TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32:13 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

I would have built a new 2+2 road from Wood Lane to Holland Park roundabout
through the development site, and linked the access roads to that. I would
then have made the west side of the green two-way, opened the bus-only cut
through on the east side of the green to all traffic, made the connection
from the green to the roundabout bus/taxi/cycle only, probably one lane each
way. This would make the green into a nice place to sunbathe or shop.

Ah yes, a scheme to drag the Bush from its lowly status of poundshops,
fast food shops and hangout for inebriated persons to a higher plane
of niceness. Methinks it would be fought by Hamm council who never did
much for this area, and fought by the green-clad monster next door
which won't want retail competition outside its control. Lose shopping
centre space to a 2+2 road to improve the green to the south and try
to cure the eternal traffic jam? Madness!

As for accommodating road traffic for the Westfield, isn't it going to
be a Bluewater at peak times anyway? Despite the PT options, the sheer
size can only pay for itself by sucking in traffic from the wealthy
west of London. Crazy place for such a big centre really. The main
dosh as far as I can see will be from the Beeb employees next door,
and they're going to be purged further by banishment to Salford. White
City estates probably won't be the W's main savour. Peeps on tubes
usually don't carry 20 bags of goodies home.
--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:48:51 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
.. .
Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken
could get his grubby mitts on them and downgrade the speed limits, narrow
them, or anything else of the sort of thing you'd expexct from him (he
never had authority over any of the London motorways - eg, M1, M3(?), M4,
M40, M11 - except the ones which were nobbled and handed over to him.

That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M)
Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just
the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a
bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses.


Why did they need to downgrade it? They didn't downgrade the M4 when
they put the bus/politician lane in from Junc2(?)
--
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

On Aug 20, 10:03 am, Colum Mylod wrote:
As for accommodating road traffic for the Westfield, isn't it going to
be a Bluewater at peak times anyway? Despite the PT options, the sheer
size can only pay for itself by sucking in traffic from the wealthy
west of London. Crazy place for such a big centre really. The main
dosh as far as I can see will be from the Beeb employees next door,
and they're going to be purged further by banishment to Salford. White
City estates probably won't be the W's main savour. Peeps on tubes
usually don't carry 20 bags of goodies home.

I thought the idea was to be a less unbearable version of Oxford
Street, from which peeps on Tubes frequently carry many, if not 20,
bags of goodies home.

You may well be right that that's a special case and that people won't
be willing to do the same thing 10 minutes further west, though.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In article ,
Petert wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:48:51 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:

That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M)
Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just
the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a
bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses.


Why did they need to downgrade it? They didn't downgrade the M4 when
they put the bus/politician lane in from Junc2(?)

AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have
their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to
be excluded from particular lanes. Berkshire Council / Reading Unitary
Authority (forget which it was at the time) didn't have powers over
motorways anyway so the simplest thing was to downgrade the last mile
and-a-bit to A3290. The motorway regulations were only amended to permit
special lanes when the M4 bus lanes were introduced some time later.

I was living in BrackNull and working in Thames Valley Park at the time
of the conversion so drove the entire length of the A329(M) each day.
Ironically, a year or so after I moved to Reading to reduce travelling,
the offices moved to BrackNull so I still had to trek up and down the
A329 ...

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Nick Leverton wrote:

AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have
their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to
be excluded from particular lanes.

Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on
motorways with three or more lanes?

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Nick Leverton wrote:

AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have
their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to
be excluded from particular lanes.

Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on
motorways with three or more lanes?

Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look
the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ...

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Nick Leverton wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Nick Leverton wrote:

AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have
their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to
be excluded from particular lanes.

Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on
motorways with three or more lanes?

Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look
the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ...

You don't need an area of expertise, jsut a grasp of logic. You're
saying that the motorway regs didn't permit the exclusion of traffic (I
suspect you mean "classes of vehicles") from particualar lanes. However
it's clear that vehicles were excluded from particular lanes.

Hence your statement was incorrect.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Nick Leverton wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Nick Leverton wrote:

AIUI motorways don't come under the ordinary traffic regulations but have
their own special legal status, which at the time didn't allow traffic to
be excluded from particular lanes.

Really? So how come trucks were banned from using the outside lane on
motorways with three or more lanes?

Not my area of expertise nor of interest, sorry. I'm sure you can look
the regs up if you're interested to know what the precise reason was ...

The reason it was done*, in this context, isn't as important as how it
was done. Either there there were regulations allowing it in the early
sixties**, or there weren't.

[* To prevent large and/or slow-moving vehicles from clogging all the
lanes at once - which was starting to happen.]

[** For that is when the third lane ban for lorries came in - 1960s.]

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

You don't need an area of expertise, jsut a grasp of logic. You're
saying that the motorway regs didn't permit the exclusion of traffic (I
suspect you mean "classes of vehicles") from particualar lanes. However
it's clear that vehicles were excluded from particular lanes.

Hence your statement was incorrect.

Observe how much I care about your unsupported opinion on my accuracy:









There, did you spot it ?

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Nick Leverton wrote:

There, did you spot it ?

Yes, you cared enough to flounce, **** and moan.