RE: North Circular Nonsense
Tuesday 11th February 2003
Transport for London recently took over the management of London's major routes from the Highways Agency. One of their first actions has been to scrap plans to alleviate the last two major bottlenecks on the A406 North Circular.
A scheme approved by Barnet Council to build a tunnel at Henley's Corner where the A1 and the A406 meet and plans for an underpass at Brent Street have been replaced with proposals for a complex junction with cycle and bus lanes controlled by traffic lights.
TfL are also planning to remove the pedestrian footbridge over the A406 dual carriageway at Golders Green Road and replace it with a pedestrian crossing.
Tony Vickers of the Association of British Drivers commented, "Transport for London should be getting public transport to work properly after recent disasters rather than meddling in matters which the elected council are better placed to manage. One wonders what other obstructions TfL are planing for London's road network."
Links: www.abd.org.uk, www.barnet.gov.uk/barnet_first/roadplans.php3
North Circular Nonsense
TfL do their bit
Transport for London recently took over the management of London's major routes from the Highways Agency. One of their first actions has been to scrap plans to alleviate the last two major bottlenecks on the A406 North Circular.
A scheme approved by Barnet Council to build a tunnel at Henley's Corner where the A1 and the A406 meet and plans for an underpass at Brent Street have been replaced with proposals for a complex junction with cycle and bus lanes controlled by traffic lights.
TfL are also planning to remove the pedestrian footbridge over the A406 dual carriageway at Golders Green Road and replace it with a pedestrian crossing.
Tony Vickers of the Association of British Drivers commented, "Transport for London should be getting public transport to work properly after recent disasters rather than meddling in matters which the elected council are better placed to manage. One wonders what other obstructions TfL are planing for London's road network."
Links: www.abd.org.uk, www.barnet.gov.uk/barnet_first/roadplans.php3
Discussion
Livingstone and his team of TFL cretins need to be dealt with, and sooner rather than later.
Where the hell do they think traffic is going to go once the CC scheme starts?
The NCR is a great road where it's been upgraded to near motorway standard but then you hit the single-lane sections at Bowes Road/Arnos Grove and south of Hanger Lane and you're stuffed. The Henleys Corner intersection is a free-for-all as it is, so these new plans are a certain recipe for gridlock.
Livingstone, you're on borrowed time; when Norris gets elected next year I hope one of his first acts is to dangle you and your TFL chums 3 metres off the ground from one of your CC Cameras where I'll be driving one of our 3.5 metre high trucks.
Where the hell do they think traffic is going to go once the CC scheme starts?
The NCR is a great road where it's been upgraded to near motorway standard but then you hit the single-lane sections at Bowes Road/Arnos Grove and south of Hanger Lane and you're stuffed. The Henleys Corner intersection is a free-for-all as it is, so these new plans are a certain recipe for gridlock.
Livingstone, you're on borrowed time; when Norris gets elected next year I hope one of his first acts is to dangle you and your TFL chums 3 metres off the ground from one of your CC Cameras where I'll be driving one of our 3.5 metre high trucks.
It's taken over twenty years of public debate to get to this plan. I asked for how long the new 'improvements' would cope with the increase in traffic. "About three years" was the answer from the Barnet planner. Well in that case we should have started the next improvement 17 years ago.
One argument given against a tunnel is that if there is an accident it blocks the road for far longer while it is cleared. I wasn't on the ball enough at the meeting I went to, to say this, but if you have proper traffic flow you have fewer accidents, and why penalise the traffic for the vast, vast majority of time to have a benefit for one day every couple of years?
One argument given against a tunnel is that if there is an accident it blocks the road for far longer while it is cleared. I wasn't on the ball enough at the meeting I went to, to say this, but if you have proper traffic flow you have fewer accidents, and why penalise the traffic for the vast, vast majority of time to have a benefit for one day every couple of years?
Replacing a footbridge with a pedestrian crossing.
Are these fcuckers totally insane. Surely any scheme will have risk assessments carried out and environmental impact surveys carried out.
First rule of risk assessing is to try and remove the risk all together not encourage it by having soft squidgy pedestrians walking across a road when there is currently a bridge available and in use.
Political correctness gone beyond mad in to insanely dangerous.
And taking over form the Highways Agency, that is just downright arrogant. The fcucking tw*ts.
Are these fcuckers totally insane. Surely any scheme will have risk assessments carried out and environmental impact surveys carried out.
First rule of risk assessing is to try and remove the risk all together not encourage it by having soft squidgy pedestrians walking across a road when there is currently a bridge available and in use.
Political correctness gone beyond mad in to insanely dangerous.
And taking over form the Highways Agency, that is just downright arrogant. The fcucking tw*ts.
kevinday said: And as for replacing a footbridge with a pedestrian crossing, that is criminally insane. I would like to see a reply from TallChris99 explaining this one away!
Yes. It absolutely stretches credence that one would do this endangering the safety of the pedestrians. And slowing down the traffic too! Madness.
The only explanation I can think of for this would be that the route was required by tall vehicles which cannot currently go through. Since I haven't seen the location I can't comment.
Generally though I distrust totally anything TfL say it has to be said. Sad that isn't it.....
pdv6 said:
Don said:It absolutely stretches credence that one would do this endangering the safety of the pedestrians. And slowing down the traffic too! Madness.
Mind you, the spot would then be so dangerous that it'd qualify for a revenue scamera...
But a scamera there would take the driver's attention away from the pedestrians and the lights, surely? Or have I just put more thought into this scheme than tfl has?
I have been a resident in Friern Barnet all of my life, and have constantly had to suffer an enormous amount of traffic using my area as a rat run during peak times. When most of the North Circular was opened up, in to two and three lane carriageways, I thought It'd only be a matter of time until the remaining parts were done, otherwise, obviously all of the traffic would go from nice, free flowing traffic, all of the way from docklands, until all of a sudden it hits a huge bottleneck with a succession of slow junctions. But now it seems that rather than making all of the billions of pounds spent by tax payers on the previous road widenings worth it, by making the entire road effective, we're all to be taught a lesson and made to suffer until we learn that actually we don't want to drive our cars, but use public transport. Who cares that anyone with half a brain is obvioulsy going to try to avoid sitting in the enormous twice daily traffic jams, by using the rat runs which skirt the five junctions which form the centre section of the hour glass shaped northern north circular. There are at least twelve schools that I can think of that are directly effected by cars, vans and lorries having to use back roads to make any effective kind of progress, and I can assure the mayors office that the only way they can deal with this is not by trying to fight against what the vast majority of people want. Simply a road system that works.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff