Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: Tom Crispin on 26 Jan 2010 01:54 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:40:21 +0000, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> considered Mon, 25 >Jan 2010 18:59:59 +0000 the perfect time to write: > >>We have been through this before. A bridge would have to rise or be >>able to be raised to at least 65m to allow the tallest ships that fit >>under the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. A 1:20 ramp which would allow >>wheelchair access suggests a ramp length of 1.3Km each end. This is >>wholly unrealistic. >> >>The proposed Thames Bridge has a deck height of 15m, and even then the >>spiral ramps need to be around 300m long. The two towers are 80m tall. >>Cyclists will be delayed everytime the deck has to rise to allow >>larger river traffic to pass. >> >>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. > >How deep would a tunnel have to be? >I'd have thought a tunnel with ramps would be far preferable to a >bridge with ramps, and wouldn't have to be moved out of the way for >river traffic, or be impassable in high winds. The current foot tunnel is about 10m below the river surface at the banks and 15.2m at the deepest point. Lifts are still probably the most practical way of getting cycles and cyclists down. A 200m long 1:20 DDA compliant spiral ramp would have to have a diameter of about 18m and 3.5 loops to drop 10m.
From: Doug on 26 Jan 2010 02:40 On 25 Jan, 18:59, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:48:15 -0800 (PST), 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? > > We have been through this before. A bridge would have to rise or be > able to be raised to at least 65m to allow the tallest ships that fit > under the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. A 1:20 ramp which would allow > wheelchair access suggests a ramp length of 1.3Km each end. This is > wholly unrealistic. > > The proposed Thames Bridge has a deck height of 15m, and even then the > spiral ramps need to be around 300m long. The two towers are 80m tall. > Cyclists will be delayed everytime the deck has to rise to allow > larger river traffic to pass. > > 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. > Well we have to wait for the Woolwich Ferry so why not for a low swing bridge which we could cycle across instead of having to dismount? Doug.
From: Dave Larrington on 26 Jan 2010 03:42 In news:4qbsl51elk55p4da4evtudtub75b4qqkal(a)4ax.com, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us: > What about canal tunnels? What about them? The only canal tunnel worthy of the name with a towpath is Netherton. Which had lights. -- Dave Larrington <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk> YEEEEEHAH. AIN't GOT NO HOOVES!
From: JNugent on 26 Jan 2010 04:17 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:03:16 +0000, JNugent > <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >>>> But does the bridge *have* to be 65m high? >>> The Port of London Authority will not allow anything less >> ...unless it swings or lifts? > > I have already said as much in this sub thread. > > "A bridge would have to rise or be > able to be raised to at least 65m" > > OK - the wording is not great. I should have subtituted "open" for > "rise". There's no problem with that, is there? *If* it's good enough for the Inner London ring road (and it apparently is), it's good enough for anyone.
From: mileburner on 26 Jan 2010 04:22
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:FDq7n.31694$Ym4.3278(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > And you pay that to use those vehicles on the roads. But you don't pay to > use your push bike on the roads. And your point is? Exactly? Don't tell me "Cyclists are freeloading scum" :-) |