Blackwall Tunnel Closures
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Overtaking at roundabouts
Next: Saab sold to Spyker
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 14:11 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:20:31 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(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.
From: Tom Crispin on 25 Jan 2010 14:41 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.
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 15:06 On 25 Jan, 19:01, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > NM wrote: > > 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? > > No-one pays to use the roads. > > Registered keepers of motor vehicles pay VED to allow vehicles to be used on > the roads but: > > No-one pays to use the roads. > > HTH (but it probably wont :-( ) As you well know that is semantics and bollox.
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 15:19 On 25 Jan, 19:06, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Tom Crispin" <kije.rem...(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? It's fighting ability would be severly curtailed if it was that far up the Thames so it's unlikely to be there very often. What's wrong with allowing cycles on the tube between Wapping and Rotherhithe, years ago they used to partition off a section of the tube carriage with this bar device so the guard (remember them) had a commuter free section to work in? I moved from Deptford just at the time the DLR was being extended so I cannot comment on the suitability of Cutty Sark or any other DLR station suitability. A variation of this would be cheap to institute and if there is as much demand as is claimed it wouldn't be beyond possibility to put a couple of extra trains on to cope.
From: NM on 25 Jan 2010 15:21
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. |