Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: boltar2003 on 25 Jan 2010 07:34 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:46:01 +0000 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> 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). No they're not - theres 2 lanes in each. They may have been single carriageway originally but they certainly arn't now. >> 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! Thats no excuse. There are plenty of quite large rail tunnels that were built in the 19th century in far more difficult circumstances - eg the severn tunnel. >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. Well given the way governments waste tax money anyway I doubt anyone would have complained if it was vaguely transport related. Most of our road tax gets spent in completely unrelated areas. >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. Whats down there at the moment? B2003
From: JNugent on 25 Jan 2010 07:46 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> 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). > No they're not - theres 2 lanes in each. They may have been single carriageway > originally but they certainly arn't now. Single-lane and single-carriageway don't mean the same thing. >>> 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! > Thats no excuse. There are plenty of quite large rail tunnels that were > built in the 19th century in far more difficult circumstances - eg the > severn tunnel. For quite different purposes and quite different speeds. >> 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. > Well given the way governments waste tax money anyway I doubt anyone would > have complained if it was vaguely transport related. Most of our road tax > gets spent in completely unrelated areas. >> 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. > Whats down there at the moment? Depends. Some tunnels might have that space filled with spoil or other debris. In others, services are carried. In others, there have been proposals to run buses or trams.
From: Doug on 25 Jan 2010 08:28 On 25 Jan, 10:21, ®i©ardo <h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > 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? > > > Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. > They do already like, everyone else, with their unhypothecated taxes. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
From: mileburner on 25 Jan 2010 08:36 "�i�ardo" <here(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:Sge7n.31114$u23.16344(a)newsfe05.ams2... > > Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. Why? No one else does...
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 11:58
On 25 Jan, 13:36, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "®i©ardo" <h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:Sge7n.31114$u23.16344(a)newsfe05.ams2... > > > > > Fine, as long as cyclists are prepared to pay for using the roads. > > Why? No one else does... You know full well they do, so many times explained. You must enjoy looking like a cretin? |