Urban motorways in London

[Bryn666]

But where does the traffic go? It will be backed up for about 3 miles from the first signals after the Marylebone Flyover if there is a continuous freeflow all the way in.

Smart motorways are not designed for that issue.

[Berk]

Logic would surely dictate the end of motorway regs to come at the end of the free flow section??

And traffic to be distributed along a network of arterial roads. Something like that.

[Truvelo]

Had the Ringways been built in full a lot of A40 traffic would have turned off before reaching Marylebone. The West Cross Route would certainly have been busier than the elevated Westway.

[WHBM]

When I was travelling between the Dartford crossing and the M11 in the 1980's the North Circular at the east end had more in common with the South Circular than the current road being simply existing suburban roads designated A406. In fact it was so bad I used to head North from the Dartford tunnel through South and North Ockendon and take the A127/A12 from there to Woodford.

The east side of the North Circular at that time was if anything worse than the South Circular. I recall being in the WH Smith in East Ham High Street, now pedestrianised, and seeing a huge outsizeload creeping northwards a few feet from the front door, with Saturday afternoon shoppers taking refuge in the shop doorway. Yes, this was the 2-way A406 North Circular at that time

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.53631 ... bfov%3D100

Meanwhile the section across Wanstead Flats, Aldersbrook Road, also A406, must have been the only bit of urban trunk road that constantly got delays from unattended cattle wandering across the carriageway, like something in India.

http://wansteadium.com/the-cows-in-wanstead/

[lefthandedspanner]

More than half the UK tax revenue is generated INSIDE the M25.

Correction: more than half of the UK's taxable income is generated inside the M25, however the actual tax revenue is considerably less than what it should be.

If more than the smallest fraction of those taxes were actually paid, as opposed to being squirreled away into offshore investments, and HMRC had any power to issue final demands for those taxes, perhaps with the threat of criminal prosecution, repossession orders and lengthy prison sentences to back them up, the nation as a whole would be a damn sight better off than it is.

[ManomayLR]

But where does the traffic go? It will be backed up for about 3 miles from the first signals after the Marylebone Flyover if there is a continuous freeflow all the way in.

Smart motorways are not designed for that issue.

Did that happen with the old A40(M)? By the time I was enthusiastic it was long an A road.

[WHBM]

Did that happen with the old A40(M)? By the time I was enthusiastic it was long an A road.

Not nearly so much, because the signals all along Marylebone Road were timed differently to nowadays, with more priority to the main flow, and less pedestrian stages. For example, there was no pedestrian stage at Baker Street, where there is a pedestrian underpass.

As with other London main routes (all London signals are managed by TfL, not just on the TfL network), the issue arises from just one junction's settings, which blocks back way along the route. The one on Marylebone Road is Upper Woburn Place, near Euston station, which eastbound can block back all the way back to the Westway and take half an hour to get through. This happened when the right turn was put in there, to suit a bus service rearrangement, and the three through lanes on the rest of the street were reduced to two through and a right turn.

[Bryn666]

But where does the traffic go? It will be backed up for about 3 miles from the first signals after the Marylebone Flyover if there is a continuous freeflow all the way in.

Smart motorways are not designed for that issue.

Did that happen with the old A40(M)? By the time I was enthusiastic it was long an A road.

No because the first bottleneck entering London is further west at Gypsy Corner. If you resolve Gypsy Corner you move all that congestion to Baker Street. There is nowhere for thousands of cars to go in central London so what is the point?

[WHBM]

There is nowhere for thousands of cars to go in central London so what is the point?

If there is nowhere for cars to go then why would any driver attempt the journey ?

As so often, this only envisages people are travelling to Zone 1, as visiting non-Londoners do. Marylebone Road forms a mainstream route across London, so if I am returning from rural Oxfordshire to Canary Wharf, I will be going along there, routing via Kings Cross, Great Eastern Street, and The Highway. It is both quicker and shorter than looping round by the M25.

[Bryn666]

There is nowhere for thousands of cars to go in central London so what is the point?

If there is nowhere for cars to go then why would any driver attempt the journey ?

As so often, this only envisages people are travelling to Zone 1, as visiting non-Londoners do. Marylebone Road forms a mainstream route across London, so if I am returning from rural Oxfordshire to Canary Wharf, I will be going along there, routing via Kings Cross, Great Eastern Street, and The Highway. It is both quicker and shorter than looping round by the M25.

And people on this thread are making the argument to provide more and more roads into Zone 1. Which is unworkable.

If all the car commuters trying to find the limited number of spaces in Zone 1 used other means, you'd find your trips across the A501 would be less difficult.

[WHBM]

If all the car commuters trying to find the limited number of spaces in Zone 1 used other means, you'd find your trips across the A501 would be less difficult.

There is very little car commuting into Zone 1, principally because of this lack of parking. What you get far more of is casual visitors, to the major hospitals, entertainment people who will be leaving after midnight, etc.

A glance at the vehicle proportions on London streets nowadays shows the great majority are now vans, taxis, Ubers, tourist coaches, buses, and the like.

[Berk]

More than half the UK tax revenue is generated INSIDE the M25.

Correction: more than half of the UK's taxable income is generated inside the M25, however the actual tax revenue is considerably less than what it should be.

If more than the smallest fraction of those taxes were actually paid, as opposed to being squirreled away into offshore investments, and HMRC had any power to issue final demands for those taxes, perhaps with the threat of criminal prosecution, repossession orders and lengthy prison sentences to back them up, the nation as a whole would be a damn sight better off than it is.

I would put the knife away, rather than keep grinding it.

Where there is no liability, there is no requirement to pay. Most people can not grasp this, or get their heads around it.


Yes, it did irk me a little when I was capturing tax returns. How could someone work as a translator, and make both £10k in income, AND losses?? Therefore leaving them with no tax to pay??

That is how our tax system works. If people want to call it tax evasion, then that’s incorrect. Tax evasion is where your liability is more than your income, and you choose to avoid paying it.

In any case, some of that offshore money belongs to our pension and funds management companies. Not just fat cats.

[Herned]

Not nearly so much, because the signals all along Marylebone Road were timed differently to nowadays, with more priority to the main flow, and less pedestrian stages. For example, there was no pedestrian stage at Baker Street, where there is a pedestrian underpass.

I remember seeing something on the TV in mid-late 1980s, probably Tomorrow's World, about how there was going to be a computer controlled green wave so that if you carried on at 30 mph all the lights would change in sequence all the way down the Marylebone/Euston Road.

The right turn at Woburn Place has been there for as long as I can remember driving that way, at least 15 years, and it causes such an issue because there is very little advance warning so it is easy to suddenly be in the wrong lane

[KeithW]

Not nearly so much, because the signals all along Marylebone Road were timed differently to nowadays, with more priority to the main flow, and less pedestrian stages. For example, there was no pedestrian stage at Baker Street, where there is a pedestrian underpass.

As with other London main routes (all London signals are managed by TfL, not just on the TfL network), the issue arises from just one junction's settings, which blocks back way along the route. The one on Marylebone Road is Upper Woburn Place, near Euston station, which eastbound can block back all the way back to the Westway and take half an hour to get through. This happened when the right turn was put in there, to suit a bus service rearrangement, and the three through lanes on the rest of the street were reduced to two through and a right turn.

Time it right and you could once drive the entire length of Marylebone Road without hitting a red. Riding the Green Wave was as I recall possible if you drove at exactly 30 mph and were lucky It must have been about 1990 when I last managed it while on my way from Wembley to meet someone coming in at London City Airport.

[WHBM]

The right turn at Woburn Place has been there for as long as I can remember driving that way, at least 15 years, and it causes such an issue because there is very little advance warning so it is easy to suddenly be in the wrong lane

Indeed, I was going back before that. It used to be either a G turn or a Q turn, I forget which (we don't seem to do these any more).

[Bryn666]

The right turn at Woburn Place has been there for as long as I can remember driving that way, at least 15 years, and it causes such an issue because there is very little advance warning so it is easy to suddenly be in the wrong lane

Indeed, I was going back before that. It used to be either a G turn or a Q turn, I forget which (we don't seem to do these any more).

If we had lightweight urban gantry design it would at least be properly signed in advance...

What's a G turn and a Q turn for those of us who aren't signal engineers

[WHBM]

What's a G turn and a Q turn for those of us who aren't signal engineers

Come on Bryn, you of all members would surely know

It's a means of allowing traffic to turn right without them having to actually do so at the key junction itself.

G turn requires turning left before the key junction, then right into a parallel side street, then right again, to go straight across the key junction. Because of the right turns, works best where the side streets are one way streets.

Q turn is similar, but drive through the key junction, then left, left, left to come back through the key junction, again in a straight across move. Less efficient in capacity terms as vehicles have to pass through the key junction twice.

Allows you to have a two-stage signal where there is a sufficient right turn component which would otherwise require protected turn stages, and/or there is no additional space on the main street for pocket right turn lanes.

Generally accompanied by a large geographic sign on the approach showing the geometry.

The inward A4 into Central London used to have two such signed G turns, which were both replaced by right turn lanes. One at North End Road/West Kensington, where an additional turn lane was squeezed in by lane narrowing everything, the other at Earls Court Road which was replaced by some extensive demolition of a fine Victorian terrace on the south side of the A4 and a substantial multi-lane right turn.

[Truvelo]

There is a G turn on the A4 at the junction of Sutton Court Road I use a lot on my way to Kew. The problem is turning right out of Barrowgate Road when Sutton Court Road is busy.

[Herned]

I'm sure there used to be something like that to turn down Baker Street, or somewhere there anyway, with a diagram showing the layout of the side streets that you needed to use. Can't see it on GSV now though

Edit: Just realised it is to turn north towards Lords when heading west, turn left down Baker Street and then right and right again...

[Bryn666]

What's a G turn and a Q turn for those of us who aren't signal engineers

Come on Bryn, you of all members would surely know

It's a means of allowing traffic to turn right without them having to actually do so at the key junction itself.

G turn requires turning left before the key junction, then right into a parallel side street, then right again, to go straight across the key junction. Because of the right turns, works best where the side streets are one way streets.

Q turn is similar, but drive through the key junction, then left, left, left to come back through the key junction, again in a straight across move. Less efficient in capacity terms as vehicles have to pass through the key junction twice.

G and Q turn.JPG

Allows you to have a two-stage signal where there is a sufficient right turn component which would otherwise require protected turn stages, and/or there is no additional space on the main street for pocket right turn lanes.

Generally accompanied by a large geographic sign on the approach showing the geometry.

The inward A4 into Central London used to have two such signed G turns, which were both replaced by right turn lanes. One at North End Road/West Kensington, where an additional turn lane was squeezed in by lane narrowing everything, the other at Earls Court Road which was replaced by some extensive demolition of a fine Victorian terrace on the south side of the A4 and a substantial multi-lane right turn.

I'd have never have called them Q and G turns despite that now being utterly obvious.

I've had this discussion with people about the obsession with all movements signal junctions and the safety and efficiency losses conflicting turns cause but some decision makers insist on it. It's crackers.

Banning turns doesn't cause the sky to fall in as cars can go around. You'd be able to fit your pedestrian and cycle stages in much easier with the G and Q turns.