TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.

The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.

Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...

And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...

No I wasn't. I was stating that without traffic lights the traffic
flows more smoothly than with. If you wish to infer from that that I
am saying that they perform no useful function then that is your
inference, not my implication.

if they enable pedestrians to avoid getting run over, they serve a
purpose, even if the motor vehicles move better without them.

You seem to be confused about the difference between traffic lights
and pedestrian crossings.

If the traffic lights control road traffic at a pedestrian crossing, or if
there is a pedestrian crossing at a traffic light controlled road junction,
where is the confusion?

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 14:48, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm
I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not
sure how much to read into this.
It's hardly news. Anyone working in transport/telematics already knew
that Livingstone had issued an edict that the lights across London
were to be rephased to cause congestion prior to the introduction of
the congestion charge. In fact I stated this was what was happening
here at the time and had the usual cabal of ****wits and some who
should have known better screaming that it was a lie.
Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting. Indeed it could even result in
a reduction of car travel as motorists get fed up with so many delays
they are themselves responsible for. Unfortunately, our road spaces
are allowed to be demand driven resulting in perpetual roadbuilding
and widening and tinkering to the detriment of the environment and
quality of life of many people.
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over the last
(say) ten years Doug?

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London

See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?


--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Richard J. wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over the
last (say) ten years Doug?
I can name one:
"University Way" (part of the A206), which is inside the M25, but
which is not in London. The new-build part (which is now about ten
years old anyway) is in Dartford, Kent.
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.
There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage, though.
Witness the (former) A40 (M)
Westway? Looks much the same as it always was, apart from the lack
of lighting.
No longer subject to proper motorway regulations (purely in order to
bring it under Livingstone's control).

I'm not entirely convinced that it was ever a proper motorway, as the
relevant signs were blanked off many years before it became the A40, e.g.
the old "end of motorway" sign at the Edgware Road flyover. However, I
don't see that converting it from a motorway to an A road with restricted
access (no pedestrians for example) makes any practical difference as to how
useful it is.

and the disgrace of the wrecking of the (very useful) short stretch
of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.
In what sense has it been wrecked?
It was (part of) a motorway, six lanes and two hard shoulders.

Look at it now.

Since it's only half a mile long with a roundabout at each end, why would
you need six lanes? Even at an emotional level, I can't work up any concern
that it was the 6-lane M41 and is now the 4-lane A3220. It remains a useful
link with a quirky layout, as it's always been. To claim that it's been
wrecked is absurd.

The actual length is pretty irrelevant, you need to look at the flow
down the road.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun, 17
Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let alone
10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope the
Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in Docklands
- but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant" they are).

Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton down to
Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the stretch
past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated station
opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still taking
place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting. Indeed it could even result in
a reduction of car travel as motorists get fed up with so many delays
they are themselves responsible for. Unfortunately, our road spaces
are allowed to be demand driven resulting in perpetual roadbuilding
and widening and tinkering to the detriment of the environment and
quality of life of many people.


I hope you will still be able to cycle with your damaged foot, the one
you just shot yourself in.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in years...

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.

The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.

Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...

And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...

No I wasn't. I was stating that without traffic lights the traffic
flows more smoothly than with. If you wish to infer from that that I
am saying that they perform no useful function then that is your
inference, not my implication.

If your message had no implications, perhaps you should reply "And?" to your
own messages rather than mine.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London

See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?

A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Rowland wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting.
The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.
Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...
And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose... if they enable
pedestrians to avoid getting run over, they serve a purpose, even if the
motor vehicles move better without them.

This implies we could abolish any traffic lights in places where there
aren't pedestrians and thus improve flow - there are a lot of those, and
idiot road planners who all seem to be educationally sub-normal are
planning more.

I was always taught that traffic lights on a roundabout demonstrate a
complete failure of planning. Or at the least a tight fisted budgeting
department.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over
the last (say) ten years Doug?
I can name one:
"University Way" (part of the A206), which is inside the M25, but
which is not in London. The new-build part (which is now about ten
years old anyway) is in Dartford, Kent.
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside
the M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years,
let alone 10.
There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage,
though. Witness the (former) A40 (M)
Westway? Looks much the same as it always was, apart from the lack
of lighting.
No longer subject to proper motorway regulations (purely in order to
bring it under Livingstone's control).

I'm not entirely convinced that it was ever a proper motorway, as the
relevant signs were blanked off many years before it became the A40,
e.g. the old "end of motorway" sign at the Edgware Road flyover. However,
I don't see that converting it from a motorway to an A road
with restricted access (no pedestrians for example) makes any
practical difference as to how useful it is.

and the disgrace of the wrecking of the (very useful) short
stretch of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.
In what sense has it been wrecked?
It was (part of) a motorway, six lanes and two hard shoulders.

Look at it now.

Since it's only half a mile long with a roundabout at each end, why
would you need six lanes? Even at an emotional level, I can't work
up any concern that it was the 6-lane M41 and is now the 4-lane
A3220. It remains a useful link with a quirky layout, as it's
always been. To claim that it's been wrecked is absurd.

The actual length is pretty irrelevant, you need to look at the flow
down the road.

.... for which 4 lanes dual is very generous, especially since much of the
traffic feeds into a two lane single carriageway south of Shepherds Bush.
The length is relevant, because it is hard to get much over the 50mph limit
on it, and the time saved by doing so is negligible, making hard shoulders a
waste of space.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun,
17 Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope
the Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in
Docklands - but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant"
they are). Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton
down
to Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the
stretch past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated
station opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still
taking place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on top of
it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of London.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London
See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?

A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )

Indeed, a series of rhetorical questions in that I didn't expect any
response from Duhg on this.
--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London
See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?

A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )

Indeed, a series of rhetorical questions in that I didn't expect any
response from Duhg on this.

Doug is very well suited to being a politician in the present system. He
invariably answers the question he would have liked to have been asked
rather than the one actually posed.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun,
17 Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.
If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope
the Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in
Docklands - but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant"
they are). Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton
down
to Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the
stretch past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated
station opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still
taking place in that timeframe too.
If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on top of
it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of London.

Yes, you are right - my memory of this is faulty not having lived in the
area for some time.


--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London
See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?
A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )
Indeed, a series of rhetorical questions in that I didn't expect any
response from Duhg on this.

Doug is very well suited to being a politician in the present system. He
invariably answers the question he would have liked to have been asked
rather than the one actually posed.

Perhaps, but we do know he does not like the current system - not
authoritarian enough for him. (Does he understand words of 13 characters?)


--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London
See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you
some kind of idiot?
A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )
Indeed, a series of rhetorical questions in that I didn't expect any
response from Duhg on this.

Doug is very well suited to being a politician in the present
system. He invariably answers the question he would have liked to
have been asked rather than the one actually posed.

Perhaps, but we do know he does not like the current system - not
authoritarian enough for him.

Indeed, his authoritarian preferences can be seen when he's asked a question
he doesn't like and askes another.

(Does he understand words of 13
characters?)

It's not as short as "liar" so he might have difficulty with it.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Rowland wrote:

If your message had no implications, perhaps you should reply "And?" to your
own messages rather than mine.

If you want to put words into someone else's mouth perhaps you should
learn ventriloquism and purchase a puppet.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

"John Wright" wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting.
The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.
Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...
And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose... if they enable
pedestrians to avoid getting run over, they serve a purpose, even if the
motor vehicles move better without them.

This implies we could abolish any traffic lights in places where there
aren't pedestrians and thus improve flow

Or have them all turned off until activated by a pedestrian.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Wright wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun, 17
Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope the
Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in
Docklands - but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant"
they are).

Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton down to
Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the
stretch past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated
station opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still
taking place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

The A40 underpass at Hanger Lane has been in place since the late 1960s.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

JNugent wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun,
17 Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope
the Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in
Docklands - but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant"
they are).

Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton down
to Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the
stretch past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated
station opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still
taking place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

The A40 underpass at Hanger Lane has been in place since the late
1960s.

Late 1950s, or before. It's shown on a very early 1960s A-Z.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.

The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.

Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...

And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...

No I wasn't.

But you actually went on to say ...

the evidence is that traffic lights make things worse

So, if they make things worse, what do you think their useful purpose is?

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Ed Banger wrote:
In message , Tony Dragon
writes
I hope you will still be able to cycle with your damaged foot, the one
you just shot yourself in.

That's Doug 'Colander Foot' Bollen you're talking to.



Who now sinks when he tries to walk on water!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Richard J. wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.
The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.
Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...
And?
You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...
No I wasn't.

But you actually went on to say ...

the evidence is that traffic lights make things worse

So, if they make things worse, what do you think their useful purpose is?

To create congestion and pollution, thus providing a big stick to beat
the motorist with for his or her wicked ways. It's also a good excuse to
justify further taxation of the motorist because of the said pollution
and congestion they cause. It's nothing to do with the possibility that
someone involved with the planning side of things is in cahoots with
the people who make traffic lights.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Richard J. wrote:

But you actually went on to say ...

the evidence is that traffic lights make things worse

So, if they make things worse, what do you think their useful purpose is?

Traffic lights can, if used sensibly, alleviate problems at some
interchanges and serve a useful function in ramp metering. They are not
a universal panacea but that is how they have been treated by the lazy
and incompetent.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Brimstone wrote:

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on
top of it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of
London.

Was it lengthened when the gyratory was put in? It seems too long to have
been built just to go under a crossroads.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

On 17 Aug, 21:53, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
But you actually went on to say ...

the evidence is that traffic lights make things worse

So, if they make things worse, what do you think their useful purpose is?

Traffic lights can, if used sensibly, alleviate problems at some
interchanges and serve a useful function in ramp metering. They are not
a universal panacea but that is how they have been treated by the lazy
and incompetent.

I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys with
gaps between the convoys where people can cross the road without fear
of being killed. The alternative seems to be an endless stream of
traffic which makes crossing the road virtually impossible or else
means waiting a long, long time.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

(Of traffic lights)

I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys with
gaps between the convoys where people can cross the road without fear of
being killed. The alternative seems to be an endless stream of traffic
which makes crossing the road virtually impossible or else means waiting
a long, long time.

Aren't cyclists "traffic", then?

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Rowland wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on
top of it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of
London.

Was it lengthened when the gyratory was put in? It seems too long to
have been built just to go under a crossroads.

Nope, it is as it has always been. If you look at a plan view of the
gyratory, you'll see that it is to the north of the A40 and its underpass.
Even before the gyratory was built, the junction was a large one.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Rowland wrote:

Brimstone wrote:

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on
top of it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of
London.

Was it lengthened when the gyratory was put in? It seems too long to have
been built just to go under a crossroads.

It is as long as it is due to the need for its depth to be greater than
normal because it passes under "the built environment" (ie, it is more
of a tunnel than a cut and cover underpass) and because of the need to
keep the approach gradients as low as possible.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In message , JNugent
writes

"University Way" (part of the A206), which is inside the M25, but which
is not in London. The new-build part (which is now about ten years old
anyway) is in Dartford, Kent.

I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the M25
(whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let alone 10.

There's the Thamesmead-Erith spine road (Bronze Way), opened in 1997,
but the A23 Coulsdon By-bass, opened about 18 months ago, is the only
one built in the last decade that I recall.
--
Paul Terry

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Doug wrote:

I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys

Oh indeed we all know that your concept is that anything that
inconveniences the motorist must be a good thing.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In message , at 21:53:25 on
Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Steve Firth remarked:

They are not a universal panacea

Non-universal panaceas can be extremely unique.
--
Roland Perry

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

On Aug 17, 2:10*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:


The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

Peter Heather

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Peter Heather wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).
There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

Peter Heather


All true except that northbound traffic has delays to get off the new
road & this is nothing to do with congestion further on.
You will see an increasing amount of traffic going north that is
starting to use the old road as it is often faster.

--
Tony the Dragon

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Peter Heather wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:


The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road,
but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be
taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking
athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat
junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

(Of traffic lights)

I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys with
gaps between the convoys where people can cross the road without fear of
being killed. The alternative seems to be an endless stream of traffic
which makes crossing the road virtually impossible or else means waiting
a long, long time.

Aren't cyclists "traffic", then?

Cyclists ignore traffic lights so by Duhg's method if you start to cross
when the cars have all gone you get run down by a cyclist.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

On Aug 18, 2:20*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:


Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.- Hide quoted text -

My pleasure. And sorry for firing off an over grumpy response.

Peter Heather

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Peter Heather wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car?

Who said it was?

I said that the attitudes of modern highway planners are anti-car.

And they are.

It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north.

So was the first stretch of the M6. And the first length of the M1.

So what?

It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway.

Except for more capacity. And except for the fact that the
single-carriageway bypass will never be widened to four lanes (the
minimum capacity for a modern road), even if the A23 to the south is
ever widened to four lanes.
Oh... hang on...

Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

Oh, the situation is better than it was. But not as good as it should be.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars.

A "priority" lane which merely excludes one class of traffic?

Is that supposed to be funny?

Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

I can well imagine it. And given that the badly-needed northern
extension of M23 will probably never be built, who can blame them? That
still doesn't mean that the bypass is optimal or anywhere near optimal.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd.

Not my comment.

The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

TaL may yet come to its senses under the new management.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Brimstone wrote:

Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of more
people being allowed to travel easily by road between various points in
London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

That does not include allowing pedestrians, cyclists, horses-and-carts,
moped-riders and milk-floats to use motorways.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Rowland wrote:

Peter Heather wrote:

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.

I mentioned nothing about the junctions, so that is a non-sequitur.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of
more people being allowed to travel easily by road between various
points in London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

That does not include allowing pedestrians, cyclists,
horses-and-carts, moped-riders and milk-floats to use motorways.

Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?