Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 06:07 JNugent wrote: > 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. *Sorry*... the missing number was "707". So... 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 707 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.
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 06:15 On 25 Jan, 07:11, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:34:21 +0000, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) > wrote: > > >Tom Crispin <kije.rem...(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; cycling and average income; cycling and days off sick. All > positive for the economy. Then why do the Dutch live no longer than other European nations?
From: boltar2003 on 25 Jan 2010 06:16 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:07:59 +0000 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >*Sorry*... the missing number was "707". So... > >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 707 >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... Well yes , but you can always play that game. They could have decided for cost reasons to only make the tunnels single carraigeway. In some ways perhaps they should have done because the lanes are so narrow they're verging on the downright dangerous IMO. I'm surprised there arn't more accidents especially at those sharp and pointless corners in the northbound tube. If you're going to undertake a major piece of civil engineering you should do it properly and not half arsed. The Blackwall tunnel is a poor compromise for vehicles and not a solution at all for pedestrians or cyclists. >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 I can't see many people wanting to stroll along with traffic a foot above their heads. B2003
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 06:20 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.
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 06:46
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:07:59 +0000 > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> *Sorry*... the missing number was "707". So... >> >> 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 707 >> 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... > > Well yes , but you can always play that game. They could have decided for > cost reasons to only make the tunnels single carraigeway. The tunnels *are* single-carriageway (most tunnels are). > In some ways perhaps > they should have done because the lanes are so narrow they're verging on the > downright dangerous IMO. I'm surprised there arn't more accidents especially > at those sharp and pointless corners in the northbound tube. 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. > If you're going to undertake a major piece of civil engineering you should > do it properly and not half arsed. It *was* the nineteenth century! > The Blackwall tunnel is a poor compromise > for vehicles and not a solution at all for pedestrians or cyclists. Of course it's a poor compromise. A better solution would have been to build two new tunnels instead of just one back in the 1960s and give the older tunnel over to buses, bikes and pedestrians, with a potentially higher speed limit (eg, 50) in the newer tunnels. But that would have involved spending a bit more of the many millions collected from motorised road-users, and, of course, would have been anathema to many people. >> 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 > I can't see many people wanting to stroll along with traffic a foot above > their heads. It's taller than that. It's almost the same height as the headroom in the tunnel above the halfway line, though that is variable depending on how wide the track needs to be. Probably high enough for pedestrians if a track between 6' and 8' wide were required. Taller still if only (sa) 5' were required. |