JNugent wrote:
Brimstone 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).

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.

A motorway that went no where near any other

...apart from the A40(M), you mean?

Although I didn't say so, I was referring to both of those roads.

It was also meant to connect with
what is now numbered M1, some miles to the north. And it was meant to
cross the Thames at Wandsworth.

Indeed. The population told the planners what to do with that scheme.

and was a reminder of an
attempt to over ride the wishes of the population. The former A41(M)
from the Westway to Shepherd's Bush roundabout is, at most,
threequarters of a mile long.

Look at it now.

Redesignated to allow more people to use it and to gain greater
benefit.

Gawd - you sound just like Doug. You only left out the word(?):
"Hitlerian".

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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)

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?