Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 04:41 mileburner wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:sQ57n.31258$Ym4.14143(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > >> Just the cycling scums opinion that they shouldn't ever have to pay for >> anything. > > Again Medway shows he has no opinion of his own - only a false idea of what > others think. > > <sigh> Actually, on this occasion, he was fairly reflecting the conents of Mr Crispin's erotic creams.
From: ®i©ardo on 25 Jan 2010 05:20 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:34:21 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) > wrote: > >> Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >> >>> So tax avoidance would be to stop cycling, get fatter, and end up costing >>> the NHS �����s? >> There's no connection between cycling and how much you stuff in your >> pie-hole. And cycling is not the only form of exercise. > > But there is a very clear correlation between cycling and life > expectancy; ....or anyone else who takes a reasonable amount of exercise, most of whom are not cyclists. cycling and average income; ....ah yes, commuting for the poor the cheapskates and the poseurs. Most of them, in a commuting environment, can't even do that properly as they have to take their bikes on trains to cover the difficult bits. cycling and days off sick. All > positive for the economy. ....there's NOTHING positive for the economy when we take into account the number of cycling morons who manage to kill or injure themselves on the roads each year, nor when we take into account the pollution and congestion they cause! -- Moving things in still pictures
From: ®i©ardo on 25 Jan 2010 05:21 Doug 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? > > -- > Car Free Cities > http://www.carfree.com/ > Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution > to the vexing problem of urban automobiles. Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. -- Moving things in still pictures
From: boltar2003 on 25 Jan 2010 05:49 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:21:49 +0000 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?= <here(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> 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? >> >> -- >> Car Free Cities >> http://www.carfree.com/ >> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution >> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles. > >Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. I do find it odd that the builders of the various newer tunnels and bridges out to the east seemed to think that no one would ever have a reason to cross the river unless they were in a vehicle. I can't see any good reason other than cost why a footpath couldn't have been included in at least one of the bores of the Blackwall tunnel. B2003
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 06:05
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:21:49 +0000 > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?= <here(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> 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? >>> >>> -- >>> Car Free Cities >>> http://www.carfree.com/ >>> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution >>> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles. >> Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. > > I do find it odd that the builders of the various newer tunnels and bridges > out to the east seemed to think that no one would ever have a reason to cross > the river unless they were in a vehicle. I can't see any good reason other > than cost why a footpath couldn't have been included in at least one of > the bores of the Blackwall tunnel. It's a question of the costs and the benefits. Making a nominally 24' wide tunnel (which has a circular profile in construction) juat 6' wider to allow for a footway would require an increase in tunnel cross-sectional area from just over 450 sq feet to just about sq feet. That's not allowing for the linings, lane separation, kerb, etc, but you get the picture. And 6' might not be seen as wide enough for an extra track. If the extra width required were 12', the cross-section of the required bore would increase to over a thousand square feet - more than twice as much excavation... But... under the carriageway of every bored tunnel, there is a space which could be used for other things (think about it). However, the cost of making it usable would undoubtedly be very high and not at all likely to be met by potential users. |