TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

In message , at 21:53:25 on
Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Steve Firth remarked:

They are not a universal panacea

Non-universal panaceas can be extremely unique.
--
Roland Perry

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

On Aug 17, 2:10*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:


The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

Peter Heather

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Peter Heather wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).
There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

Peter Heather


All true except that northbound traffic has delays to get off the new
road & this is nothing to do with congestion further on.
You will see an increasing amount of traffic going north that is
starting to use the old road as it is often faster.

--
Tony the Dragon

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

Peter Heather wrote:
On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:


The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road,
but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be
taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking
athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat
junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north. It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway. Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars. Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

(Of traffic lights)

I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys with
gaps between the convoys where people can cross the road without fear of
being killed. The alternative seems to be an endless stream of traffic
which makes crossing the road virtually impossible or else means waiting
a long, long time.

Aren't cyclists "traffic", then?

Cyclists ignore traffic lights so by Duhg's method if you start to cross
when the cars have all gone you get run down by a cyclist.

--
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
 

On Aug 18, 2:20*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:


Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.- Hide quoted text -

My pleasure. And sorry for firing off an over grumpy response.

Peter Heather

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Peter Heather wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
admission of failure before it was even opened).

There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty.. .
it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
which wouldn't clog.

What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
anti car?

Who said it was?

I said that the attitudes of modern highway planners are anti-car.

And they are.

It is a single carriageway road connecting a single
carriageway in the south to a single carriageway in the north.

So was the first stretch of the M6. And the first length of the M1.

So what?

It's
main purpose is to take the through traffic out of the town centre and
has been very successful in that. A dual carriageway wouldn't achieve
anything more than the single carriageway.

Except for more capacity. And except for the fact that the
single-carriageway bypass will never be widened to four lanes (the
minimum capacity for a modern road), even if the A23 to the south is
ever widened to four lanes.
Oh... hang on...

Nothbound traffic will
still sometimes find congestion as they leave the area because of the
bottleneck a couple of miles to the north at Purley, but southbound
traffic now flows much more freely without having to fight its way
through the town. So car traffic is helped rather than hindered.

Oh, the situation is better than it was. But not as good as it should be.

The 'bus lane' as you call it is in fact a 'priority traffic' lane
that is used by lorries, motorcycles, taxis and buses (there are long
distance buses on the road) and has been provided in addition to the
nothbound traffic lane and not to the detriment of cars.

A "priority" lane which merely excludes one class of traffic?

Is that supposed to be funny?

Incidentally,
the road was extremely popular with local people (with a high
proportion of car drivers), with huge pressure to get it built to make
Coulsdon town centre free of congestion.

I can well imagine it. And given that the badly-needed northern
extension of M23 will probably never be built, who can blame them? That
still doesn't mean that the bypass is optimal or anywhere near optimal.

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd.

Not my comment.

The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure. It needs a major rethink at Purley to cure that, but the
political will (locally and at TfL) to sort that problem out seems to
have evaporated in recent years.

TaL may yet come to its senses under the new management.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

Brimstone wrote:

Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of more
people being allowed to travel easily by road between various points in
London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

That does not include allowing pedestrians, cyclists, horses-and-carts,
moped-riders and milk-floats to use motorways.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed TrafficFlows
 

John Rowland wrote:

Peter Heather wrote:

And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
would cure.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.

I mentioned nothing about the junctions, so that is a non-sequitur.

TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows
 

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of
more people being allowed to travel easily by road between various
points in London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

That does not include allowing pedestrians, cyclists,
horses-and-carts, moped-riders and milk-floats to use motorways.

Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?