|
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
On 2008-08-18, Tony Dragon wrote:
snip 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. All that means is that delays propagate back from further North onto the bypass. Then a relatively small number of vehicles will be able to get to the junction faster if they use the old road. Then they cause extra congestion at the junction. As more vehicles use the old road, they will have to go slower, they will add to the congestion at the junction, and the bypass will become faster again - but slower than it would be if no-one used the old road. E |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
On Aug 18, 8:03*pm, JNugent wrote:
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? And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid clogging is absurd. Not my comment. I was replying to John Rowland's comments, not yours. So what are you getting so excited about? |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
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? Any motorway in Duhg world. Especially pedestrians and cyclists. -- 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
Peter Heather wrote:
On Aug 18, 8:03 pm, JNugent wrote: 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? And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid clogging is absurd. Not my comment. I was replying to John Rowland's comments, not yours. You were replying, portmanteau-style, to both sets of comments. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote: 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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. So they're not motorways? |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: 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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. So they're not motorways? I was wondering whether you would try that line. They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that category. 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. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
"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. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic
|
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote: JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: 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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. So they're not motorways? I was wondering whether you would try that line. They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that category. Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken could get his grubby mitts on them Actually it was in order to have a sensible division of responsibilities between Transport for London and the DfT/Highways Agency. It wouldn't have made much sense, for example, to have the DfT responsible for a few miles of isolated motorway in West London on routes which were otherwise being transferred to TfL. Still, I guess it's more satisfying for you to make cheap jokes about the previous Mayor. and downgrade the speed limits, .... in the case of ex-A40(M) to the design speed of the road, and improving the traffic-flow efficiency at peak times too, so what's your problem with that? narrow them, Ex-A40(M) is still 6 lanes; don't know about A102(M); M41 reduced from 6 to 4 in order, I think, to incorporate the junction for the Westfield Centre (White City), but this hasn't affected traffic-flow efficiency as the roundabouts at each end are the limiting factor. 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. See above for the reason. No part of M3 or M40 is within Greater London, by the way. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
On 18 Aug, 23:48, "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. Hmm. What's the pink bit in the middle of the M4 on the way in from Heathrow, then? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
On Aug 19, 12:46*am, "Richard J." wrote:
JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: 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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. So they're not motorways? I was wondering whether you would try that line. They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that category. Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken could get his grubby mitts on them Actually it was in order to have a sensible division of responsibilities between Transport for London and the DfT/Highways Agency. *It wouldn't have made much sense, for example, to have the DfT responsible for a few miles of isolated motorway in West London on routes which were otherwise being transferred to TfL. *Still, I guess it's more satisfying for you to make cheap jokes about the previous Mayor. They don't seem to have noticed that the election is over. Or maybe it's a distraction from what's happening (or ceasing to happen) under the Tories. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
John B wrote:
On 18 Aug, 23:48, "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. Hmm. What's the pink bit in the middle of the M4 on the way in from Heathrow, then? At the time that A329(M) became A3290 west of Loddon Bridge, bus lanes on motorways weren't allowed. The regs must have been changed after then, and I think the first motorway bus lane was on the M4 airport spur leading into Heathrow, followed by the eastbound one on the main M4 carriageway. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote: JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: 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? The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway restrictions no longer apply. All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and handing them over to Mad Ken. So they're not motorways? I was wondering whether you would try that line. They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that category. 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. I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? Have you not seen the reduction of the speed limit on the former A102(M) (now plain A102 south of the river and A12 north of it? |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote: I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? I know of no road, either now nor previously, designated as the "M41". Have you not seen the reduction of the speed limit on the former A102(M) (now plain A102 south of the river and A12 north of it? I haven't been to that area for very many years. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
Brimstone wrote:
JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? I know of no road, either now nor previously, designated as the "M41". It's the A3220 West Cross Route at Shepherd's Bush. It's been reduced from three to two lanes in each direction, so "nearly half" is an exaggeration. It doesn't seem to have affected capacity or journey times, which depend on the roundabouts at each end. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? I know of no road, either now nor previously, designated as the "M41". It's the short spur (probably only about a mile) from the A40 southwards to Shepherd's Bush roundabout. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
Mortimer wrote:
Shepherd's Bush roundabout. Holland Park Roundabout! |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... Mortimer wrote: Shepherd's Bush roundabout. Holland Park Roundabout! Oh, is it called Holland Park roundabout? I always thought it was called SB roundabout, since it's only a hundred yards or so from SB shopping centre - the one which used to have a huge cutout of an HST on either side of the footbridge - and SB Common and SB LT and NR stations. But you're right: I've just checked on Multimap. I stand corrected! |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
Mortimer wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message ... JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? I know of no road, either now nor previously, designated as the "M41". It's the short spur (probably only about a mile) from the A40 southwards to Shepherd's Bush roundabout. I thought it was the A41(M). Thanks for the correction. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
John Rowland wrote:
Mortimer wrote: Shepherd's Bush roundabout. Holland Park Roundabout! Indeed, I'd always heard it referred to as Shepherd's Bush roundabout. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
Mortimer wrote: "Brimstone" wrote: JNugent wrote: Brimstone wrote: I used the Westway in both directions yesterday and noticed no diminuation in traffic capacity compared to their previous status. In fact the only change I saw was in the designation and numbering of the road and the consequent alteration in the direction sign colour. What is your evidence that there has been any such diminuation? Is there any point to your ranting other than to poitlessly and unjustifiably castigate Livingstone? Have you seen the former M41 (with nearly half the road space snaffled for other purposes)? I know of no road, either now nor previously, designated as the "M41". It's the short spur (probably only about a mile) from the A40 southwards to Shepherd's Bush roundabout. I thought it was the A41(M). Thanks for the correction. There *was* an A41(M) elsewhere - in the line of the A41, bypassing Tring. It was opened to traffic (IIRC) in the mid-1970s. It too was later downgraded, along with the plans for a motorway from NW London out through N Bucks (the same M41 which passed from Shepherds Bush to the Westway flyoiver). The norhern sretch of that road was presumably abandoned because of the decision to contruct the M40 through to the Midlands instead, though a new stretch of A41 was built from the Hemel area through to somewhere near Aylesbury. The former Tring bypass motorway was incorprated into it - you can easily tell when you are on that bit. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Brimstone wrote:
John Rowland wrote: Mortimer wrote: Shepherd's Bush roundabout. Holland Park Roundabout! Indeed, I'd always heard it referred to as Shepherd's Bush roundabout. Ditto. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
Richard J. wrote:
Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken could get his grubby mitts on them Actually it was in order to have a sensible division of responsibilities between Transport for London and the DfT/Highways Agency. It wouldn't have made much sense, for example, to have the DfT responsible for a few miles of isolated motorway in West London on routes which were otherwise being transferred to TfL. Still, I guess it's more satisfying for you to make cheap jokes about the previous Mayor. Hello, Ken. Why are you posting under a bogus name? Still, can't blame you, I suppose. and downgrade the speed limits, ... in the case of ex-A40(M) to the design speed of the road, and improving the traffic-flow efficiency at peak times too, so what's your problem with that? The A40(M) speed limit used to be 50 on the 2-lane stretch and 60 on the three-lane stretch. What are they now? The speed limit reductions I was thinking of were mainluy on the former A102 at Bow and the A102(M) just north of that (now A12) where a six-lane highway with hard shoulders is limited to 40mph. Oh, and th southbound continuation heading for Kent has been reduced from a 60 limit to a 50. Ex-A40(M) is still 6 lanes; don't know about A102(M); Speed limit curtailed to an unrealistically low 40 (this on a road which is a motorway in all but name and part of which used to be a motorway). M41 reduced from 6 to 4 in order, I think, to incorporate the junction for the Westfield Centre (White City), but this hasn't affected traffic-flow efficiency as the roundabouts at each end are the limiting factor. And the hard shoulders? What local junction needs two strips of land 27' wide and a mile long? There are now buildings on part of the west side of the former M41, where the hard shoulder used to be. See above for the reason. No part of M3 or M40 is within Greater London, by the way. I didn't think the M3 was (hence my question mark - the Surrey boundary is always a mystery to me). The point where the A40 becomes the M40 must be very close to the Bucks boundary - touch and go. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
JNugent wrote:
Richard J. wrote: and downgrade the speed limits, ... in the case of ex-A40(M) to the design speed of the road, and improving the traffic-flow efficiency at peak times too, so what's your problem with that? The A40(M) speed limit used to be 50 on the 2-lane stretch and 60 on the three-lane stretch. What are they now? The speed limit reductions I was thinking of were mainluy on the former A102 at Bow and the A102(M) just north of that (now A12) where a six-lane highway with hard shoulders is limited to 40mph. Oh, and th southbound continuation heading for Kent has been reduced from a 60 limit to a 50. Ex-A40(M) is still 6 lanes; don't know about A102(M); Speed limit curtailed to an unrealistically low 40 (this on a road which is a motorway in all but name and part of which used to be a motorway). M41 reduced from 6 to 4 in order, I think, to incorporate the junction for the Westfield Centre (White City), but this hasn't affected traffic-flow efficiency as the roundabouts at each end are the limiting factor. And the hard shoulders? What local junction needs two strips of land 27' wide and a mile long? The total length of the junction between the starting points of the two exit slip roads is 0.44 mile (measured on Google Earth) out of a total ex-M41 length of about 0.75 mile. The slip roads are all 2-lane. (Westfield is a *very* big shopping centre.) There are now buildings on part of the west side of the former M41, where the hard shoulder used to be. The only building is the southbound platform structure of the new Shepherd's Bush station on the West London Line, right at the southern end of the ex-M41. Then through the new junction you have 4 lanes of A3220 and 4 lanes of slip roads, with no hard shoulders. The north-facing slip roads continue right up to the point where the carriageways separate for the approach to the Northern Roundabout, and from there it has always been 2-lane. The only reason for building 3-lane carriageways was as part of the full Motorway Box. How else would you have accommodated road traffic for the Westfield Centre without "wrecking" the road? -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
JNugent wrote:
line. They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that category. 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. Classified motorways are generally looked after by the DoT or its contractors. A roads can also be maintained on this model particularly outside urban areas, but more often are devolved to the local authority to look after. -- 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
Richard J. wrote:
JNugent wrote: There are now buildings on part of the west side of the former M41, where the hard shoulder used to be. The only building is the southbound platform structure of the new Shepherd's Bush station on the West London Line, right at the southern end of the ex-M41. Then through the new junction you have 4 lanes of A3220 and 4 lanes of slip roads, with no hard shoulders. The north-facing slip roads continue right up to the point where the carriageways separate for the approach to the Northern Roundabout, and from there it has always been 2-lane. The only reason for building 3-lane carriageways was as part of the full Motorway Box. How else would you have accommodated road traffic for the Westfield Centre without "wrecking" the road? 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. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
On 20 Aug, 02:32, "John Rowland"
wrote: How else would you have accommodated road traffic for the Westfield Centre without "wrecking" the road? 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. That would have been an excellent plan - but would doubtless have made JNugent's head explode with rage. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:37:55 -0700 (PDT), 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 where there isn't sufficient space available to build new roads but M25 widening still seems to be ongoing? Over the rest of UK there are loads of roads continually being built or widened. "Cost of Britain's road-building projects soars by almost £4bn By Michael Savage Saturday, 16 August 2008 Britain's road-building programme will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds more than expected, with some major projects more than doubling in price in five years, research indicates. Figures compiled by the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) pressure group showed that 41 road projects which had been calculated to cost £4.45bn will now cost taxpayers £8.12bn – a rise of almost 83 per cent. Critics blame the Highways Agency, maintaining that at the time the projects were approved it made major errors in its calculation of inflation and the likely costs of materials, labour and compensation for homeowners. The study revealed that improvements to one stretch of the A14 between Ellington and Fen Ditton in Cambridgeshire had risen from an estimated £490m in 2003 to £1.2bn..." Mo http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...bn-898981.html What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over the last (say) ten years Doug? -- 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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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? |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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. |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
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.] |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
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 |
TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
Nick Leverton wrote:
There, did you spot it ? Yes, you cared enough to flounce, **** and moan. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk