JNugent wrote:
Brimstone 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.

The A12 from the Lea to Redbridge opened in 1999.
The A13 from Dagenham to the M25 opened in 1998-99.
Waltham Abbey southern bypass opened in 2000
Orient Way in Leyton opened in 2001
Coulsdon relief road opened more recently
I think the A40 is currently being grade-separated through Acton

There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage, though.
Witness the (former) A40 (M) and the disgrace of the wrecking of the
(very useful) short stretch of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.

Although they have been reclassified as 'A' roads, both are just as useful
as they ever were.

John Rowland wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone 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.

The A12 from the Lea to Redbridge opened in 1999.
The A13 from Dagenham to the M25 opened in 1998-99.
Waltham Abbey southern bypass opened in 2000
Orient Way in Leyton opened in 2001
Coulsdon relief road opened more recently
I think the A40 is currently being grade-separated through Acton

I accept that I forgot the A12 and A13 improvements, but they were all
planned before Blair and Mad Ken's time.

"Orient Way" - wossat?

If it hasn't got a number, it's not likely to be an important highway,
is it?

The only one I can find is:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Orient+Way&sll=53.800651 ,-4.064941&sspn=9.806345,19.775391&ie=UTF8&z=15&iwlo c=addr

That doesn't look like a significant addition to London's highway
infrastructure to me.

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 plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage, though.
Witness the (former) A40 (M) and the disgrace of the wrecking of the
(very useful) short stretch of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.

Although they have been reclassified as 'A' roads, both are just as useful
as they ever were.

Have you *seen* the former M41 recently?

JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone 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.

The A12 from the Lea to Redbridge opened in 1999.
The A13 from Dagenham to the M25 opened in 1998-99.
Waltham Abbey southern bypass opened in 2000
Orient Way in Leyton opened in 2001
Coulsdon relief road opened more recently
I think the A40 is currently being grade-separated through Acton

I accept that I forgot the A12 and A13 improvements, but they were all
planned before Blair and Mad Ken's time.

"Orient Way" - wossat?

If it hasn't got a number, it's not likely to be an important highway,
is it?

The only one I can find is:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Orient+Way&sll=53.800651 ,-4.064941&sspn=9.806345,19.775391&ie=UTF8&z=15&iwlo c=addr

That doesn't look like a significant addition to London's highway
infrastructure to me.

It's to carry lorries between the industrial estate at the north end and the
A12, and so other traffic will find Church Rd and Oliver Rd quieter since it
was built.

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 at
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=...cl=1&encType=1
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage, though.
Witness the (former) A40 (M) and the disgrace of the wrecking of the
(very useful) short stretch of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.

Although they have been reclassified as 'A' roads, both are just as
useful as they ever were.

Have you *seen* the former M41 recently?

Yes, several times a week for the last three years. In what way did it used
to be better?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.