Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 18:08 NM wrote: > On 25 Jan, 19:11, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> > wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:20:31 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 25 Jan, 07:48, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>>> On 25 Jan, 06:46, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:39:50 +0000, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:21:56 +0000, Tom Crispin >>>>>> <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> The really good news is that the Blackwall Tunnel is to be tolled and >>>>>>> this may provide the funds to build cyclists their much needed Thames >>>>>>> Bridge. >>>>>> What on earth makes you think that the money from the tolls will be >>>>>> spent on such a thing? >>>>>> Is that some official policy - or just wishful thinking? >>>>> With the first of London's network of cycling superhighways, based on >>>>> the Copenhagen model, to open this year, Boris seems very keen to >>>>> provide quality cycling facilities for cyclists. Funding a fully >>>>> cycleable Thames Crossing downstream of Tower Bridge makes good sense. >>>>> Using toll money from the Blackwall Tunnel is a fair redistribution >>>>> after motorists acquired the Blackwall Tunnel from other road users. >>>>> Personally I would prefer a second bore at the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, >>>>> like the Tyne Foot Tunnel, the last photo in this slide show.www.britishschoolofcycling.com/tunnel/stairs >>>>> However the essence of your question is correct. It is a wish. >>>> No a second bore would still involve dismounting and lifts. Far better >>>> and fairer to have a cycle bridge as a companion to the 'drivers only' >>>> Blackwall Tunnel. Surely, if cyclists are expected to comply with the >>>> same rules of the road as drivers they should have the same privileges >>>> as drivers? >>> I can't see what is wrong with that idea, cyclists only toll bridge, >>> if there is the demand indicated it should be profitable quite >>> quickly. >>> With tolls set at the same rate as a car on the Dartford crossing, >>> after all it's one soul across(under) the water in case of both cars >>> and bikes, the same objective is achieved so the same price should >>> apply. >> The last time I crossed the Dartford tunnel in a car there was no >> charge. Last time I crossed the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in a car >> there was no charge either. > > Then you must have been a passenger, there was a charge for the car, > as a cyclist the second person on your tandem would not be charged in > order to maintain parity. Or it was late at night.
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 18:09 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:05:36 -0000, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >news:5lsrl5927cjfh5ig17mrhlr1l91sl3gsh8(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:06:52 -0000, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>>news:9torl55uapgit7eo6umctf0e1i1dvmfdoo(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> I would prefer to dismount and catch a lift than either cycle over >>>> 2.5Km of ramp or be delayed everytime a yacht passes below. >>> >>>What about it it's (say) a frigate or a destroyer? >> >> I'd still prefer to use a tunnel. But it's only once or twice a year >> that naval vessels moor higher up the Thames than Greenwich, and that >> would be tolerable. Yachts pass beyond Greenwich to St Katherine Dock >> or beyond several times daily. > >Why do you object to people using the oldest highway of all? I have no objection at all. My preference would be for a tunnel that would not impede traffic on the Thames in any way or cyclists and pedestrians wishing to cross the Thames. A bridge lower than 65m is likely to impede both river traffic and cyclists and pedestrians, and would certainly impede either river traffic or cyclists and pedestrians. A 65m bridge with cycleable ramps is wholly impractical.
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 18:22 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:05:36 -0000, "Brimstone" > <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >> news:5lsrl5927cjfh5ig17mrhlr1l91sl3gsh8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:06:52 -0000, "Brimstone" >>> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>>> news:9torl55uapgit7eo6umctf0e1i1dvmfdoo(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> I would prefer to dismount and catch a lift than either cycle over >>>>> 2.5Km of ramp or be delayed everytime a yacht passes below. >>>> What about it it's (say) a frigate or a destroyer? >>> I'd still prefer to use a tunnel. But it's only once or twice a year >>> that naval vessels moor higher up the Thames than Greenwich, and that >>> would be tolerable. Yachts pass beyond Greenwich to St Katherine Dock >>> or beyond several times daily. >> Why do you object to people using the oldest highway of all? > > I have no objection at all. My preference would be for a tunnel that > would not impede traffic on the Thames in any way or cyclists and > pedestrians wishing to cross the Thames. Tunnelling is *very* expensive. The only justifications for a road river crossing would be that: (a) a bridge is (completely) impractical because of the width of the river (eg, as at Liverpool) or (b) [impractical] because of the density the riverside built environment (and that impracticality would vary with the required clearance height) or (c) that a bridge would be so aesthetically unacceptable as to make the huge expense worthwhile. None of those would necessarily come into play with a Thames bridge in inner London. The most recent bridge was built without too much fuss. Even a lift or bascule bridge would be cheaper than a tunnel. > A bridge lower than 65m is > likely to impede both river traffic and cyclists and pedestrians, and > would certainly impede either river traffic or cyclists and > pedestrians. A 65m bridge with cycleable ramps is wholly impractical. Probably. But does the bridge *have* to be 65m high?
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 18:24 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:06:11 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: > >> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >>> The older tunnel wasn't really built for traffic at 30mph. The bends are/were >>> necessary because of the geology of the ground and because of the places >>> where the terminations were needed. > >> No. The bends are there to prevent horses bolting for the light, and >> because of the geography of the Greenwich Penninsular. > >That's an additional - if far-fetched - reason you are proffering. It does >not militate against the two I gave (indeed, you support one of them - >probably both of them). > >> It is ironic that riding a horse through the tunnel is prohibited. > >Not really. The "horse bolting the light" story is highly likely to be an >urban myth (unless you can find an authoritative source for it), and there >would be nothing to stop the horses "bolting for the light" on the not >inconsiderable relatively stretches between the outer bends and the portals. Horses bolting for the light may be an urban myth, but engineers designing bends in tunnels in the hope of preventing horses bolting for the light is not.
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 18:34
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:22:19 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:05:36 -0000, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>> news:5lsrl5927cjfh5ig17mrhlr1l91sl3gsh8(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:06:52 -0000, "Brimstone" >>>> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >>>>> news:9torl55uapgit7eo6umctf0e1i1dvmfdoo(a)4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>>> I would prefer to dismount and catch a lift than either cycle over >>>>>> 2.5Km of ramp or be delayed everytime a yacht passes below. >>>>> What about it it's (say) a frigate or a destroyer? >>>> I'd still prefer to use a tunnel. But it's only once or twice a year >>>> that naval vessels moor higher up the Thames than Greenwich, and that >>>> would be tolerable. Yachts pass beyond Greenwich to St Katherine Dock >>>> or beyond several times daily. >>> Why do you object to people using the oldest highway of all? >> >> I have no objection at all. My preference would be for a tunnel that >> would not impede traffic on the Thames in any way or cyclists and >> pedestrians wishing to cross the Thames. > >Tunnelling is *very* expensive. The only justifications for a road river >crossing would be that: > >(a) a bridge is (completely) impractical because of the width of the river >(eg, as at Liverpool) or > >(b) [impractical] because of the density the riverside built environment (and >that impracticality would vary with the required clearance height) or > >(c) that a bridge would be so aesthetically unacceptable as to make the huge >expense worthwhile. > >None of those would necessarily come into play with a Thames bridge in inner >London. The most recent bridge was built without too much fuss. Even a lift >or bascule bridge would be cheaper than a tunnel. > >> A bridge lower than 65m is >> likely to impede both river traffic and cyclists and pedestrians, and >> would certainly impede either river traffic or cyclists and >> pedestrians. A 65m bridge with cycleable ramps is wholly impractical. > >Probably. > >But does the bridge *have* to be 65m high? The Port of London Authority will not allow anything less. Ships of that height on the Thames are rare, but the QEII bridge already prevents the Tall Ships Race ever again starting from or visiting the Pool of London. |