London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old August 19th 08, 11:13 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 24
Default 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.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TfL admits to card-clash Roland Perry London Transport 21 February 5th 14 07:29 PM
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway John B London Transport 92 October 25th 08 09:48 AM
DofT Deliberately Witholding Documents Heathrow Expansion? Dr Ivan D. Reid London Transport 0 December 16th 07 08:47 AM
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? [email protected] London Transport 0 March 16th 05 01:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2025 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017