazy place for such a big centre really. The main dosh as far as I can see will be from the Beeb employees next door, and they're going to be purged further by banishment to Salford. White City estates probably won't be the W's main savour. Peeps on tubes usually don't carry 20 bags of goodies home. I thought the idea was to be a less unbearable version of Oxford Street, from which peeps on Tubes frequently carry many, if not 20, bags of goodies home. You may well be right that that's a special case and that people won't be willing to do the same thing 10 minutes further west, though. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#114
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Petert wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:48:51 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote: That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M) Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses. Why did they need to downgrade it? They didn't downgrade the M4 when they put the bus/politician lane in from Junc2(?) AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to be excluded from particular lanes. Berkshire Council / Reading Unitary Authority (forget which it was at the time) didn't have powers over motorways anyway so the simplest thing was to downgrade the last mile and-a-bit to A3290. The motorway regulations were only amended to permit special lanes when the M4 bus lanes were introduced some time later. I was living in BrackNull and working in Thames Valley Park at the time of the conversion so drove the entire length of the A329(M) each day. Ironically, a year or so after I moved to Reading to reduce travelling, the offices moved to BrackNull so I still had to trek up and down the A329 ... Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
#115
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nick Leverton wrote:
AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to be excluded from particular lanes. Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on motorways with three or more lanes? |
#116
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote: Nick Leverton wrote: AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to be excluded from particular lanes. Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on motorways with three or more lanes? Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ... Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
#117
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , Steve Firth wrote: Nick Leverton wrote: AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to be excluded from particular lanes. Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on motorways with three or more lanes? Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ... You don't need an area of expertise, jsut a grasp of logic. You're saying that the motorway regs didn't permit the exclusion of traffic (I suspect you mean "classes of vehicles") from particualar lanes. However it's clear that vehicles were excluded from particular lanes. Hence your statement was incorrect. |
#118
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nick Leverton wrote:
Steve Firth wrote: Nick Leverton wrote: AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to be excluded from particular lanes. Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on motorways with three or more lanes? Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ... The reason it was done*, in this context, isn't as important as how it was done. Either there there were regulations allowing it in the early sixties**, or there weren't. [* To prevent large and/or slow-moving vehicles from clogging all the lanes at once - which was starting to happen.] [** For that is when the third lane ban for lorries came in - 1960s.] |
#119
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote: You don't need an area of expertise, jsut a grasp of logic. You're saying that the motorway regs didn't permit the exclusion of traffic (I suspect you mean "classes of vehicles") from particualar lanes. However it's clear that vehicles were excluded from particular lanes. Hence your statement was incorrect. Observe how much I care about your unsupported opinion on my accuracy: There, did you spot it ? Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
#120
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nick Leverton wrote:
There, did you spot it ? Yes, you cared enough to flounce, **** and moan. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TfL admits to card-clash | London Transport | |||
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway | London Transport | |||
DofT Deliberately Witholding Documents Heathrow Expansion? | London Transport | |||
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? | London Transport |