Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:
In message
,
at 20:51:00 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the crossings.
The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which is a
perfectly good bridge across the railway. If the highway
authority don't like that /they/ can build the bridge at their
expense.
Isn't the problem that the highway was there first? The railway
will have been constructed on the basis that the highway remained
open as much as possible. If the railway want to renege on that
bargain, /they/ can pay.
That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the
railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour. I'm
surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed as a rat
run years ago.
Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go either
north or south from their home without needing to battle through the
jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says there is a sports
ground and bowling green between the two level crossings, with road
access possible only from Vine Road.
In addition to the two Vine Road crossings, there are three more, at
White Hart Lane, Sheen Lane (by Mortlake station, B351) and Manor Road
(B353). Closing these crossings would put intolerable pressure on other
roads that bridge the railway. As in many parts of London, the railways
are a significant constraint on the free movement of people and goods.
You suggest that the "highway authorities" should solve the problem.
That just means that the cost would fall on the council tax payers of
L.B. Richmond-upon-Thames. Evidently you don't live there.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)