TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.

The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.

Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...

And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...

No I wasn't. I was stating that without traffic lights the traffic
flows more smoothly than with. If you wish to infer from that that I
am saying that they perform no useful function then that is your
inference, not my implication.

if they enable pedestrians to avoid getting run over, they serve a
purpose, even if the motor vehicles move better without them.

You seem to be confused about the difference between traffic lights
and pedestrian crossings.

If the traffic lights control road traffic at a pedestrian crossing, or if
there is a pedestrian crossing at a traffic light controlled road junction,
where is the confusion?

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 16 Aug, 14:48, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/634.htm
I'm not sure who the Association of British Drivers are, so I'm not
sure how much to read into this.
It's hardly news. Anyone working in transport/telematics already knew
that Livingstone had issued an edict that the lights across London
were to be rephased to cause congestion prior to the introduction of
the congestion charge. In fact I stated this was what was happening
here at the time and had the usual cabal of ****wits and some who
should have known better screaming that it was a lie.
Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting. Indeed it could even result in
a reduction of car travel as motorists get fed up with so many delays
they are themselves responsible for. Unfortunately, our road spaces
are allowed to be demand driven resulting in perpetual roadbuilding
and widening and tinkering to the detriment of the environment and
quality of life of many people.
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over the last
(say) ten years Doug?

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London

See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?


--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Richard J. wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over the
last (say) ten years Doug?
I can name one:
"University Way" (part of the A206), which is inside the M25, but
which is not in London. The new-build part (which is now about ten
years old anyway) is in Dartford, Kent.
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.
There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage, though.
Witness the (former) A40 (M)
Westway? Looks much the same as it always was, apart from the lack
of lighting.
No longer subject to proper motorway regulations (purely in order to
bring it under Livingstone's control).

I'm not entirely convinced that it was ever a proper motorway, as the
relevant signs were blanked off many years before it became the A40, e.g.
the old "end of motorway" sign at the Edgware Road flyover. However, I
don't see that converting it from a motorway to an A road with restricted
access (no pedestrians for example) makes any practical difference as to how
useful it is.

and the disgrace of the wrecking of the (very useful) short stretch
of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.
In what sense has it been wrecked?
It was (part of) a motorway, six lanes and two hard shoulders.

Look at it now.

Since it's only half a mile long with a roundabout at each end, why would
you need six lanes? Even at an emotional level, I can't work up any concern
that it was the 6-lane M41 and is now the 4-lane A3220. It remains a useful
link with a quirky layout, as it's always been. To claim that it's been
wrecked is absurd.

The actual length is pretty irrelevant, you need to look at the flow
down the road.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun, 17
Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let alone
10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope the
Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in Docklands
- but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant" they are).

Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton down to
Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the stretch
past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated station
opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still taking
place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting. Indeed it could even result in
a reduction of car travel as motorists get fed up with so many delays
they are themselves responsible for. Unfortunately, our road spaces
are allowed to be demand driven resulting in perpetual roadbuilding
and widening and tinkering to the detriment of the environment and
quality of life of many people.


I hope you will still be able to cycle with your damaged foot, the one
you just shot yourself in.

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in years...

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left
to its own devices would be self-limiting.

The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.

Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...

And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose...

No I wasn't. I was stating that without traffic lights the traffic
flows more smoothly than with. If you wish to infer from that that I
am saying that they perform no useful function then that is your
inference, not my implication.

If your message had no implications, perhaps you should reply "And?" to your
own messages rather than mine.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 17 Aug, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:

Do wake up!

Why cherry pick London

See the thread title? And the groups this is posted to? Are you some
kind of idiot?

A rhetorical question presumably?
(As that was. :-) )

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Rowland wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Doug wrote:

Road congestion is primarily caused by too many cars and if left to
its own devices would be self-limiting.
The experience within Birmingham, when the entire traffic light
system failed, shows that if it were truly lef to its own devices
that the traffic would flow better than it does at present.
Where "traffic" doesn't include pedestrians or cyclists...
And?

You were implying traffic lights serve no useful purpose... if they enable
pedestrians to avoid getting run over, they serve a purpose, even if the
motor vehicles move better without them.

This implies we could abolish any traffic lights in places where there
aren't pedestrians and thus improve flow - there are a lot of those, and
idiot road planners who all seem to be educationally sub-normal are
planning more.

I was always taught that traffic lights on a roundabout demonstrate a
complete failure of planning. Or at the least a tight fisted budgeting
department.

--
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
(Steve Firth) wrote:
What new roads have been built in London (inside the M25) over
the last (say) ten years Doug?
I can name one:
"University Way" (part of the A206), which is inside the M25, but
which is not in London. The new-build part (which is now about ten
years old anyway) is in Dartford, Kent.
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside
the M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years,
let alone 10.
There are plenty of examples of Livingstonian road sabotage,
though. Witness the (former) A40 (M)
Westway? Looks much the same as it always was, apart from the lack
of lighting.
No longer subject to proper motorway regulations (purely in order to
bring it under Livingstone's control).

I'm not entirely convinced that it was ever a proper motorway, as the
relevant signs were blanked off many years before it became the A40,
e.g. the old "end of motorway" sign at the Edgware Road flyover. However,
I don't see that converting it from a motorway to an A road
with restricted access (no pedestrians for example) makes any
practical difference as to how useful it is.

and the disgrace of the wrecking of the (very useful) short
stretch of M41 at Shepherd's Bush.
In what sense has it been wrecked?
It was (part of) a motorway, six lanes and two hard shoulders.

Look at it now.

Since it's only half a mile long with a roundabout at each end, why
would you need six lanes? Even at an emotional level, I can't work
up any concern that it was the 6-lane M41 and is now the 4-lane
A3220. It remains a useful link with a quirky layout, as it's
always been. To claim that it's been wrecked is absurd.

The actual length is pretty irrelevant, you need to look at the flow
down the road.

.... for which 4 lanes dual is very generous, especially since much of the
traffic feeds into a two lane single carriageway south of Shepherds Bush.
The length is relevant, because it is hard to get much over the 50mph limit
on it, and the time saved by doing so is negligible, making hard shoulders a
waste of space.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

John Wright wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:29 on Sun,
17 Aug 2008, JNugent remarked:
I am not aware of any other significant highway building inside the
M25 (whether inside or outside London) in the last 20 years, let
alone 10.

If you expand the horizon to 20 years, then that brings into scope
the Limehouse Link (and obviously a whole bunch of local roads in
Docklands - but let's not get in a wrangle about how "significant"
they are). Also my 1988 map doesn't have the A12 extension through Leyton
down
to Stratford, but I forget exactly when that opened.

On the other side of London they widened the A40, including the
stretch past Hillingdon, in the early 90's (the slightly relocated
station opened in 1992).

And I expect some of the widening of the North Circular was still
taking place in that timeframe too.

If you allow 20 years theres the series of underpasses along the A40
which abolished (amongst others) the notorious Hanger Lane Gyratory
system. This went on at more or less the same time as the widening. I
think that's less than 20 years ago.

The Hanger Lane underpass long predates the gyratory which sits on top of
it. The underpass is shown on a very early 60s A-Z map of London.