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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 02:23 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 278
Default TfL Admits Livingstone Regime Deliberately Obstructed Traffic Flows

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.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)


  #2   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 02:53 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 28
Default 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
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 17th 08, 03:07 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,577
Default 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.


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 03:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017