Dave Arquati wrote:
The point is that the people who have to suffer the negative
consequences of the new road are not the ones who benefit from it.

Maybe but not everyone can gain all the time. Much of the location of
the road I was suggesting was on relatively undeveloped ground i.e.
Harlesden near Scrubs Lane and Cricklewood near Staples Corner
(although they are planning new development there). If you've been
through Harlesden - well Willesden Junction is like the Clapham
Junction of the North West and there's just a whole network of railways
lines all over the place. As a result much of the area is industrial /
warehouses. Some of the freight can come into London on trains, but
then they will need lorries to distribute it around London (and also to
places where there are no railway lines). A good road suitable for
lorries would obviously be useful.

The main section that would be a problem is north of Harrow Road until
the A5. This area would probably be best tunnelled, with a junction to
the A407, although it's difficult to know where to put this junction.

Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL
have done when considering where to draw the boundary?

During my time as a minicab driver I probably drove more in those areas
than any of them have. North Kensington is not that congested. Not even
Ladbroke Grove, but if traffic is pushed from Ladbroke Grove onto
Scrubs Lane (which it will be), then Scrubs Lane itself definitely will
not be able to take the capacity. Harrow Road will also reach capacity
between Ladbroke Grove (B450) and Scrubs Lane (A219) as traffic coming
from Kensal Rise will be diverted. And the plucky little B451 - how the
hell did that road get classified? It's a small residential road with
not enough room for 2 vehicles to pass each other.

What I'm saying is that the M25 proves that orbital routes in particular
generate extensive numbers of new or longer car journeys. New or longer
car journeys are not a particularly good thing, as they increase the
damage to the environment, cause more air pollution and increase our
dependence on oil.

Or maybe other demographic factors, for example the decentralisation of
industry (i.e. more businesses outside of the centre of London), and
the high cost of living.

If you have an issue with that final point then I suggest we drop this
line of argument, because we won't get anywhere with it.

No, I agree it would be good to cut pollution. We all want to cut
pollution.
And alternative fuels may eventually lead to reducing the need for oil.

I agree that we should improve orbital public transport (as is now
beginning with the ELL extensions and NLL/WLL improvements) - but
orbital public transport can *never* compete properly with orbital
journeys by private transport, because of the huge number of different
origins and destinations involved. Therefore, don't build new roads
which will generate new orbital journeys, because the majority of
travellers just won't choose public transport for those journeys.

Some will always use their cars. But ask commuters why they use their
cars to get to work and many will tell you they have no choice - i.e.
there is no viable alternative.

No, you can't provide for every point but you can for the most common
ones, for example those parts of Thames Valley where there is a lot of
business. Driving to work can be stressful.

The ORBIT multi-modal study recently carried out by the DfT said two
things. Firstly, public transport improvements will make a negligible
difference to traffic levels on the M25.

Do you have a link to this study?

Secondly, creating new orbital
road capacity (e.g. widening the M25 or improving/providing other
orbital roads) will generate enough new traffic within a few years to
negate the benefit of the new capacity - and the only way to avoid that
scenario is to toll the road.

I never said that we should have the roads for free, and other
countries like the USA toll their roads, however they pay very little
in fuel duty whereas we pay a much higher amount, thus also paying to
use the roads by that means instead.

You brought it up before. You may not want to go to central London, but
hundreds of thousands of other people do - and their journeys can be
catered for by public transport, whereas growth in employment around
motorways like the M25 cannot.

And lots of people go into Central London not because it's their final
destination but it's the only place they can change trains.

Besides the fact that a lot of people use public transport into Central
London because it's there. So if you do work in Central London then
obviously you are going to choose that mode of transport.

The catchment area of an employment or commercial destination built
deliberately next to a high-capacity road is *much* wider than the
narrow band alongside the main road that public transport would serve.
You may attract some people to public transport along these roads, but
only a small proportion of the people who use cars.

People are also unwilling to change that many times on public transport
- and even changes on a totally integrated service add time to the journey.

It can also be extremely difficult to devise effective routes to link
business parks etc. on a trunk route (which generally bypass town
centres) with the town centres themselves.

We need to look at a case in point. If we had a bus service that served
the Western stretch of the M25 then it might pull off somewhere near
junction 13 into a bus station, which might also have a shopping area
attached to it. From there you could get another (local) bus to Staines
or Egham, either to the town centre or to a place of work just outside.

What you wouldn't want is a bus heading off the M25 right into the town
centre of Staines, then going back to the M25 to serve the next point.
It would cause far too much delay for those who do not want to stop in
Staines (and would not be that convenient for Egham-based passengers
either).

An express bus serving the A30 may also pull into the same bus-station
to provide a decent interchange.

Obviously during peak hours these buses must run fairly frequently. If
you have to wait 20 minutes for your change or even 15 minutes you'll
go back to your car. If you have to wait 5 minutes it will probably be
acceptable.

And as for starting destinations, maybe I will do a part of my journey
by car but then the ability to do that has been reduced as parking
anywhere near a station has become discouraged with restrictions and
excessive car-parking charges. That should be addressed too (i.e. park
and ride).


That's an interesting idea (which is used sometimes in this country too
at places like Bicester and Banbury) but is it really relevant to the
rest of the conversation? Sorry if I misunderstand.

As far as reducing congestion overall, and part of an integrated
transport system which includes taxis and private hire.