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.

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

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

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

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
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?

Because it's a road, and roads should be open to ALL traffic.

Installing barriers, zig-zag routes or "no entry except for access" signs is
NIMBYist. Residents should not have the right to restrict ordinary traffic
from going along their road, although the situation is different for wide or
long vehicles such as lorries where they are actually a danger/encumberance
to other road users.

Between Windsor and Ascot, just on the Ascot side of the "peanut-shaped
roundabout" (locals will know the one I mean!) there is a short length of
road that would serve as a valuable way of travelling from Winkfield or
Ascot to Sunningdale, bypassing this roundabout which carries all traffic
between Windsor/Legoland, Windsor Great Park, Sunningdale and Ascot and gets
clogged in the rush hour. Except that it carries "no entry except for
access" signs... The irony is, there are no properties to be accessed along
this road: I stopped and walked along it (it's only about 200 yards long) to
satisfy my curiosity! Coming from Sunningdale to Winkfield, the situation is
even more absurd: the road to Winkfield is no entry, so everyone going in
that direction nips through the car park of the neighbouring pub which has
exits onto both roads!

--- "Martin Underwood" wrote:


Because it's a road, and roads should be open to ALL traffic.


Hmmm... Roads should be open to ALL traffic, should they? Motorways are
roads. Should they be open to foot traffic? Fancy the thought of crowds of
pedestrians walking along the fast lane of the motorway?

Of course not. A road should only be open to the sort of traffic that is
appropriate for it. That's just common sense.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
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?

Because it's a road, and roads should be open to ALL traffic.

Why?

Between Windsor and Ascot, just on the Ascot side of the "peanut-shaped
roundabout" (locals will know the one I mean!) there is a short length
of road that would serve as a valuable way of travelling from Winkfield
or Ascot to Sunningdale, bypassing this roundabout which carries all
traffic between Windsor/Legoland, Windsor Great Park, Sunningdale and
Ascot and gets clogged in the rush hour. Except that it carries "no
entry except for access" signs... The irony is, there are no properties
to be accessed along this road: I stopped and walked along it (it's only
about 200 yards long) to satisfy my curiosity! Coming from Sunningdale
to Winkfield, the situation is even more absurd: the road to Winkfield
is no entry, so everyone going in that direction nips through the car
park of the neighbouring pub which has exits onto both roads!

That does sound rather daft; in that case, unless there's some factor we
don't know about, i'd agree that the road should be open to all traffic.

tom

--
VENN DIAGRAM THAT LOOK LIKE TWO BIG CIRCLES EQUAL BAD PUBLIC POLICY.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

Between Windsor and Ascot, just on the Ascot side of the
"peanut-shaped roundabout" (locals will know the one I mean!)
there is a short length of road that would serve as a valuable
way of travelling from Winkfield or Ascot to Sunningdale,
bypassing this roundabout which carries all traffic between
Windsor/Legoland, Windsor Great Park, Sunningdale and Ascot
and gets clogged in the rush hour. Except that it carries "no
entry except for access" signs... The irony is, there are no
properties to be accessed along this road: I stopped and
walked along it (it's only about 200 yards long) to satisfy
my curiosity! Coming from Sunningdale to Winkfield, the
situation is even more absurd: the road to Winkfield is no
entry, so everyone going in that direction nips through the
car park of the neighbouring pub which has exits onto both
roads!

That does sound rather daft; in that case, unless there's some
factor we don't know about, i'd agree that the road should be open
to all traffic.

I would guess that it's been done as a safety measure, as it avoids
right turns on to the B383 at the eastern end, and at the other end
avoids having through traffic crossing the A332 at a cross-roads near a
bend. The local council probably judged that it would be safer to
channel the traffic round the roundabout despite longer journeys and
congestion. Do you (Martin) know what the accident record was before
the road in question was restricted?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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