|
Latest Heathrow master plan
On 08/12/2019 09:14, tim... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 23:53:02 on Sat, 7 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively have a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never have been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing. AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volume of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up the local route, whilst leaving the through route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 09:14:48 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 23:53:02 on Sat, 7 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the economy due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively have a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never have been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing. AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. That's why I said "effectively". The local traffic routes, while un-tolled, are largely single carriageway and only suitable for a small percentage of the through traffic deciding it need to rat-run. And likely to add half an hour to a ten minute trip. And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volume of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up the local route, whilst leaving the through route underused". The half an hour I mention above, mainly. Few people would endure that twice. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 09:37:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked: As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the economy* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively have a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never have been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing. AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volume of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up the local route, whilst leaving the through route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
|
Latest Heathrow master plan
On 09/12/2019 11:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:37:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Graeme Wall remarked: As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got sweptÂ* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate theÂ* economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded themÂ* out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively haveÂ* a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never haveÂ* been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing. Â*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have throughÂ* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. Â*And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it soÂ* that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volumeÂ* of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up theÂ* local route, whilst leaving the through route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing. Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked: As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the* economy* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them* out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively have* a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could never have* been said about the M6T. Think more like the Dartford Crossing. *AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled. *And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct it so* that it is fair to local traffic without having a non-negligible volume* of through traffic trying to become local traffic and clogging up the* local route, whilst leaving the through route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing. Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing. It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On 09/12/2019 13:41, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, Graeme Wall remarked: As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got sweptÂ* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate theÂ* economyÂ* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded themÂ* out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always aÂ* rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectivelyÂ* haveÂ* a monopoly on that particular flow, something which couldÂ* never haveÂ* been said about the M6T. Think more like the DartfordÂ* Crossing. Â*AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have throughÂ* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.Â* Â*And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you constructÂ* it so that it is fair to local traffic without having aÂ* non-negligible volumeÂ* of through traffic trying to become localÂ* traffic and clogging up theÂ* local route, whilst leaving the throughÂ* route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. Â*Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing. Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing. It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Which is a major detour through very congested streets for some miles, not a case of using a parallel minor road to a main route. As an example of what I refer to, the A33, mostly single carriageway, runs parallel to the M3 between Basingstoke and Winchester. Road pricing on the motorway would, inevitably, led to traffic using the A33 instead. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 13:57:02 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
Graeme Wall remarked: On 09/12/2019 13:41, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:21:14 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, Graeme Wall remarked: As for money to burn, it started as a toll road, but then got swept* up into a government-funded "shovels ready" project to stimulate the* economy* due to the construction jobs created. And there was me thinking that after the M6T disaster all of the constriction companies told HMG to "go swivel" when they sounded them* out about taking on the risk of the tolling The difference with the A14, and why being a toll road was always a* rather dodgy public policy decision, is that it would effectively* have* a monopoly on that particular flow, something which could* never have* been said about the M6T. Think more like *AIUI it wasn't suggested as a monopoly as the plan was to have through* traffic tolled, local traffic un-tolled.* *And the insurmountable problem with that was "how do you construct* it so that it is fair to local traffic without having a* non-negligible volume* of through traffic trying to become local* traffic and clogging up the* local route, whilst leaving the through* route underused". Which is the problem with all road-pricing schemes. *Didn't seem to bother the people funding the Dartford Crossing. Don't recall a rat-run being available to avoid the Dartford crossing. It's called the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Which is a major detour through very congested streets for some miles, not a case of using a parallel minor road to a main route. Precisely. And the new A14 is just the same. There is no parallel minor road for the green fields 8 miles they opened today. As an example of what I refer to, the A33, mostly single carriageway, runs parallel to the M3 between Basingstoke and Winchester. Road pricing on the motorway would, inevitably, led to traffic using the A33 instead. I'm discussing the A14. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. Only because of our daft loading gauge. They do it in other countries. Meanwhile the container trains trundling through the Fens parallel to the A14 are very rarely full (and frequently almost completely empty), so there's plenty of spare capacity. Which should be used. If companies don't want to use it then slap a massive tax on every truck coming out of the port with a container which is going to a destination that could be reached part or whole of the way by rail. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 16:00:40 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:49:26 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:54:39 on Wed, 19 Jun 2019, tim... remarked: [route for the M25] The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first, with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment. The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars belief. I disagree. Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there is, adjust description accordingly). Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow gap between the old and new northbounds at each end. Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all the cones. Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4). Yes, that's what I'm expecting. I have never in my life seen construction companies do this For once I agree with Tim. While it's not quite the M25, the A14 is one of the busiest dual carriageways in the country. They've recently finished (ahead of schedule) building the green-fields bypass round the southwest of Huntingdon, and now just need to splice it onto the old road towards Cambridge and the M11. And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. When I say negligible, I mean you can count the number you see in fifteen minutes on that extremely busy dual carriageway, on the fingers of one hand. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 16:41:19 on Mon, 9 Dec
2019, remarked: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Clearly you don't actually understand the problem, which is daily traffic jams of half an hour or more. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. Only because of our daft loading gauge. They do it in other countries. How many of the trailers arrive on our shores at container ports. None I think you'll find. Therefore even if the loading gauge was higher a Corbynistic hundred billion pound upgrade I suspect), there's no demand. Meanwhile the container trains trundling through the Fens parallel to the A14 are very rarely full (and frequently almost completely empty), so there's plenty of spare capacity. Which should be used. If companies don't want to use it then slap a massive tax on every truck coming out of the port with a container which is going to a destination that could be reached part or whole of the way by rail. There are very few such containers, because they are already travelling by rail if at all possible. Apart from anything else it's vastly cheaper. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On 09/12/2019 16:41, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. Only because of our daft loading gauge. They do it in other countries. Well, jusr roll out your time machine and go back and tell George to make the b****y things bigger. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 16:00:40 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 15:49:26 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 17:54:39 on Wed, 19 Jun 2019, tim... remarked: [route for the M25] The only disruption will come at the end, when the traffic is diverted to the new route. My guess is that the northbound traffic will be moved first, with a few weeks of lane 1 closures required while they connect the new to the old carriageways, then an overnight closure for the final switch to be made. The same procedure would then be followed a few months later to divert the southbound carriageway to the new alignment. The amount of work you would be expecting them to do "overnight" beggars belief. I disagree. Build the two new carriageways. At each end, cut them off very close to the edge of northbound lane 1 (there's no hard shoulder, right? if there is, adjust description accordingly). Cone off northbound lane 1. Spend a week or two filling in the narrow gap between the old and new northbounds at each end. Not sure that you even need a closure to switch over. Simply move all the cones. Repeat for the southbound (though this time you're closing lane 4). Yes, that's what I'm expecting. I have never in my life seen construction companies do this For once I agree with Tim. While it's not quite the M25, the A14 is one of the busiest dual carriageways in the country. They've recently finished (ahead of schedule) building the green-fields bypass round the southwest of Huntingdon, and now just need to splice it onto the old road towards Cambridge and the M11. And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. When I say negligible, I mean you can count the number you see in fifteen minutes on that extremely busy dual carriageway, on the fingers of one hand. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft tim -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 16:41:19 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, remarked: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Clearly you don't actually understand the problem, which is daily traffic jams of half an hour or more. Of course people buying into that urban myth were recently joined by the majority describing the truck full of deceased vietnamese migrants as a "refrigerated container", when it's nothing of the sort. It's a trailer, and we don't put those onto trains. Only because of our daft loading gauge. They do it in other countries. How many of the trailers arrive on our shores at container ports. None I think you'll find. Therefore even if the loading gauge was higher a Corbynistic hundred billion pound upgrade I suspect), there's no demand. the trailers arrive at Harwich |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019,
tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:29:21 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:41:19 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, remarked: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Clearly you don't actually understand the problem, which is daily traffic jams of half an hour or more. Aww, poor things, a whole 30 mins. They should try the 1+ hour jams I had to endure on the north circular when I commuted by car. And that was 5 years ago, probably worse now. Also how exactly do you get a 30 min jam in the few miles that this bypass is avoiding from a tiny town like Huntingdon when its already all dual carraigeway? How many of the trailers arrive on our shores at container ports. None I think you'll find. Therefore even if the loading gauge was higher a Not at container ports, but plenty of trailers get loaded and unloaded at Ro-ro ports. Which should be used. If companies don't want to use it then slap a massive tax on every truck coming out of the port with a container which is going to a destination that could be reached part or whole of the way by rail. There are very few such containers, because they are already travelling by rail if at all possible. Apart from anything else it's vastly If that was the case you'd barely see any in Essex. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it tim |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 12:55:29 on Tue, 10 Dec
2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Because the public apparently look at curtain sided HGVs with UK domestic brand logos, and identify it as a container that's arrived from the Far East at Felixstowe (and should be on a train) Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use What has that got to do with moving containers onto rail? trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it What's "it"? Containers on the A14, in which case I'll agree with you. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 12:29:52 on Tue, 10 Dec
2019, remarked: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 17:29:21 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:41:19 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, remarked: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 11:13:38 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:19:42 on Sun, 8 Dec 2019, remarked: And don't the local residents know it. I have some relatives who live in a village near there. 2 years ago it was lovely green fields down the road from their house , now theres a bloody dual carraigeway with all the accompanying noise and pollution they'll soon have to enjoy to follow on from all the construction work. All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Nobody cares how much the time the trucks save, it's mainly for the cars caught up in jams along with other cars. There's negligible HGV container traffic on that flow anyway, it's one of the enduring local urban myths. Whatever the governmental reason for it, no one in the area wanted the damn bypass. Its just more countryside carved up and more farmland disappeared under concrete to make a few minutes savings in journey times. Clearly you don't actually understand the problem, which is daily traffic jams of half an hour or more. Aww, poor things, a whole 30 mins. They should try the 1+ hour jams I had to endure on the north circular when I commuted by car. And that was 5 years ago, probably worse now. Also how exactly do you get a 30 min jam in the few miles that this bypass is avoiding from a tiny town like Huntingdon when its already all dual carraigeway? The jam is on the vastly over-subscribed dual carriageway which currently doubles as the Huntingdon inner ring road, plus the only major road between Huntingdon and Cambridge (any of the periphery, let alone the centre). How many of the trailers arrive on our shores at container ports. None I think you'll find. Therefore even if the loading gauge was higher a Not at container ports, but plenty of trailers get loaded and unloaded at Ro-ro ports. In the peaks, which are entirely car-created, there are 1000 HGVs an hour and 6000 other vehicles (about half of which are people who work in Cambridge). That's a total of one a second, and it's only a two lane road. So much for keeping a two second gap. Worse than that, the *total* of cars and HGVs using the most congested part of the A14, which have come from the East (which you'll need to if port traffic) is only 250 an hour. That's including all cars, and all HGVs from places other than the ports. The port traffic, even including trailers, is tiny. Which should be used. If companies don't want to use it then slap a massive tax on every truck coming out of the port with a container which is going to a destination that could be reached part or whole of the way by rail. There are very few such containers, because they are already travelling by rail if at all possible. Apart from anything else it's vastly If that was the case you'd barely see any in Essex. If you mean "on the A12" that's a different scenario completely. Many of those containers will be heading for destinations not served by a rail terminal, compared to the ones in the Midlands and the North that the trains via Bury, Ely and Peterborough are carrying. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 12:55:29 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Because the public apparently look at curtain sided HGVs with UK domestic brand logos, and identify it as a container that's arrived from the Far East at Felixstowe (and should be on a train) I had already understood that point but how is "(not) more than a handful" different to "minimal number"? Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use What has that got to do with moving containers onto rail? nothing the point is that people see "trucks" and it is the trucks that they want taken off the road (were possible) your fixation with people wrongly calling them containers has blinkered you into thinking that they only want the containers removed trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it What's "it"? Containers on the A14, in which case I'll agree with you. I still don't see that people only want the containers off the road, so that you can say "but they are" because they have wrongly identified trucks pulling trailers as flat bed containers you're just scoring points in a logic exam, not adressing the actual problem tim |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 21:21:35 on Tue, 10 Dec
2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:IcBsO7XkW67dF ... In message , at 12:55:29 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:DVw+cX8hmp7 ... In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Because the public apparently look at curtain sided HGVs with UK domestic brand logos, and identify it as a container that's arrived from the Far East at Felixstowe (and should be on a train) I had already understood that point but how is "(not) more than a handful" different to "minimal number"? You've got yourself tied in a knot (again). The urban myth is that the A14 project exists so that: trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstowe instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use What has that got to do with moving containers onto rail? nothing the point is that people see "trucks" and it is the trucks that they want taken off the road (were possible) your fixation with people wrongly calling them containers has blinkered you into thinking that they only want the containers removed The previous poster confirmed my view that local people (wrongly) believe the port traffic is a crucial, or even significant, contributor to the traffic congestion: trucks ... on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it What's "it"? Containers on the A14, in which case I'll agree with you. I still don't see that people only want the containers off the road, See above. so that you can say "but they are" because they have wrongly identified trucks pulling trailers as flat bed containers you're just scoring points in a logic exam, not adressing the actual problem Which problem do you have in mind: easing the congestion itself, or identifying the causes of the congestion? You can't do the former properly, without having first done the latter. Otherwise you end up with "solutions" that turn out to be white elephants, or which have the commonly observed phenomenon of simply moving the jam to somewhere else. That latter isn't inevitable, but is merely a symptom of a poorly designed solution. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 21:21:35 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:IcBsO7XkW67dF ... In message , at 12:55:29 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:DVw+cX8hmp7 ... In message , at 18:45:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: you seem to be arguing that trucks hauling trailers, as opposed to flat beds with a container on top, are somehow different on their effect to other road users don't see that distinction myself The distinction is whether or not they can be abstracted from the road by sticking them on a train. for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Because the public apparently look at curtain sided HGVs with UK domestic brand logos, and identify it as a container that's arrived from the Far East at Felixstowe (and should be on a train) I had already understood that point but how is "(not) more than a handful" different to "minimal number"? You've got yourself tied in a knot (again). No I was just asking you how your correction of my comment was any different to that which I posted? The urban myth is that the A14 project exists so that: trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstowe instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Can't say that I've ever seen anybody claim this (except boltar) so it certainly isn't a factor in my posts I've driven that road many times. I know why it needed to be updated. But I also know that the number of trucks on the road is far more than a handful. And I will confess that I would have suggested that these trucks had come from the Essex ports, and I would have probably suggested that they were containers. I'm quite happy for you to correct me that they are not containers, but even so, the trucks are there and they must have come from somewhere. Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use What has that got to do with moving containers onto rail? nothing the point is that people see "trucks" and it is the trucks that they want taken off the road (were possible) your fixation with people wrongly calling them containers has blinkered you into thinking that they only want the containers removed The previous poster confirmed my view that local people (wrongly) believe the port traffic is a crucial, or even significant, contributor to the traffic congestion: trucks ... on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. would that have been boltar - you know his claims have no credibility and there's no evidence that the post came from someone with local knowledge It just came from someone with a "goods should be carried by rail" prejudice (and to be fair there's nothing actually wrong with thinking that) trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it What's "it"? Containers on the A14, in which case I'll agree with you. I still don't see that people only want the containers off the road, See above. doesn't help because you're the one who's gone done the path of not understanding the point so that you can say "but they are" because they have wrongly identified trucks pulling trailers as flat bed containers you're just scoring points in a logic exam, not adressing the actual problem Which problem do you have in mind: easing the congestion itself, or identifying the causes of the congestion? the cause, or more specifically establishing what percentage of the cause is trucks. You can't do the former properly, without having first done the latter. At no time in this thread have I been discussing anything other than counting "trucks" on the road so any other points are irrelevant tim |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 08:58:44 on Wed, 11 Dec
2019, tim... remarked: for me, the distinction was the fact that you claimed it's an urban myth that there's a minimal number of "containers" using road No, I said it was an urban myth that *more* than a handful of containers were using the road. you need to explain how that's not the same thing Because the public apparently look at curtain sided HGVs with UK domestic brand logos, and identify it as a container that's arrived from the Far East at Felixstowe (and should be on a train) I had already understood that point but how is "(not) more than a handful" different to "minimal number"? You've got yourself tied in a knot (again). No I was just asking you how your correction of my comment was any different to that which I posted? I can't help you any further on the un-knotting. The urban myth is that the A14 project exists so that: trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstowe instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. Can't say that I've ever seen anybody claim this (except boltar) so it certainly isn't a factor in my posts As you've stumbled into a conversation between me and Boltar, what *is* a factor in your posts other than to agree with either him or me? It's also a topic which has cropped up over and over again in newsgroups, this idea that the A14 would be fine if it wasn't for the port traffic. I've driven that road many times. I know why it needed to be updated. But I also know that the number of trucks on the road is far more than a handful. Port traffic containers was the subject. Not trucks completely disassociated with the ports. And I will confess that I would have suggested that these trucks had come from the Essex ports, and I would have probably suggested that they were containers. I'm quite happy for you to correct me that they are not containers, but even so, the trucks are there and they must have come from somewhere. Ordinary domestic trucking between suppliers, warehouses and customers (many of whom are shops). Most people won't distinguish between containers and trailers they are both annoying vehicles to have surrounding you and they have both come off the ferry. Not off the container ships. And probably not off the completely separate RORO ferries. If you look at the HGVs on the A14 they are predominately domestic-domestic. even if they are, they are still using that route as a proxy for M25/A1 that they used to use What has that got to do with moving containers onto rail? nothing the point is that people see "trucks" and it is the trucks that they want taken off the road (were possible) your fixation with people wrongly calling them containers has blinkered you into thinking that they only want the containers removed The previous poster confirmed my view that local people (wrongly) believe the port traffic is a crucial, or even significant, contributor to the traffic congestion: trucks ... on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be. would that have been boltar - you know his claims have no credibility and there's no evidence that the post came from someone with local knowledge It just came from someone with a "goods should be carried by rail" prejudice (and to be fair there's nothing actually wrong with thinking that) He was quoting what I believe to be mis-informed locals. trying to tell people that "there aren't many containers off the ferry" without making it clear that you aren't counting most of the trucks because they are trailers, is daft See above; I wasn't claiming that. still don't see it What's "it"? Containers on the A14, in which case I'll agree with you. I still don't see that people only want the containers off the road, See above. doesn't help because you're the one who's gone done the path of not understanding the point I completely understand the point I was making, which is that it's absolutely not the port traffic which is congesting the A14. so that you can say "but they are" because they have wrongly identified trucks pulling trailers as flat bed containers you're just scoring points in a logic exam, not adressing the actual problem Which problem do you have in mind: easing the congestion itself, or identifying the causes of the congestion? the cause, or more specifically establishing what percentage of the cause is trucks. I gave the figures earlier. On the section of A14 in question, 1/7 of vehicles are a truck, and 1/30 vehicles has a source/sink east of Cambridge on the A14. If we assume (which I didn't) that the east-of-Cambridge traffic has the same truck/non-truck ratio, that's 1/210. And of that half a percent of the traffic, most of the trucks will be servicing routine commercial end-points in south Norfolk, and Suffolk, which aren't the ports. You can't do the former properly, without having first done the latter. At no time in this thread have I been discussing anything other than counting "trucks" on the road so any other points are irrelevant What you mean is, you are posting at cross purposes. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:19:11 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:58:44 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: It just came from someone with a "goods should be carried by rail" prejudice (and to be fair there's nothing actually wrong with thinking that) He was quoting what I believe to be mis-informed locals. As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
|
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:59:15 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:19:11 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019, remarked: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:19:11 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:58:44 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: It just came from someone with a "goods should be carried by rail" prejudice (and to be fair there's nothing actually wrong with thinking that) He was quoting what I believe to be mis-informed locals. As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. You also wrote, and I bothered to read: "All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be." Last time I looked lorries were still driven by drivers. The reasons are irrelevant, the bypass is the problem. If the old A14 were to be dug up and returned to farmland it wouldn't be so bad but we all know the chances of that happening are zero. About half the traffic is going to and from Cambridge, mainly cars, and this has increased over the years, and will continue to increase due to local house building at Northstowe, St Ives etc. The time which will be saved between Huntingdon and Girton is well over 15 minutes. No one cares apart from those commuting. Then there's the viaduct over the East Coast mainline, which has been crumbling down for years. Rather than try to rebuild what's really a Huntingdon inner ring road, the answer is a proper bypass. Though oddly the viaduct has already been re-designated the A1307. Apparently the danger of it falling down seem to have disappeared. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 12:08:39 on Thu, 12 Dec
2019, remarked: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:59:15 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:19:11 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019, remarked: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:19:11 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 08:58:44 on Wed, 11 Dec 2019, tim... remarked: It just came from someone with a "goods should be carried by rail" prejudice (and to be fair there's nothing actually wrong with thinking that) He was quoting what I believe to be mis-informed locals. As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. You also wrote, and I bothered to read: "All so trucks can save 10 mins on their way from Felixstow instead of putting the containers on trains where they should be." Last time I looked lorries were still driven by drivers. I honestly can't make sense of that remark's relevance to the urban myth regarding port traffic. The reasons are irrelevant, the bypass is the problem. The new bit of bypass is just one part of the scheme. The more important section from Cambridge services to Girton isn't open yet. That's just a widening project. If the old A14 were to be dug up and returned to farmland it wouldn't be so bad but we all know the chances of that happening are zero. The "old A14" (that's been bypassed) *is* being dug up, and returned to urban roads within central Huntingdon. People still need to be able to get from central Huntingdon to Girton and beyond, so a reduced capacity route is being created, along the old alignment, south to the Cambridge Services, and beyond. About half the traffic is going to and from Cambridge, mainly cars, and this has increased over the years, and will continue to increase due to local house building at Northstowe, St Ives etc. The time which will be saved between Huntingdon and Girton is well over 15 minutes. No one cares apart from those commuting. The other half of the traffic cares too, because they are currently stuck in jams created by the volume local commuters. Then there's the viaduct over the East Coast mainline, which has been crumbling down for years. Rather than try to rebuild what's really a Huntingdon inner ring road, the answer is a proper bypass. Though oddly the viaduct has already been re-designated the A1307. That's because the A14 now goes *around* Huntingdon. Apparently the danger of it falling down seem to have disappeared. Look again. That section of road of road has been closed to traffic, and the next stage is to demolish the viaduct. Then rebuilt as a single carriageway with the crossing of the railway achieved by new access roads down from the upper level to ground level, across the railway on an existing local bridge and back up again the other side. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:10:17 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: The new bit of bypass is just one part of the scheme. The more important section from Cambridge services to Girton isn't open yet. That's just a widening project. Befo https://goo.gl/maps/kQdqXtiP4Rso1T287 After: https://goo.gl/maps/wa16mwZvgt9t7TnB9 And apparently its not even important. Still, some commuters will save 15 mins so thats nice. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 09:51:28 on Fri, 13 Dec
2019, remarked: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:10:17 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: The new bit of bypass is just one part of the scheme. The more important section from Cambridge services to Girton isn't open yet. That's just a widening project. Befo https://goo.gl/maps/kQdqXtiP4Rso1T287 After: https://goo.gl/maps/wa16mwZvgt9t7TnB9 That's a work in progress, it'll green up later. And apparently its not even important. Still, some commuters will save 15 mins so thats nice. The road has 85k vehicles a day, which adds up even if it's only 20mins per vehicle. And don't forget it's removing a trunk road from the centre of Huntingdon, too. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
|
Latest Heathrow master plan
|
Latest Heathrow master plan
In article , writes
Befo https://goo.gl/maps/kQdqXtiP4Rso1T287 After: https://goo.gl/maps/wa16mwZvgt9t7TnB9 What's your point? That road has a bridge over what, at the time, was a building site. We all know that. The area next to my village is in a *far* worse state than that and getting home from Cambridge is a major pain at some times of day. But I'm going to judge it when it's finished, not when it's half done. (I haven't been on the new bit yet, but I strongly suspect that the tidying up hasn't finished.) -- Clive D.W. Feather |
Latest Heathrow master plan
|
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 21:23:02 on Fri, 13 Dec
2019, Clive D.W. Feather remarked: In article , writes If the old A14 were to be dug up and returned to farmland it wouldn't be so bad but we all know the chances of that happening are zero. How do you expect people to get from Godmanchester or St. Ives to Cambridge? Yes, you could dig up one of the two carriageways but I'm not convinced that the work would be worth the effort. How do you expect people to get from central Huntingdon or Stukeley Meadows to the A1 or the A14? That's also "old A14". Then there's the viaduct over the East Coast mainline, which has been crumbling down for years. Rather than try to rebuild what's really a Huntingdon inner ring road, the answer is a proper bypass. Though oddly the viaduct has already been re-designated the A1307. Apparently the danger of it falling down seem to have disappeared. No, it hasn't. It's been redesignated "closed". Google Maps hasn't caught up with the closure yet. It has, if you turn on "traffic". But trust me, it's closed. Go and look. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:18:51 +0000
"Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: In article , writes As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. I don't know how much farmland is actually being taken long-term (I do have the scheme plans, but I have better things to do), but there will actually be *less* pollution and noise because people won't be sitting in almost-stationary cars for ages with their engines running. Ah, the old build more roads to solve congestion and pollution fallacy. |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 09:18:56 on Sat, 14 Dec
2019, remarked: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:18:51 +0000 "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: In article , writes As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. I don't know how much farmland is actually being taken long-term (I do have the scheme plans, but I have better things to do), but there will actually be *less* pollution and noise because people won't be sitting in almost-stationary cars for ages with their engines running. Ah, the old build more roads to solve congestion and pollution fallacy. If planned properly, they work fine. The A1 from Huntingdon to Peterborough was built 20yrs ago, and I've never seen a traffic jam on it (at one time I used it most weekdays, and luckily on the bit of A14 feeding it I was going against the tidal flow, but the other direction on the A14 was stationary traffic for miles). -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:12:42 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:18:56 on Sat, 14 Dec 2019, remarked: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:18:51 +0000 "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: In article , writes As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. I don't know how much farmland is actually being taken long-term (I do have the scheme plans, but I have better things to do), but there will actually be *less* pollution and noise because people won't be sitting in almost-stationary cars for ages with their engines running. Ah, the old build more roads to solve congestion and pollution fallacy. If planned properly, they work fine. Sure, it all goes to plan for a few years. Then ever more people start to use the route and in a decade or so you're back where you started except now the jams have twice as many cars with twice the pollution. The best example of this in the UK is the M25. No matter how much they widen it it just jams up again in a few years. It has 6 lanes each way around Heathrow yet they're still often jammed solid in the rush hour. So what do you do, widen it to 8 lanes, 10? Where does it stop? |
Latest Heathrow master plan
In message , at 16:58:48 on Sat, 14 Dec
2019, remarked: On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:12:42 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:18:56 on Sat, 14 Dec 2019, remarked: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:18:51 +0000 "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: In article , writes As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. I don't know how much farmland is actually being taken long-term (I do have the scheme plans, but I have better things to do), but there will actually be *less* pollution and noise because people won't be sitting in almost-stationary cars for ages with their engines running. Ah, the old build more roads to solve congestion and pollution fallacy. If planned properly, they work fine. Sure, it all goes to plan for a few years. Then ever more people start to use the route and in a decade or so you're back where you started except now the jams have twice as many cars with twice the pollution. The best example of this in the UK is the M25. No matter how much they widen it it just jams up again in a few years. It has 6 lanes each way around Heathrow yet they're still often jammed solid in the rush hour. So what do you do, widen it to 8 lanes, 10? Where does it stop? When they plan it better and segregate the long distance and local traffic. The problem with that bit of the M25 (and I lived *there* 25yrs ago and saw it first hand) was mixing them up. The newest bit of A14 (remember, the road we are discussing) segregates them, just as the A1(M) north of Huntingdon does, the road which hasn't shown any sign of jamming up 20yrs later. -- Roland Perry |
Latest Heathrow master plan
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:12:42 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:18:56 on Sat, 14 Dec 2019, remarked: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:18:51 +0000 "Clive D.W. Feather" wrote: In article , writes As I said if anyobe had bothered to read - I have relatives living in a village near Huntingdon directly impacted by this bloody bypass. The amount of farmland concreted over for it just so some drivers can save 15 mins is obscene and thats before the extra pollution and noise is taken into account. I don't know how much farmland is actually being taken long-term (I do have the scheme plans, but I have better things to do), but there will actually be *less* pollution and noise because people won't be sitting in almost-stationary cars for ages with their engines running. Ah, the old build more roads to solve congestion and pollution fallacy. If planned properly, they work fine. Sure, it all goes to plan for a few years. Then ever more people start to use the route and in a decade or so you're back where you started except now the jams have twice as many cars with twice the pollution. The best example of this in the UK is the M25. No matter how much they widen it it just jams up again in a few years. It has 6 lanes each way around Heathrow yet they're still often jammed solid in the rush hour. So what do you do, widen it to 8 lanes, 10? Where does it stop? By stopping people breeding or the population increasing by immigration. We entered a period of what is going to be a generation of political upheaval partly to deal with the expectations by some that the latter can be managed in some way that pleases them. The other can only be done in a civilised society by encouragement . If people have only two children they are just replacing themselves but many have more. GH |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk