Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions. Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows and
distributing them?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the
shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in
the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two
heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions.
Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but
this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want
them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars
to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has
occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest
neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher?
Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows
and
distributing them?

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should be there
for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic. I'd like to see
more use made of signs such as "this is not the preferred route" to
discourage through traffic, but leaving the road open and free of physical
restrictions so that it can still be used as a fall-back if an exceptional
circumstance (accident, road works) causes jams on the main route.

On my route to work (Abingdon to Thame) the main A road has been closed for
the next two months while roller-coaster subsidence is rectified. The
diversionary route has a right-turn onto a major road which is hellish in
the morning - if only the council would install temporary traffic lights
until the roadward are complete to give Abingdo-Thame traffic a chance to
turn right! All the roads roundabout have been marked "not the diversionary
route" which is churlish considering that all the diverted traffic is being
channelled down one road which cannot cope.

I know it's not nice to have continuous traffic down your road. If the width
is inadequate, impose a weight/width limit to prevent HGVs, but don't
restrict cars or make them take a tortuous route. That was tried in
Bracknell where I used to live and it failed badly: all the traffic
continued to use the route which had been made more tortuous because it
involved a traffic-light-controlled roundabout so traffic had a chance to
get out in the rush hour whereas the preferred route was an ordinary
roundabout and so traffic on that route didn't standa chance with
nose-to-tail traffic on the main road coing from the right.

Oops, didn't send it to all the right groups first time...

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions. Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows and
distributing them?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Martin Underwood wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions. Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows and
distributing them?

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should be there
for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic. I'd like to see
more use made of signs such as "this is not the preferred route" to
discourage through traffic, but leaving the road open and free of physical
restrictions so that it can still be used as a fall-back if an exceptional
circumstance (accident, road works) causes jams on the main route.

On my route to work (Abingdon to Thame) the main A road has been closed for
the next two months while roller-coaster subsidence is rectified. The
diversionary route has a right-turn onto a major road which is hellish in
the morning - if only the council would install temporary traffic lights
until the roadward are complete to give Abingdo-Thame traffic a chance to
turn right! All the roads roundabout have been marked "not the diversionary
route" which is churlish considering that all the diverted traffic is being
channelled down one road which cannot cope.

I know it's not nice to have continuous traffic down your road. If the width
is inadequate, impose a weight/width limit to prevent HGVs, but don't
restrict cars or make them take a tortuous route. That was tried in
Bracknell where I used to live and it failed badly: all the traffic
continued to use the route which had been made more tortuous because it
involved a traffic-light-controlled roundabout so traffic had a chance to
get out in the rush hour whereas the preferred route was an ordinary
roundabout and so traffic on that route didn't standa chance with
nose-to-tail traffic on the main road coing from the right.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. When perfectly good alternatives to a
residential road exist, why subject the poor residents to increased
traffic with the associated inconvenience, danger and pollution? This
is, after all, why bypasses are built.

Changing signage would probably be pointless as signs are generally
intended for people who don't know the area; anyone who does will carry
on using the residential road.

For the problems you've mentioned between Abingdon and Thame, and in
Bracknell, you've already suggested the solutions - traffic lights
(either temporary or permanent) to control traffic flows.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:46:08 +0100, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should be there
for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic. I'd like to see
more use made of signs such as "this is not the preferred route" to
discourage through traffic, but leaving the road open and free of physical
restrictions so that it can still be used as a fall-back if an exceptional
circumstance (accident, road works) causes jams on the main route.

What I dislike more is the ridiculous situation which is caused by
traffic-calming, and in particular speed bumps.

From my house, the main (residential) route out to the main road is
full of speedbumps and table junctions, mostly so high that they could
be considered to, over time, have a detrimental effect on my
suspension at whatever speed they are taken. There is an alternative
route through tiny back streets which has fewer and less severe bumps.
Guess which way I (and others) go? Were the bumps not present, I
would take the main route without even thinking about it.

There's an interesting twist on the OP's scenario by me, as well. The
road concerned is a through road, but has cul-de-sac signs on it.
Thus, people don't tend to go down there to use it as a through route
(though I do often cut through on my bike). I believe the reason for
it is that, during building work, it was closed off - but the signs
have not for whatever reason been removed.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

"John Rowland" wrote:

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more.

NIMBY ****.

Neil Williams wrote:

There's an interesting twist on the OP's scenario by me, as well.Â*Â*The
road concerned is a through road, but has cul-de-sac signs on it.
Thus, people don't tend to go down there to use it as a through route
(though I do often cut through on my bike).Â*Â*IÂ*believeÂ*theÂ*reasonÂ*for
it is that, during building work, it was closed off - but the signs
have not for whatever reason been removed.

There's your answer, John. Keep the road as is, just put up signs, lying
'Cul De Sac' or suchlike (or 'Get orff moi land').
--
Ian Tindale

John Rowland wrote:
I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area....

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more....

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?

I think the 'scummy' neighbourhoods get regenerated by an initiative
that doesn't come from the residents. The posher neighbourhoods
contain people who shout loudly until they get what they want.

How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Posher, probably. Certainly quieter.

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

Usually by accident.

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows and
distributing them?

Any of the above. In the end you have to persuade the council to bid
for money to do your idea rather than someone else's. Getting
councillors on your side is essential. As there's a scheme already,
try to find out whose idea it is.

And whatever they do, tell them to exempt cycles.

Colin McKenzie

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has
occurred.

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should be there
for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic.

Why?

tom

--
For one thing at least is almost certain about the future, namely, that very much of it will be such as we should call incredible. -- Olaf Stapledon

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:07:11 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Oops, didn't send it to all the right groups first time...

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions. Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

What's my best next step - going to the council, or trying to organise
neighbours or start petitions? Printing up posters for people's windows and
distributing them?

Same thing near here (Teddington: Hapton Road & Coleshill Road for the curious).
A motorcyclist was killed when he attempted a right turn from a highway onto a
rat-run through a residential street. The council's solution was to impose a
20mph zone on the street. Madness! A cul-de-sac would have solved the problem
much better IMHO, but I'm sure council had their reasons.

I've seen zig-zaggy routes on too-fast highways through sleepy villages, but
never on residential streets (though they may well exist). You might prefer
humps, or 20mph signs, or speed cameras, or local-access-only signs. Talk to an
estate agent to see how cul-de-sacs or other traffic-calming measures affect
property values. Has there been a serious or fatal accident (the police might
know)? That's usually a great motivator for road re-engineering. But whatever
is done you have to get the neighbors on board since it'll affect every one of
them.

Good luck!

And don't let the Usenet b*st*rds get you down.