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

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

In article ,
(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.

I seem to remember that they ceased to be motorways some time before Ken
became Mayor. I'm not sure they were ever to motorway standards, rather
like the M4 elevated section which is very much below today's standards.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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)