| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Warwick Gardens at night
Does anyone know the reason that Warwick Gardens in Kensington has a
barrier over it at night, preventing traffic moving from north to south. En-route home I normally leave Wood Lane heading North, then either go down South Africa Road (bad for suspension) or the A40/North Circular to the M4. Of course on Thursday night the H&C bridge had closed Wood Lane, so I had to go south to Shepherds Bush. I decided that I'd drop down Holland Park towards Earls Court. I was surprised when I couldn't go straight across out of Addison Road, and had to take a right past Olympia, as there were barriers accross the entrance to Warwick Gardens. My map (2003) doesn't show that this is a restricted road. What time do the barriers get lowered? As there is no right-hand-turn from north-end road (even if there is no traffic coming the other way and you don't stop to make the turn), it leaves the choice of the middle of Hammersmith (watch out for the drunken revllers) or (as I and another car did on Thursday) a turn in Beaumont Avenue south of West Kensington. I think tomorrow night I'll continue round and drive through some residential streets in W14 if the mayor and his cronies insist on closing major thoroughfares. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Paul Weaver wrote:
I think tomorrow night I'll continue round and drive through some residential streets in W14 if the mayor and his cronies insist on closing major thoroughfares. I don't know the answer to your question of why Warwick Gardens is barriered off at night (apart from it being a prestigious street full of very wealthy residents), but I wouldn't rush to judgement that it's because of a Mayoral decision. I have a feeling that this arrangement has been in place for a good few years, predating the creation of the Mayor and TfL. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Paul Weaver wrote:
I think tomorrow night I'll continue round and drive through some residential streets in W14 if the mayor and his cronies insist on closing major thoroughfares. That particular road had barriers across several decades before the idea of a London mayor was even thought of. |
Warwick Gardens at night
In message .com, Paul
Weaver writes Does anyone know the reason that Warwick Gardens in Kensington has a barrier over it at night, preventing traffic moving from north to south. To reduce the amount of night-time noise in a wealthy (and clearly influential) residential area. My map (2003) doesn't show that this is a restricted road. What time do the barriers get lowered? Not sure, but its around 10.30pm As there is no right-hand-turn from north-end road (even if there is no traffic coming the other way and you don't stop to make the turn), it leaves the choice of the middle of Hammersmith (watch out for the drunken revllers) or (as I and another car did on Thursday) a turn in Beaumont Avenue south of West Kensington. You went the wrong way. The alternative route (which I think is sign-posted) is turn left from Addison Road into High Street Ken, and then turn right into Earl's Court Road. It is actually hardly any longer than the usual route at that time of night. I think tomorrow night I'll continue round and drive through some residential streets in W14 if the mayor and his cronies insist on closing major thoroughfares. The barrier has been there for at least 15 years (and probably quite a bit more than that) - long before Ken & Co. -- Paul Terry |
Warwick Gardens at night
You went the wrong way. The alternative route (which I think is
sign-posted) is turn left from Addison Road into High Street Ken, and then turn right into Earl's Court Road. It is actually hardly any longer than the usual route at that time of night. I susspected that from the fact most traffic went left. Of course by this stage I was in lane 3 of 4, straight on (right lane) or turn right. How do said wealthy residents get to their prestigious area? If Ken was a proper working-man's mayor he'd divert the night busses down there :) |
Warwick Gardens at night
On 31 Jul 2005 09:59:07 -0700, "Paul Weaver"
wrote: Of course on Thursday night the H&C bridge had closed Wood Lane, so I had to go south to Shepherds Bush. I decided that I'd drop down Holland Park towards Earls Court. I was surprised when I couldn't go straight across out of Addison Road, and had to take a right past Olympia, as there were barriers accross the entrance to Warwick Gardens. Should have gone left as the signs all say (they change when the barriers come down). Then turn right at the Odeon Kensington. Exactly the same distance, just the other two sides of the same rectangle. The lights at the Odeon appear to follow a different pattern at night to accomodate the extra right-turners there at this time. If you really really want to drive down it, just do as the residents do and turn left towards High St Ken and make an immediate U-turn, the road you are talking about is not barried off from traffic heading West towards Hammersmith. But since the alternate route is fine it's really only people that live in the actual street that need to do this. My map (2003) doesn't show that this is a restricted road. What time do the barriers get lowered? They lower at 22:30, occasionally I've been passing when they do so, on a slightly long red phase. The current barriers are new, but there's been an automatic barrier there, closing at 22:30 for decades. It doesn't need to be on a map, the alternative route is perfectly good enough. I think tomorrow night I'll continue round and drive through some residential streets in W14 if the mayor and his cronies insist on closing major thoroughfares. What nonsense. The road you're talking about IS entirely residential and I expect that is why it closes to straight-on traffic at night. I would expect that the barriers were put in when they made that whole Warwick Avenue one way thing happen, as part of winning the residents over to the idea. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Should have gone left as the signs all say
The signs that are posted at the junction, which is no use when there's two lanes of traffic on your left (lane 1 turning left, lane 2 heading straight on, lane 3 heading straight on, lane 4 heading right), traffic behind you and the only way to go without causing a delay is to the right. The road you're talking about IS entirely residential and I expect that is why it closes to straight-on traffic at night The road is a green "Primary Route", a major thoroughfare for traffic from the north of London to the south. There are several symbols defined (dot in road, line across road, yellow/purple dashes) to indicate a road with restricted access. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Paul Weaver wrote: The road you're talking about IS entirely residential and I expect that is why it closes to straight-on traffic at night The road is a green "Primary Route", a major thoroughfare for traffic from the north of London to the south. There are several symbols defined (dot in road, line across road, yellow/purple dashes) to indicate a road with restricted access. In the A-Z I have (about 2 or 3 years old) it's shown in purple (as a restricted access road, like Oxford St). Looks a bit odd having a purple section in the middle of an orange A-road, but there you go... |
Warwick Gardens at night
Rupert Candy wrote: Paul Weaver wrote: The road is a green "Primary Route", a major thoroughfare for traffic from the north of London to the south. There are several symbols defined (dot in road, line across road, yellow/purple dashes) to indicate a road with restricted access. In the A-Z I have (about 2 or 3 years old) it's shown in purple (as a restricted access road, like Oxford St). Looks a bit odd having a purple section in the middle of an orange A-road, but there you go... It is a primary route. I don't know if it always has been though, before they declassified the part of the West Cross Route that used to be the M41. Now if only they'd build a "proper" West Cross Route (as I have proposed and similar to what was originally planned) they would divert major traffic away from Kensington and Chelsea and onto a grade-separated non-residential route towards Hammersmith instead (bypassing Fulham and Putney to meet the A3 near Tibbetts). See url http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ossBypass2.jpg |
Warwick Gardens at night
Earl Purple wrote: It is a primary route. I don't know if it always has been though, before they declassified the part of the West Cross Route that used to be the M41. Indeed (though the A-Z doesn't distinguish primary routes from ordinary A-roads). I wonder if any other primary routes (other than tunnels or bridges) are closed at night? Now if only they'd build a "proper" West Cross Route (as I have proposed and similar to what was originally planned) they would divert major traffic away from Kensington and Chelsea and onto a grade-separated non-residential route towards Hammersmith instead (bypassing Fulham and Putney to meet the A3 near Tibbetts). That would be very useful, particularly if combined with a grade-separated Victoria Embankment/Cheyne Walk (!) |
Warwick Gardens at night
Rupert Candy wrote:
Earl Purple wrote: It is a primary route. I don't know if it always has been though, before they declassified the part of the West Cross Route that used to be the M41. Indeed (though the A-Z doesn't distinguish primary routes from ordinary A-roads). I wonder if any other primary routes (other than tunnels or bridges) are closed at night? Now if only they'd build a "proper" West Cross Route (as I have proposed and similar to what was originally planned) they would divert major traffic away from Kensington and Chelsea and onto a grade-separated non-residential route towards Hammersmith instead (bypassing Fulham and Putney to meet the A3 near Tibbetts). That would be very useful, particularly if combined with a grade-separated Victoria Embankment/Cheyne Walk (!) Grade-separated = destroying the London street scene / river frontage, and probably destroying many homes and workplaces too. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Warwick Gardens at night
Richard J. wrote: Grade-separated = destroying the London street scene / river frontage, and probably destroying many homes and workplaces too. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but every other European city seems to manage to build tunnels for this sort of thing without disrupting the streetscape (at least, once they have been constructed!) Brussels is the best example, but there are many others. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Richard J. wrote: Grade-separated = destroying the London street scene / river frontage, and probably destroying many homes and workplaces too. -- Richard J. Grade-separating is a clever way to separate through traffic from local traffic wishing to access the area, improving conditions for both. Warwick Gardens and some of the other roads in the West Cross Route like Edith Grove / Gunter Grove are residential roads. It can't be bad for the environment, at least for residents of those areas, to push traffic away onto their own newly-built road which, if built in reality, would probably run close to the railway. Tunnelling can be preferable to raised roads if the tunnels are reasonably short, though I'd propose that a new bridge be built over the Thames. Bridges and high-up roads don't need to be ugly structures - some of them can be built with very nice architecture. And they are not as noisy as you think. The areas under these raised roads can also be used conveniently for open markets as they provide some shelter from the rain. (Note, I would also connect the top of the WCR with the M1 at Staples Corner). |
Warwick Gardens at night
|
Warwick Gardens at night
"Earl Purple" wrote in message
ps.com... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ossBypass1.jpg LOL. -- 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 |
Warwick Gardens at night
Earl Purple wrote:
Richard J. wrote: Grade-separated = destroying the London street scene / river frontage, and probably destroying many homes and workplaces too. -- Richard J. Grade-separating is a clever way to separate through traffic from local traffic wishing to access the area, improving conditions for both. Warwick Gardens and some of the other roads in the West Cross Route like Edith Grove / Gunter Grove are residential roads. It can't be bad for the environment, at least for residents of those areas, to push traffic away onto their own newly-built road which, if built in reality, would probably run close to the railway. Tunnelling can be preferable to raised roads if the tunnels are reasonably short, though I'd propose that a new bridge be built over the Thames. Bridges and high-up roads don't need to be ugly structures - some of them can be built with very nice architecture. And they are not as noisy as you think. The areas under these raised roads can also be used conveniently for open markets as they provide some shelter from the rain. (Note, I would also connect the top of the WCR with the M1 at Staples Corner). No, no, no, please, no, to all of that. They planned to do it some time ago (http://www.btinternet.com/~roads/lon...ringway1.html). Of course, the Westway was a roaring success for the residents of the area it cut through. These urban motorways only serve to generate new car traffic (whether tunnelled or not), and are also incredibly expensive (particularly if tunnelled). Which is thankfully why you'll never see a grade-separated South Circular any time soon. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Warwick Gardens at night
Dave Arquati wrote: No, no, no, please, no, to all of that. They planned to do it some time ago (http://www.btinternet.com/~roads/lon...ringway1.html). I know about the planned ringway. I don't think they should go ahead with the whole of that though. Of course, the Westway was a roaring success for the residents of the area it cut through. Are you sure? Traffic has always headed into London from the West and it would do so without the A40 and the elevated M4, probably on the A4 instead, so the Cromwell Road, with its museums and hotels would simply be totally choked. And those who don't use the A4 would use the A4020 (much of which used to be the A40) passing through Ealing etc. even though they have intention to go to Ealing, whilst conflicting with local traffic. The little bit of the West Cross Route that comes South off the A40 is a fairly useless road - it's good down to Shepherds Bush then takes you through residential roads that were never meant to be a highway. Going Northbound, if you want to continue North you have to take A40 and A406 or work your way through the local areas of Harlesden and Neasden. Its only real purpose is as a relief road for Wood Lane. These urban motorways only serve to generate new car traffic Maybe a little but most of it will just be diverted off other roads. For example someone coming from Portsmouth heading North may well go up the A3, onto this road and subsequently the M1 rather than using the Western stretch of the M25. Certainly those who live in Kingston going North are more likely to use it. But are these people going to specifically make more journeys by car just because the road is there? If they want to encourage more people to use trains then improve the railways too. (whether tunnelled or not), and are also incredibly expensive particularly if tunnelled). It's more expensive to build a tunnel than a bridge but it does mean they don't have to buy up land and compulsory purchase orders may obviously cost more. Talking of cost though, do you know how much revenue is lost everyday through traffic queues? And actually, a road, if used properly, will usually take a greater volume than a railway. On a D2 dual carriageway, for example, if cars are travelling at a 2-second gap, you get 30 cars in each lane passing per minute. If each car has 2 occupants, that's 120 passengers a minute in each direction. You'd need to run a very frequent train service to carry that many. Anyway, they were supposed to be raising all this money to improve roads through the congestion charge but all I've seen is totally unnecessary roadworks on roads that aren't broken. But then we know Ken is anti-car. Which is thankfully why you'll never see a grade-separated South Circular any time soon. Do you live and drive in the South of London? Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Earl Purple wrote:
And actually, a road, if used properly, will usually take a greater volume than a railway. On a D2 dual carriageway, for example, if cars are travelling at a 2-second gap, Then they're travelling too close together. Unless the traffic's flowing at 40 mph, at which speed 2 seconds is almost enough. I'm basing this on highway code rule 105, which says: 105: Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should * leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram below) The diagram it references gives the following stopping distances for various speeds: Speed (mph) Distance (m) 20 12 30 23 40 36 50 53 60 73 70 96 If you divide the distances by the speeds, you get the following times: Speed (mph) Time (s) 20 1.35 30 1.73 40 2.03 50 2.39 60 2.74 70 3.09 If you're talking about a dual carriageway, then presumably you're hoping for a speed of 70 mph, which would require a gap slightly longer than 3 seconds. Of course, if you're talking about a road in London, then 40 mph is probably quite realistic! you get 30 cars in each lane passing per minute. If each car has 2 occupants, Then that's very good going. The average occupancy is about 1.5. that's 120 passengers a minute in each direction. Or, if you use realistic numbers, 60. You'd need to run a very frequent train service to carry that many. Let's go with your number of 120 pax/min, which is 7200 pax/hour. Let's compare that to a reasonably modern and efficient tube line, the Central - the nominal capacity of one of its trains is 620 passengers, and it runs 30 trains per hour, for a capacity of 18600 pax/hour, over two and a half times that of your motorway, for a fraction of the land take. And if you have the ability to use 12-car mainline-gauge trains, like Crossrail, then it's even higher. tom -- We must perform a quirkafleeg |
Warwick Gardens at night
In article , Tom
Anderson wrote: Then they're travelling too close together. Unless the traffic's flowing at 40 mph, at which speed 2 seconds is almost enough. Your arithmetic is wrong in that during the period you are stopping your average speed is only going to be about half the initial speed, so you would need to double your calculated times. What you ignore, and what lies behind the 2 second rule on faster roads with good visibility is that the car in front is not going to stop dead - unless something really catastrophic happens. Being a old guy who passed his test in imperial days the formula for stopping distance was m(1+m/20) feet: the first term is basically the distance travelled whilst your brain is getting your foot to press the brake, the second the actual time needed to stop. So if the car in front is doing 60 (88ft/sec) the total stopping distance is 240ft - 60ft thinking, 180ft to actually stop. You're 2 seconds (176ft) behind the car in front when you see his brake lights. He comes to a halt 180ft further down the road - 356ft from where you are at the point when you see his brake lights. Assuming your reactions and brakes are equal to the Highway Code you stop in 240ft from this point, 100 ft or so to spare. -- Tony Bryer |
Warwick Gardens at night
Tony Bryer writes:
Being a old guy who passed his test in imperial days the formula for stopping distance was m(1+m/20) feet: the first term is basically the distance travelled whilst your brain is getting your foot to press the brake, the second [that travelled in] the actual time needed to stop. However, that is an oversimplification. The distance needed to stop under maximum braking force (or any particular force) varies as the *square* of the speed. -- Mark Brader | "Forgive me if I misunderstood myself, but Toronto | I don't think I was arguing in favour of that..." | -- Geoff Butler |
Warwick Gardens at night
|
Warwick Gardens at night
"Earl Purple" wrote in message
ups.com... And actually, a road, if used properly, will usually take a greater volume than a railway. On a D2 dual carriageway, for example, if cars are travelling at a 2-second gap, This assumes that all cars will leave this gap at all times. I try to maintain a 100-150yd gap in front at all times, and more when travelling at very high speeds. |
Warwick Gardens at night
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote: In article , Tom Anderson wrote: Then they're travelling too close together. Unless the traffic's flowing at 40 mph, at which speed 2 seconds is almost enough. Your arithmetic is wrong Irrelevant (and arguable). When using _your_ figure of 120 pax per minute per lane - which is somewhat optimistic and assumes ideal conditions - you still get a answer which says that a 3 lane motorway has the same capacity as the central line. It may be interesting to compare the projected cost of crossrail with the projected cost of a 4 or 5 lane motorway over the same route. They would probably have equilvilent capacity according to your figures; I'm assuming that crossrail capacity will be half as much again as the central because it has longer trains, but that's a somewhat back-of-the-envelope calculation. -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver |
Warwick Gardens at night
I (Mark Brader) wrote:
However, that is an oversimplification. The distance needed to stop under maximum braking force (or any particular force) varies as the *square* of the speed. This response is posted: Which is presumably why the quoted formula has an 'm squared' in it (once you expand the brackets). Awk! So it does. I'm not used to seeing it written that way, but that's no excuse -- sorry, folks. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something, | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:31:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Bristow
wrote: When using _your_ figure of 120 pax per minute per lane - which is somewhat optimistic and assumes ideal conditions - you still get a answer which says that a 3 lane motorway has the same capacity as the central line. The fallacy in your argument is the comparison of cars with a full train. You ought to be comparing 80-seat coaches with a train to get the true figure. With a 2-second interval, that is a coach every 176 feet at 60 mph or about 4 coach lengths. If you can get that density of seating (not seated and standing) on your train, you will be doing very well. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Warwick Gardens at night
Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: No, no, no, please, no, to all of that. They planned to do it some time ago (http://www.btinternet.com/~roads/lon...ringway1.html). I know about the planned ringway. I don't think they should go ahead with the whole of that though. Of course, the Westway was a roaring success for the residents of the area it cut through. Are you sure? Traffic has always headed into London from the West and it would do so without the A40 and the elevated M4, probably on the A4 instead, so the Cromwell Road, with its museums and hotels would simply be totally choked. And those who don't use the A4 would use the A4020 (much of which used to be the A40) passing through Ealing etc. even though they have intention to go to Ealing, whilst conflicting with local traffic. I was talking about the effect on people who lived in the residential area through which the Westway was constructed. Nevertheless, yes, traffic heads into London from the West - but without the Westway, less may have done so. Traffic congestion acts as a restraining mechanism. The Western Avenue and the elevated Westway should be considered separately as I believe the Western Avenue was constructed somewhat earlier than the elevated Westway. The little bit of the West Cross Route that comes South off the A40 is a fairly useless road - it's good down to Shepherds Bush then takes you through residential roads that were never meant to be a highway. Going Northbound, if you want to continue North you have to take A40 and A406 or work your way through the local areas of Harlesden and Neasden. Its only real purpose is as a relief road for Wood Lane. To be fair to it, it allows traffic to avoid Shepherd's Bush Green (although, yes, it dumps the significant proportion onto Holland Road). These urban motorways only serve to generate new car traffic Maybe a little but most of it will just be diverted off other roads. For example someone coming from Portsmouth heading North may well go up the A3, onto this road and subsequently the M1 rather than using the Western stretch of the M25. Certainly those who live in Kingston going North are more likely to use it. But are these people going to specifically make more journeys by car just because the road is there? Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the pollution and noise wouldn't be). The obvious example of traffic generation is the M25. Many people make more journeys by car specifically because the M25 is there - it has encouraged a vast number of orbital commutes which never existed before it was built. An urban motorway, similarly, would encourage people to make a car-based commute (or other journey) across inner London where they wouldn't have done so before. If they want to encourage more people to use trains then improve the railways too. Limited funds are available, and railway and motorway projects are both extremely expensive. It's one or the other, and the project which increases car journeys significantly is not likely to win. "They" should definitely improve railway (and other public transport) connections - but they shouldn't start building urban motorways. (whether tunnelled or not), and are also incredibly expensive particularly if tunnelled). It's more expensive to build a tunnel than a bridge but it does mean they don't have to buy up land and compulsory purchase orders may obviously cost more. Either way, it's very expensive, with new road costs now in the many millions of pounds per kilometre. Talking of cost though, do you know how much revenue is lost everyday through traffic queues? Firstly, since a new road will generate new traffic that surrounding roads will have to absorb, a new road project is only likely to cut traffic queues on certain parts of the network for a certain number of years before the situation worsens again (see the M25 and associated widening projects). Secondly, when factoring in revenue lost through congestion, it's time to start factoring in the increased cost of pollution-related illness and disbenefits and road accidents, as well as the less-easily quantifiable social exclusion and general environmental effects. And actually, a road, if used properly, will usually take a greater volume than a railway. On a D2 dual carriageway, for example, if cars are travelling at a 2-second gap, you get 30 cars in each lane passing per minute. If each car has 2 occupants, that's 120 passengers a minute in each direction. You'd need to run a very frequent train service to carry that many. Other people are debating the truth in that, but, as always, junctions often limit capacity on a network, and urban motorways will have plenty of those. In addition, although a smaller point, it's worth noting that the road capacity as described is only available to those with access to a car, whereas rail capacity is (theoretically) available to all. Anyway, they were supposed to be raising all this money to improve roads through the congestion charge but all I've seen is totally unnecessary roadworks on roads that aren't broken. But then we know Ken is anti-car. The congestion charge raises money to fund public transport improvements, not the roads. Which is thankfully why you'll never see a grade-separated South Circular any time soon. Do you live and drive in the South of London? Nope... but I lived next to a motorway for 18 years, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. I live in the west of London (which already has urban motorways, one of which is extremely close to my home), but I don't drive (and neither do a large number of people in this are) - and therefore I get a rather disproportionate share of the disbenefits of urban motorways compared to the benefits. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Warwick Gardens at night
Dave Arquati wrote: I was talking about the effect on people who lived in the residential area through which the Westway was constructed. I don't know about then but taking Portobello Road as an example (the Westway runs close). Has it had a negative effect on that road or will the extended CG zone have a worse effect? Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the pollution and noise wouldn't be). Now what journey would you now make in a car on the M25 that you could otherwise make on public transport? There is a railway line on the "West Cross Route" that goes from Clapham through Kensington up to Willesden, and there's another line that goes to Harrow. Now if they improved the service on those lines and made them better known (they don't appear on underground maps) then more people might consider using them. The obvious example of traffic generation is the M25. Many people make more journeys by car specifically because the M25 is there - it has encouraged a vast number of orbital commutes which never existed before it was built. An urban motorway, similarly, would encourage people to make a car-based commute (or other journey) across inner London where they wouldn't have done so before. And before the M25 was built, there was much higher unemployment. And part of this is also caused by house prices continuing to rise thus forcing people to live further away from their place of work and make a longer commute. People move jobs far more frequently than they used to and can't always find a job close to home (much that we'd like to). New industrial estates open just off these motorways because they are now easier to get to, and land is cheaper there. As a result, many businesses have moved out to these business parks, they have a lot of car-parking and very poor public transport facilities. Car-pooling would be ideal but impractical if people don't actually start and finish work at exactly the same time each day. However it may certainly be the way to go. Limited funds are available, and railway and motorway projects are both extremely expensive. It's one or the other, and the project which increases car journeys significantly is not likely to win. "They" should definitely improve railway (and other public transport) connections - but they shouldn't start building urban motorways. But roads are not just limited to cars - buses and lorries also use them. Railways are not so environmentally friendly either, as you need electrification and normally that means overhead cables. You need far more land. Crossing them is much harder, and generally they can take you only to one place. Either way, it's very expensive, with new road costs now in the many millions of pounds per kilometre. Good investment though. It cost a lot of money to build the GWR too, but now as a result we have it. Firstly, since a new road will generate new traffic that surrounding roads will have to absorb, a new road project is only likely to cut traffic queues on certain parts of the network for a certain number of years before the situation worsens again (see the M25 and associated widening projects). If the road is good then there'll be no need for rat-running. But it may generate more business in the area (as it will be easier to get access) so more business will open, more superstores, etc, and you may get people leaving the main road to use the facilities. Secondly, when factoring in revenue lost through congestion, it's time to start factoring in the increased cost of pollution-related illness and disbenefits and road accidents, as well as the less-easily quantifiable social exclusion and general environmental effects. But the optimal speed for reducing pollution is 56mph. Going through urban streets at an average of 12mph stop/start is thus very much more polluting. Other people are debating the truth in that, but, as always, junctions often limit capacity on a network, and urban motorways will have plenty of those. In addition, although a smaller point, it's worth noting that the road capacity as described is only available to those with access to a car, whereas rail capacity is (theoretically) available to all. But if they also ran buses on those routes that would also be available to all. The congestion charge raises money to fund public transport improvements, not the roads. which seems to be more silly bus routes, carrying 8 passengers or so, going down narrow roads totally inappropriate for a bus, stopping everytime something comes the other way, still very poor service come 6-7pm (when many are still commuting home from work). I'd rather see more express bus routes, infrequent stops, going along A roads, particularly primary ones (generally more orbital). Nope... but I lived next to a motorway for 18 years, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. I live in the west of London (which already has urban motorways, one of which is extremely close to my home), but I don't drive (and neither do a large number of people in this are) - and therefore I get a rather disproportionate share of the disbenefits of urban motorways compared to the benefits. I live close to the end of the M1 and close to where the A406 meets the A1 and the A41 is also close by so I am surrounded by primary dual carriageways. That actually makes car travel fairly convenient (while the Northern Line is useful only if you want to go to Central London or to Edgware). Most of the residents would prefer to see the old plans of the A406 tunnel go ahead. I think it would be satisfactory simply to have the A406 connect at both ends of the A1 via a tunnel without any other tunnel links at all - it would at least reduce a vast amount of the traffic at that junction. I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and the end of 2003. |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson wrote: Then they're travelling too close together. Unless the traffic's flowing at 40 mph, at which speed 2 seconds is almost enough. Your arithmetic is wrong in that during the period you are stopping your average speed is only going to be about half the initial speed, so you would need to double your calculated times. No, that's irrelevant - HC rule 105 sayeth that "the safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance"; that applies to cars that are cruising at constant speed, in which case my calculations are correct. The stuff about average speed during braking is captured in the calculation of that overall stopping distance. What you ignore, and what lies behind the 2 second rule on faster roads with good visibility is that the car in front is not going to stop dead - unless something really catastrophic happens. True, but whoever wrote the HC didn't seem to think that mattered - rule 105 commands you to "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear". Perhaps they had those really catastrophic somethings in mind? tom -- No hay banda |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Terry Harper wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:31:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Bristow wrote: When using _your_ figure of 120 pax per minute per lane - which is somewhat optimistic and assumes ideal conditions - you still get a answer which says that a 3 lane motorway has the same capacity as the central line. The fallacy in your argument is the comparison of cars with a full train. You ought to be comparing 80-seat coaches with a train to get the true figure. Wrong. We're not talking about idealised fantasy busways here, we're talking about transport corridors as they are found in the wild - motorways really are full of cars carrying an average of ~1.5 people each, and tube lines really are full of trains carrying 500 people each (the 620 pax/train number i used is the planned capacity; actual passenger loads are actually even higher than that). With a 2-second interval, that is a coach every 176 feet at 60 mph or about 4 coach lengths. If you can get that density of seating (not seated and standing) on your train, you will be doing very well. Well, if you're going to start running 1800 bph with every seat full, i hope you don't mind if i increase the frequency of my trains to something equally ludicrous to maintain my lead :). tom -- No hay banda |
Warwick Gardens at night
In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote: No, that's irrelevant - HC rule 105 sayeth that "the safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance"; that applies to cars that are cruising at constant speed, in which case my calculations are correct. The stuff about average speed during braking is captured in the calculation of that overall stopping distance. If we're to play with real-world numbers, throwing the HC out the window would be the best bet. I think that a gap of 2 seconds between vehicleS is reasonable (ie, 30 cars per minute per lane). -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver |
Warwick Gardens at night
In message , Tom
Anderson writes True, but whoever wrote the HC didn't seem to think that mattered - rule 105 commands you to "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear". Perhaps they had those really catastrophic somethings in mind? Axle seizes or even a simple wheel bearing for that matter might bring the car in front to a stop faster than your brakes. -- Clive |
Warwick Gardens at night
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article , Tom Anderson wrote: No, that's irrelevant - HC rule 105 sayeth that "the safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance"; that applies to cars that are cruising at constant speed, in which case my calculations are correct. The stuff about average speed during braking is captured in the calculation of that overall stopping distance. If we're to play with real-world numbers, throwing the HC out the window would be the best bet. I think that a gap of 2 seconds between vehicleS is reasonable (ie, 30 cars per minute per lane). The HC in my view is quite reasonable about this. It says (not in exactly these words): Make sure you leave enough room to avoid hitting the bloke in front if he suddenly slows down or stops. If you want to be sure to be safe, never get closer than the overall stopping distance, but in practice a gap of 2 seconds is OK (but leave more time if wet/icy or driving something that doesn't brake too well). Saying "the safe rule" is the HC's way of hinting that good real-world drivers might not always slavishly follow it. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:15:40 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: Earl Purple wrote: Maybe a little but most of it will just be diverted off other roads. For example someone coming from Portsmouth heading North may well go up the A3, onto this road and subsequently the M1 rather than using the Western stretch of the M25. Certainly those who live in Kingston going North are more likely to use it. But are these people going to specifically make more journeys by car just because the road is there? Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the pollution and noise wouldn't be). Coming from Portsmouth, they are more likely to use the M27, M3, A34 and A43 to reach the M1. That's almost a straight line, whereas the M25 involves a long detour. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Warwick Gardens at night
Earl Purple wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: I was talking about the effect on people who lived in the residential area through which the Westway was constructed. I don't know about then but taking Portobello Road as an example (the Westway runs close). Has it had a negative effect on that road or will the extended CG zone have a worse effect? Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7 metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution. In addition, despite the motorway being elevated, some 20 acres of land were left derelict (although use has now been found for a proportion of that). Severance was (and is) a significant issue in some locations, particularly Latimer Road which was cut in half by the junction for the West Cross Route. The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess - but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington & Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be significantly lower. Yes. That's not really a point up for debate - research is available all over the place proving that new roads generate significant levels of new traffic. I doubt that someone coming from Portsmouth heading north would divert from the M25 via inner west London, although M25 congestion might force them to do so - which would be extremely bad for the residents of West London, who would then have to put up with long-distance traffic passing through their area (the motorway may be segregated, but the pollution and noise wouldn't be). Now what journey would you now make in a car on the M25 that you could otherwise make on public transport? There is a railway line on the "West Cross Route" that goes from Clapham through Kensington up to Willesden, and there's another line that goes to Harrow. Now if they improved the service on those lines and made them better known (they don't appear on underground maps) then more people might consider using them. I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed. The obvious example of traffic generation is the M25. Many people make more journeys by car specifically because the M25 is there - it has encouraged a vast number of orbital commutes which never existed before it was built. An urban motorway, similarly, would encourage people to make a car-based commute (or other journey) across inner London where they wouldn't have done so before. And before the M25 was built, there was much higher unemployment. The M25 *may* have had a positive effect upon unemployment but that statement is rather disconnected. Unemployment levels are subject to a wide range of economic factors; it's extremely likely that the M25 was constructed in response to increasing employment levels and increasing economic activity, rather than the other way around. And part of this is also caused by house prices continuing to rise thus forcing people to live further away from their place of work and make a longer commute. People move jobs far more frequently than they used to and can't always find a job close to home (much that we'd like to). New industrial estates open just off these motorways because they are now easier to get to, and land is cheaper there. People travel further to reach jobs partly because they can, and partly because those jobs move further away as a result of new road construction. The benefits of new road construction aren't always that clear-cut, as the road will generally alter the way employment is distributed anyway (e.g. centralisation). That has both positive and negative aspects. As a result, many businesses have moved out to these business parks, they have a lot of car-parking and very poor public transport facilities. Car-pooling would be ideal but impractical if people don't actually start and finish work at exactly the same time each day. However it may certainly be the way to go. Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car. The M25 has encouraged a wide pattern of orbital car commuting across the South East which is virtually impossible to cater for attractively with public transport. Any new urban motorways in London will similarly encourage new car-based orbital commuting around London for which it will be very difficult to provide an attractive public transport competitor. Limited funds are available, and railway and motorway projects are both extremely expensive. It's one or the other, and the project which increases car journeys significantly is not likely to win. "They" should definitely improve railway (and other public transport) connections - but they shouldn't start building urban motorways. But roads are not just limited to cars - buses and lorries also use them. Railways are not so environmentally friendly either, as you need electrification and normally that means overhead cables. You need far more land. Crossing them is much harder, and generally they can take you only to one place. The environmental friendliness of railways versus motorways has been debated many times before in this group and elsewhere. I totally disagree with your other points. Railways do not need far more land - they use far less! I'm not sure why crossing them is "much harder" - railways are narrower than motorways, so bridges are likely to be cheaper. The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle service between two stations with no onward connections at either end. Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you have to consider access to and from the railway too. Either way, it's very expensive, with new road costs now in the many millions of pounds per kilometre. Good investment though. It cost a lot of money to build the GWR too, but now as a result we have it. I don't think it's particularly good to invest in infrastructure which will lead to an increase in traffic, a rise in pollution levels, blight upon homes and an increased reliance on the private car which then leads to an increasing gap in mobility levels between those who can and cannot run a car, and to an increased dependence of our economy upon oil. Firstly, since a new road will generate new traffic that surrounding roads will have to absorb, a new road project is only likely to cut traffic queues on certain parts of the network for a certain number of years before the situation worsens again (see the M25 and associated widening projects). If the road is good then there'll be no need for rat-running. But it may generate more business in the area (as it will be easier to get access) so more business will open, more superstores, etc, and you may get people leaving the main road to use the facilities. And therein lies the problem. No road is an island... traffic from motorways never starts or finishes on motorways, it has to perform those parts of the trips on the local road network. Since a new motorway will lead to a rise in traffic, even though congestion on the roads it relieves will fall initially, there will be a gradual and sustained rise in the levels of traffic on all other nearby roads. Secondly, when factoring in revenue lost through congestion, it's time to start factoring in the increased cost of pollution-related illness and disbenefits and road accidents, as well as the less-easily quantifiable social exclusion and general environmental effects. But the optimal speed for reducing pollution is 56mph. Going through urban streets at an average of 12mph stop/start is thus very much more polluting. I agree that stop-start driving is quite polluting - but since the new motorway will lead to an increase in traffic on a whole number of roads used to access it, then any saving made from having a freer-flowing through route is eroded by increased congestion on the access roads. Incidentally, I remain unconvinced that free-flowing traffic at 56mph causes less pollution than free-flowing traffic at a lower speed. Isn't it just that 56mph is a point beyond which the increases in fuel consumption and therefore pollution rise much faster than the increase in speed? (i.e. below 56mph, assuming free-flowing traffic, the relationship is fairly linear) Other people are debating the truth in that, but, as always, junctions often limit capacity on a network, and urban motorways will have plenty of those. In addition, although a smaller point, it's worth noting that the road capacity as described is only available to those with access to a car, whereas rail capacity is (theoretically) available to all. But if they also ran buses on those routes that would also be available to all. Hardly. How many buses run on the Westway and the West Cross Route? Some long-distance coach services use them, but these are of no benefit to the local areas the urban motorway is meant to serve - and any local bus service using an urban motorway bypasses most of the population it should be serving. The congestion charge raises money to fund public transport improvements, not the roads. which seems to be more silly bus routes, carrying 8 passengers or so, going down narrow roads totally inappropriate for a bus, stopping everytime something comes the other way, still very poor service come 6-7pm (when many are still commuting home from work). Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less likely to get a car than I already was. I'd rather see more express bus routes, infrequent stops, going along A roads, particularly primary ones (generally more orbital). I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual carriageway. Nope... but I lived next to a motorway for 18 years, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. I live in the west of London (which already has urban motorways, one of which is extremely close to my home), but I don't drive (and neither do a large number of people in this are) - and therefore I get a rather disproportionate share of the disbenefits of urban motorways compared to the benefits. I live close to the end of the M1 and close to where the A406 meets the A1 and the A41 is also close by so I am surrounded by primary dual carriageways. That actually makes car travel fairly convenient (while the Northern Line is useful only if you want to go to Central London or to Edgware). Most of the residents would prefer to see the old plans of the A406 tunnel go ahead. I think it would be satisfactory simply to have the A406 connect at both ends of the A1 via a tunnel without any other tunnel links at all - it would at least reduce a vast amount of the traffic at that junction. Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new capacity. I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and the end of 2003. OK...? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Warwick Gardens at night
Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their
surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7 metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution. So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their buildings. And the area was already deprived, as you say. So not a cause of the new road. The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess - but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington & Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be significantly lower. If I were going to extend the zone I would take it along Sussex Gardens and Bayswater Road, and would also allow access to Hyde Park. I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed. So what? Why shouldn't they? It's nice to be able to get around. And remember this also includes lorries delivering goods. Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car. I don't think building the M25 was a mistake. If there have been mistakes it has not be expanding the rail network to include orbital routes and ensure they have good interchanges with the radial routes. If people who work in Slough, say, living in, say Finchley, were able to get to an orbital railway (say approximately round the North Circular) then interchange at Ealing to get a train to Slough, and then had a decent bus-service to get them from Slough station to work, more people would commute that way rather than in their cars. As it is, to get to Slough from Finchley by train one has to go to Central London (on an already crowded tube) and then make their way out towards Ealing on the Central Line - well suffice to say it is not an easy journey. Now if they can't make such railways lines then maybe buses. We'll come to that later. The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle service between two stations with no onward connections at either end. Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you have to consider access to and from the railway too. Crossrail - yet another radial route. I don't want to go to Central London. Hardly. How many buses run on the Westway and the West Cross Route? Some long-distance coach services use them, but these are of no benefit to the local areas the urban motorway is meant to serve - and any local bus service using an urban motorway bypasses most of the population it should be serving. I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual carriageway. But just off these main roads there are business parks and shopping malls . Now if they got the buses to pull off the main roads to serve these, say every mile or 2 miles (depending on the road), and there were also buses from these going into the town centres, then you would have integrated transport. The problem with the public transport system on the whole I find is total lack of integration. This is noticeable also in Hampstead where there is no interchange between the Northern Line and the North London Line. Similarly the North London Line (Silverlink) has no interchange at Hackney with WAGN. Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less likely to get a car than I already was. 15 minutes at a bus-stop is long enough for me to decide next time to use the car. Again I have found that 2 routes go on approximately the same route yet they are not spaced properly so both come along at once. The most annoying thing is after waiting 15 minutes for a bus and getting on a full one, an empty one passes you a minute later then shoots off into the distance while your one stops at every single stop. Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new capacity. So with a junction-free route from Palmers Green to Beckton you'd expect massive traffic queues at Beckton (junction of A406 and A13) yet I drive there every day and there are none. The only hold-up is approaching the A12. Yes, the A12 does provide an alternative route to Docklands just as my proposed extension of the West Cross Route would provide an alternative link from the A406 to the A40 (other than the A406 itself). By the way, much of Cricklewood and Harlesden are relatively undeveloped, and there's a disused railway line that crosses through Gladstone Park, so part of the space is already there (albeit not exactly the line I have drawn). I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and the end of 2003. OK...? Well for one, I know the roads of London pretty well. I also know that a large number of minicab drivers are driving empty half the time while returning to base, and work excessively long hours. If minicab companies were better integrated (so you pick up where you drop) and if driver hours were regulated like other professional drivers (to 90 hours every 2 weeks) then a driver could go out, work extensively for 45 hours then go home, and there'd be fewer cars on the road. Also a number of these minicab drivers could train to drive minibuses instead, and a "shared-minibus" scheme could be set up for some of the more popular routes, particularly airports. They have this in other countries. |
Warwick Gardens at night
Dave Arquati wrote: Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car. The M25 has encouraged a wide pattern of orbital car commuting across the South East which is virtually impossible to cater for attractively with public transport. Any new urban motorways in London will similarly encourage new car-based orbital commuting around London for which it will be very difficult to provide an attractive public transport competitor. One last point. A waste of money is to build a road and then nobody to use it. If you open a store and it fills up with shoppers then it is a success. If it reaches over capacity you'd probably want to open another one, not claim it as a failure and decide not to make the mistake again. The M25 is not the failure so many claim it to be. (Particularly the anti-car lobby). |
Warwick Gardens at night
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:55:40 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: [v. big snip] The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess - but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is likely to be significant.. Not sure why you think that (CC reduce pollution). The major pollution source in the area is the Westway itself - nice & high up, v. busy, well outside any future congestion charging. Traffic inside the NKen roads is significantly lower than the true congestion areas nearby: Harrow Road meets Scrubs Lane being a classic (not to mention Harlesden but that could do with banning double and triple parking!) , and the Scrubs-Wood Lane traffic is far higher than any traffic fed in or out of NKen. The only busy road in the area is Ladbroke Road itself, mostly due to ped crossings and the pinch point of the junction at the Harrow Road - the bad bit will also be outside the CC to help the impoverished Sainsbury clan. I think the only gain a charge would make would be Kensington Church Street frankly, apart from Ken's pocket. My source on the pollution numbers is a local freebie paper with some LonDON input. Westway gets the blame fair and square. If congestion reduction were the aim, they'd have to address the Harrow Rd and Scrubs Lane load. If pollution numbers mattered the Westway is your man (and Edgware Road freeway too). I find the bus service in the area well above standards in other areas. -- New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com |
Orbital transport & urban motorways (was Warwick Gardens at night)
Earl Purple wrote:
Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7 metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution. So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their buildings. I doubt that's a benefit worth factoring in when you build a new road. "I'm afraid we're demolishing the houses next door to put in a six-lane motorway, but it's OK because you can put a big advert on the side of your house..." And the area was already deprived, as you say. So not a cause of the new road. 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. The effect of the extended congestion charging zone is anyone's guess - but it should reduce pollution in the area. In a borough where 50% of the population have no access to a car and almost three times as many people travel to work by public transport as by car, the positive effect of the congestion charge extension (an improvement in bus services) is likely to be significant. Those figures refer to the whole of Kensington & Chelsea - car ownership in North Kensington is likely to be significantly lower. If I were going to extend the zone I would take it along Sussex Gardens and Bayswater Road, and would also allow access to Hyde Park. Have you done the amount of research into congestion charging that TfL have done when considering where to draw the boundary? I'm not sure I really understand what point you are making in reference to my point that new roads generate new traffic. Public transport alternatives are somewhat irrelevant here; the point is that the M25 has encouraged people to make journeys (by car) they wouldn't have considered making (by any mode) before the M25 was constructed. So what? Why shouldn't they? It's nice to be able to get around. And remember this also includes lorries delivering goods. Yes, it's nice to be able to get around. However, this has to be balanced against worsening air quality and extensive environmental damage. The M25 is here to stay, and it's changed the way people travel around London. Its construction was inevitable so there isn't much point arguing about how good or bad it is. 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. 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. Yes, perhaps. We now have these sites which are poorly accessible by public transport and hard to serve with it, so some way must be found to make the use of the car to access them more efficient. However, we can avoid repeating the mistake by stopping extensive new road construction and holding back construction in areas only accessible by car. I don't think building the M25 was a mistake. As mentioned above, I'm not saying the M25 was a mistake. It's there now, our region depends on it and it's there to stay. I'm saying the trip generation it causes proves that we shouldn't build another one, especially not in inner London. If there have been mistakes it has not be expanding the rail network to include orbital routes and ensure they have good interchanges with the radial routes. If people who work in Slough, say, living in, say Finchley, were able to get to an orbital railway (say approximately round the North Circular) then interchange at Ealing to get a train to Slough, and then had a decent bus-service to get them from Slough station to work, more people would commute that way rather than in their cars. As it is, to get to Slough from Finchley by train one has to go to Central London (on an already crowded tube) and then make their way out towards Ealing on the Central Line - well suffice to say it is not an easy journey. Now if they can't make such railways lines then maybe buses. We'll come to that later. 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. 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. 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. The only railway that takes you to one place is a shuttle service between two stations with no onward connections at either end. Crossrail will have connections to 9 different Underground lines, a wide variety of other railway services and a huge number of local bus services. If you're considering access to and from the motorway, you have to consider access to and from the railway too. Crossrail - yet another radial route. I don't want to go to Central London. 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. I agree that express bus routes (particularly orbital ones) are a good idea, but in order to provide a decent service, they have to penetrate town centres and serve useful locations, rather than the side of a dual carriageway. But just off these main roads there are business parks and shopping malls . Now if they got the buses to pull off the main roads to serve these, say every mile or 2 miles (depending on the road), and there were also buses from these going into the town centres, then you would have integrated 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. The problem with the public transport system on the whole I find is total lack of integration. This is noticeable also in Hampstead where there is no interchange between the Northern Line and the North London Line. Similarly the North London Line (Silverlink) has no interchange at Hackney with WAGN. I think total lack of integration is a bit too far, especially in London. At Hammersmith, I can get off a Tube service and go upstairs into a bus station to catch a bus for the final leg, or change between buses with ease. At Victoria, I can walk straight out of the station and onto a bus. At Stratford, I can change between the DLR, two Tube lines, an orbital rail route, high frequency rail services to Essex and soon international trains to Europe and local trains to Stansted Airport. Of course there are bad examples, but there are good ones too. The bad examples tend to be the result of historical construction that is expensive to rectify, and sometimes it can be difficult to justify the benefits. Providing an interchange at Hampstead would cost in the hundreds of millions of pounds, since both lines are in deep tunnels underneath the hill. Hackney is annoying, but the result of historical construction which would also be quite expensive to fix. Really? I've found the improvement in bus services very pleasing, with a higher frequency of buses available, more night services available and more direct journey opportunities - all of which made me even less likely to get a car than I already was. 15 minutes at a bus-stop is long enough for me to decide next time to use the car. That's a shame. I find it difficult to justify the expense of a car from a 15-minute wait. But I rarely find myself needing to wait that long. Again I have found that 2 routes go on approximately the same route yet they are not spaced properly so both come along at once. The most annoying thing is after waiting 15 minutes for a bus and getting on a full one, an empty one passes you a minute later then shoots off into the distance while your one stops at every single stop. That's also a frustrating experience but not one that I share particularly regularly. Perhaps. But whilst providing the tunnel under Henleys Corner may improve the situation there, it will also just move the problem down the road to the next limiting junction, as traffic along the A406 will increase to fill the new capacity provided by the improvement works at Henleys Corner. It's all a rather vicious circle, and it seems like the only way to lock in the benefits of a scheme like the one you mention is to charge people to use the road to stop new traffic using up the new capacity. So with a junction-free route from Palmers Green to Beckton you'd expect massive traffic queues at Beckton (junction of A406 and A13) yet I drive there every day and there are none. The only hold-up is approaching the A12. Well, there's the next bottleneck for you. There may not be massive queues at Beckton - but when the capacity of the road is increased with improvements at Henleys Corner, then more cars will use the road, which will fill up that capacity, causing congestion at the next limited point. If the road were I suspect that's Hanger Lane rather than Beckton. In any case, it's a fact of traffic engineering, and I direct you to your local library or university to look it up if you don't believe me. Yes, the A12 does provide an alternative route to Docklands just as my proposed extension of the West Cross Route would provide an alternative link from the A406 to the A40 (other than the A406 itself). By the way, much of Cricklewood and Harlesden are relatively undeveloped, and there's a disused railway line that crosses through Gladstone Park, so part of the space is already there (albeit not exactly the line I have drawn). I worked as a minicab driver for about 18 months between July 2002 and the end of 2003. OK...? Well for one, I know the roads of London pretty well. I also know that a large number of minicab drivers are driving empty half the time while returning to base, and work excessively long hours. If minicab companies were better integrated (so you pick up where you drop) and if driver hours were regulated like other professional drivers (to 90 hours every 2 weeks) then a driver could go out, work extensively for 45 hours then go home, and there'd be fewer cars on the road. Also a number of these minicab drivers could train to drive minibuses instead, and a "shared-minibus" scheme could be set up for some of the more popular routes, particularly airports. They have this in other countries. 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Orbital transport & urban motorways (was Warwick Gardens at night)
Dave Arquati wrote:
Earl Purple wrote: Well, 600 homes were demolished to build the Westway, and their surviving neighbours in some places were as close to the motorway as 7 metres. North Kensington suffered extensive blight, pollution and disruption during construction - all in an already-deprived area. Prices for those properties closest to the Westway are still depressed as those properties still experience noise, visual and atmospheric pollution. So maybe not the greatest location for homes, but there's always offices and industrial estates. Many of the companies close to the elevated M4 benefit from being able to advertise free from their buildings. I doubt that's a benefit worth factoring in when you build a new road. "I'm afraid we're demolishing the houses next door to put in a six-lane motorway, but it's OK because you can put a big advert on the side of your house..." I always thought that fixed adverts next to motorways weren't allowed on safety grounds, and that this explains why our motorways generally aren't lined with adverts, in contrast to some other countries. But this rule, if it exists, doesn't seem to apply to the elevated section of the M4, where not only are buildings used as advertising hoardings, but purpose-built advert towers have been erected on land beside the A4 to distract drivers on the M4. Anyone know if such a rule exists? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Orbital transport & urban motorways (was Warwick Gardens at night)
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:26:20 GMT, Richard J. wrote:
I always thought that fixed adverts next to motorways weren't allowed on safety grounds, and that this explains why our motorways generally aren't lined with adverts, in contrast to some other countries. But this rule, if it exists, doesn't seem to apply to the elevated section of the M4, where not only are buildings used as advertising hoardings, but purpose-built advert towers have been erected on land beside the A4 to distract drivers on the M4. Anyone know if such a rule exists? Its up to the relevant highway agency to object to the planning permission, in every case on the M4 they didn't bother (or couldn't be even bothered to consider it). For all signs along the elevated section the signs were refused permission by the council (on local environment grounds), but the firms building these things are huge and just build it anyway then put in appeals to overrule the council later on. Some of the signs use the loophole on adverts on "building sites" anyway. Steve |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk