Difference between revisions of "HLG 159/321"

From ArchiveWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (That's better)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Subseries HLG 159]][[Category:Ringways]]
[[Category:Subseries HLG 159]][[Category:Ringways]]
===Ringway No.3 (North-West London), report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, comments===
{{Header
<table class="toc colour">
| title    = Ringway No.3 (North-West London), report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, comments
<!-- tr>
| daterange = 1971
<td style="background: white; border:1px solid #AFA3BF; color: black}; font-size:12pt; padding:8px; font-weight: bold;" colspan="2"></td>
| nacatref  = 8296542
</tr -->
| series    = HLG
<tr>
| subseries = 159
<td>'''Date range'''</td>
}}
<td>1971</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Location'''</td>
<td>[[National Archives]] ([http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=8296542 See catalogue entry])</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''File location'''</td>
<td>[[:Category:Series HLG|Series HLG]]; [[:Category:Subseries HLG 159|Subseries HLG 159]]</td>
</tr>
</table>


==Context==
==Context==

Revision as of 18:38, 9 January 2011

Ringway No.3 (North-West London), report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, comments

Date range1971
LocationNational Archives (see all files stored here)
CatalogueSee entry
File baseSeries HLG, subseries HLG 159

Context

As part of the colossal public inquiry into the GLC's Greater London Development Plan, the line of Ringway 3 in the north-west of London was investigated by the engineering consultants Colin Buchanan and Partners.

Their report outlined the need for the GLC's proposed line for Ringway 3, how it would affect development in its surrounding areas, how it would relate to local traffic problems and what alternatives existed. One alternative which was probably preferred by whoever demanded this investigation was a Ministry of Transport line for the motorway which went around the outside of the built-up area, avoiding the massive property demolition that would be required for the GLC's line.

Contents of note

  • Easy to read summary of the report's conclusions, which surmises that the most destructive line for the motorway (the GLC's preferred "B" route) was the most suitable. The consultants were, however, working to the criteria that the GLC used to select motorway lines so this isn't too surprising.
  • Responses from five affected London Boroughs, which is a grudging acceptance that the road is needed without actually approving the report's findings.

People with camera copies

Chris Marshall has a complete copy. Yes - that's all three pages!