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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have a link to this study?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

On 8 Aug 2005 03:45:31 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote:

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

During my time as a minicab driver I probably drove more in those areas
than any of them have. North Kensington is not that congested. Not even
Ladbroke Grove, but if traffic is pushed from Ladbroke Grove onto
Scrubs Lane (which it will be), then Scrubs Lane itself definitely will
not be able to take the capacity. Harrow Road will also reach capacity
between Ladbroke Grove (B450) and Scrubs Lane (A219) as traffic coming
from Kensal Rise will be diverted.

I live in that area and agree - it can get congested if the horsey
army is on the clip-clop from Hyde Park out up Scrubs Lane, or if
something goes pear shaped in Acton but otherwise it is just not
congested. I think Dave's faith in TfL's research is mis-placed: the
intended boundaries for CC2006/7 are probably well chosen for placing
cameras but definitely not for the official aim of reducing congestion
(as there is little enough of that). This is also shown by the other
possible plans: boundary at HolPkAve, boundary one street up from LGr
tube stn - these would be harder to enforce without cameras every 10
metres. It is about earning revenue for bonds to invest in PT, esp.
buses. Admit that and Ken could move on to making payment easier for
residents without having to sign up for that fleet car cover!

What is annoying to me is excluding Sainsbury's and also excluding the
soon-to-open v. massive White City shopping centre will lead to real
congestion all around the imminent west CC zone. Can't preach car
limits on the one hand while allowing the size of retail park which
can only encourage it in the first place (notwithstanding an extra
tube stn).



--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

Colum Mylod wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 03:45:31 -0700, "Earl Purple"


I live in that area and agree - it can get congested if the horsey
army is on the clip-clop from Hyde Park out up Scrubs Lane, or if
something goes pear shaped in Acton but otherwise it is just not
congested.

Yes, the name of the road becomes Wood Lane after the junction of North
Pole Road (and not at the A40 which is where I always think of it
changing name). It is this stretch that won't be able to take the
capacity, particularly with the bus lane.

It is notable that Willesden Junction station, just outside the new
zone, is in Zone 3. The CG zone is generally zone 1. My proposed
extension would keep it primarily zone 1.

(notwithstanding an extra [white city] tube stn)

That happens to be about 200 yards from the northern end of the
previous station's platform

If they had instead opened an exit at the north end of Shepherds Bush
(H&C) to McFarlane road, or perhaps a covered footbridge past TVC (with
an staff exit ) there wouldn't be anyneed for a white city entrance.

Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

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

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

Building new urban motorways is overkill. Even if you were to justify it
just for freight, then you would still have the disbenefits caused by
the eventual increase in car traffic on the rest of the road network.

Anyway, I thought you wanted the completion of the original M1 extension
to meet the motorway box. Although the route to Willesden Junction is,
as you say, relatively underdeveloped, the area around the A40 elevated
roundabout is not, and neither is the route north from Willesden. Your
proposed route is a straight line which would require the demolition of
swathes of Willesden; the original proposal followed the alignment of
the North London Line but would still have required extensive clearance,
especially at Brondesbury for the junction with the North Cross Route.

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

Quite.

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


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

I appreciate that you have local knowledge but you can't be at a variety
of locations all day for a number of days to actually monitor the
traffic, as TfL do. Working out how many cars will be displaced from one
route to another and how much capacity that other route has is more of a
modelling matter than an off-the-top-of-the-head thought.

However, I don't really want to be drawn into a CCEX argument. I don't
think it particularly helps our argument (that you think we should build
urban motorways and I don't). My personal viewpoint is that since I live
inside the extension zone and don't drive, I support the extension.

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

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

Nope. If you could get hold of a copy of the ORBIT study (which no
longer seems to be available online and is therefore probably only
available in some libraries or from the DfT) then it points out that the
M25 has driven the diversification of origin and destination points for
these journeys, and has also extended the trips that people make.

Decentralisation of industry around the edges of London is mostly
consequence of the M25.

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

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

Hmm. You can't cut pollution by allowing an increase the total
vehicle-km travelled by car. Alternative fuels are quite some way off
and even then of dubious benefits (if, for example, we are talking about
fuel cells, then the hydrogen has to come from somewhere).

If you don't believe there is a need to limit the number of vehicle-km
travelled, then once again I don't think this discussion is worth pursuing.

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

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

If a car journey can be performed in 60 minutes but the door-to-door
public transport journey takes 45 minutes, then perhaps the commuter may
choose public transport. If the car journey is reduced to 20 minutes
because a new road has opened, there's rather less incentive to travel
by public transport. That's a situation that leads to the commuter
saying that public transport is "not viable" compared to the car.

In other cases, providing an effective (or viable) public transport
alternative may be essentially impossible because of the wide sets of
origins and destinations for orbital journeys.

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

You can provide public transport between centres of population and
employment, but providing it to much smaller places is rather expensive
and impractical. Orbital roads tend to grow a whole host of smaller
employment centres along them.

I agree that public transport alternatives should be provided whereever
practically possible, but the reality is they will be unable to attract
a significant proportion of commuters out of their cars at any
reasonable level of expense.

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

Do you have a link to this study?

Unfortunately not, as explained earlier. The most I can find now is a
rather more concise summary from the House of Commons Select Committee
on Transport.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../38/38ap52.htm

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

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

Getting people to accept congestion charging is difficult enough; making
them to support a new tolled urban motorway will be quite impressive.

There's also still the issue of paying for the thing - the South Cross
Route was priced at £419m in 1972 (equivalent to £3.4bn in 2002 using
the RPI, but not taking into account the acceleration of property price
rises or magnified construction costs of today)

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

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

Lots more people go into central London to get to their places of work.
I doubt that any significant fraction are doing so because it's the only
place they can change trains - I'd guess less than 1%, but I don't have
any statistics to hand, if they are available.

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

Public transport to central London is there because it is a massive,
concentrated employment centre and therefore PT can be effectively
provided. Industrial parks along orbital routes are not concentrated
employment centres and PT is therefore difficult and/or expensive to
provide effectively.

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

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

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

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

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

You're missing a rather significant point - which is how the people on
the M25 bus got onto it in the first place. You either need a large
number of bus routes from each centre of population within the
travel-to-work area for Staines, or you need feeder buses from the
origin towns too. If it's the latter, as I suspect you are suggesting,
then any journey to Staines that way will involve *at least* 2 changes.

Let's say you are travelling from the centre of Reigate. You take a
feeder bus from Reigate town centre to junction 8 of the M25 (10 minutes
perhaps). You wait 5 minutes for a perfect connection to an express bus
which serves, junctions 9, 10 and 11. It might be able to complete that
journey in 25 minutes if it could average 40mph for the whole journey
(which may be OK if it can achieve its top speed of 56mph on the
motorway and do each stop quite quickly). You then get off and wait 5
minutes for another perfect connection which takes you into Staines town
centre in 10 minutes.

That perfect journey takes 55 minutes. The AA say it takes about 30
minutes by car. Therefore, the near-perfect PT alternative takes nearly
twice as long. You may have provided a vastly superior PT service to the
current offering, but it still can't compete with the car for orbital
journeys.

The additional problem is that this is a gross over-simplification. How
likely is it that the commuter actually lives in Reigate town centre, or
at least within a few hundred metres of the road between the town centre
and the motorway?

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

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

See above. Even perfect connections will extend the journey by at least
10 minutes.

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

With regards to the Staines example, I doubt you would drive to the
motorway junction (9) and then catch the remaining two buses.

Park and ride can be a good idea but parking at station car parks is
somewhat a different beast. The lower the charges, the more likely it is
that people will choose driving over other methods of getting to the
station such as walking or cycling. The car appeals to our inner
laziness, and if you currently have a 15-minute walk to the station but
gained the choice of a 3-minute drive, then which would you choose?

Adding parking at a station is also reasonably expensive, and the cost
needs to be recouped somehow. At Beaconsfield, an extra deck of parking
was created at the station, but car park charges remained the same -
presumably enough latent demand was released just with the availability
of new capacity, let alone with reduced charges.

Or do you mean park-and-ride on the edge of a town in order to get to
the station itself? That may seem a good idea, but I think it's
difficult to pull off in practice, as you are introducing an extra
change of mode. Taxibus services (e.g. Bicester) are probably a better
solution for that sort of journey, as require fewer modal changes, less
tarmacing of Green Belt or open space at the edge of town, and let the
commuter leave their car at home for the whole journey with subsequent
environmental benefits.

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

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

OK, that's fine... but it doesn't really provide anything for the
original point which was regarding the possible construction of urban
motorways. I agree that an integrated transport system should be
implemented which includes taxis - I think the example at Bicester
(taxis operating like a scheduled hail-and-ride service in the peaks,
and as a low cost on-demand taxi service offpeak) is an excellent
approach which should be adopted much more widely.

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

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:52:24 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Your proposed route is a straight line which would require the demolition of
swathes of Willesden;

This is a bad thing ?


--
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care"

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:52:24 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Your proposed route is a straight line which would require the demolition of
swathes of Willesden;

This is a bad thing ?

South of the A407 (All Souls Avenue etc) is actually quite nice.
Chapter Road etc wouldn't really be missed (in my opinion). Park Avenue
north of the Jubilee Line is still a fairly new development. After that
we hit the disused railway and just take our road along it.

My own preference would be to tunnel parts of this road. 2 lanes in the
tunnel in each direction may suffice. (It's enough on the North
Circular at Edmonton). Certainly it doesn't need to be an actual
"motorway" with a hard shoulder.

"Earl Purple" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:52:24 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Your proposed route is a straight line which
would require the demolition of swathes of Willesden;

This is a bad thing ?

Most of Willesden is very expensive and posh. If you're thinking of
Willesden Junction, that is actually in Harlesden.

After that we hit the disused railway
and just take our road along it.

That railway isn't disused.

--
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

Most of Willesden is very expensive and posh. If you're thinking of
Willesden Junction, that is actually in Harlesden.

There is no postcode for Harlesden and NW10 is officially "Willesden"
though it covers also Harlesden, Park Royal and Brent Park / Neasden.
And parts of Willesden Green are in NW2 which is Cricklewood.

So it's difficult to draw a boundary and say "that is Willesden" unless
you use the NW10 postcode area.

Postcodes are alphabetical between NW2 and NW10. I don't know how
Golders Green gets to be NW11 though or what else it might stand for,
so a separate postcode for Harlesden would have to be NW3½ (to fall
between Hampstead and Hendon).

After that we hit the disused railway
and just take our road along it.

That railway isn't disused.

Don't know what it's used for, but if it's just for freight they might
be better placed in lorries on a road. Clearly there are no passenger
trains along that line (and if there were would there be enough
passengers? After all, where does it link to? Hendon Thameslink?)

Earl Purple wrote:
After that we hit the disused railway
and just take our road along it.

That railway isn't disused.


Don't know what it's used for, but if it's just for freight they might
be better placed in lorries on a road.

I think I'm having a transport planning embolism.


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