London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #111   Report Post  
Old August 20th 08, 09:03 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 90
Default 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

  #112   Report Post  
Old August 20th 08, 09:03 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 4
Default 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
  #113   Report Post  
Old August 20th 08, 09:45 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 942
Default 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
  #114   Report Post  
Old August 21st 08, 08:20 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 351
Default 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
  #115   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 08:10 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
Default 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?


  #116   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 08:48 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 351
Default 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
  #117   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 09:31 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
Default 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.
  #118   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 10:27 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 24
Default 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.]
  #119   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 06:01 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 351
Default 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
  #120   Report Post  
Old August 22nd 08, 06:20 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
Default TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows

Nick Leverton wrote:

There, did you spot it ?


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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TfL admits to card-clash Roland Perry London Transport 21 February 5th 14 07:29 PM
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway John B London Transport 92 October 25th 08 09:48 AM
DofT Deliberately Witholding Documents Heathrow Expansion? Dr Ivan D. Reid London Transport 0 December 16th 07 08:47 AM
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? [email protected] London Transport 0 March 16th 05 01:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017