|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 12, 2015 11:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 12, 2015 12:47:09 GMT
Does that tunnel really end in a roundabout at the Silvertown end? Think of the tailbacks in the tunnel! |
|
|
|
Post by revupminster on Oct 12, 2015 13:19:18 GMT
In May 1993 there was an exhibition for a dual carriageway bridge linking what is now the A12 (then the A102(T)) to the A102(M). Allowance were made for the planned Jubilee line extention. The dome was not there at the time but the bridge would have and still would pass it to the West.
Cost £130m.
A second sheme involving another tunnel and diverting the existing northbound tunnel on to Canary Wharf would have cost £185m and was deemed to expensive. What price a new scheme?
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Oct 12, 2015 13:51:08 GMT
Charge for the tunnels?
Do TFL want a revolution on NE and SE London?
Hope the consultation tells them this loud and clear
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 12, 2015 15:35:09 GMT
In discussions on other fora about why the Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel are not straight, the theory has often been put forward that they were planned that way to stop horses bolting for the daylight.
The plans for the proposed Silvertown Tunnel show it to be even more sinuous - are they intending to permit horses to use that too? (Think of the emissions........)
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Oct 12, 2015 18:55:58 GMT
What happened to the long ago proposed NthCirc:-from Barking to the Falconwood area to complete the N.Circular road?? Surely it would be better in all respects to find a way to revive this using a tunnel rather than a bridge which was what scuppered it before?
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,225 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 12, 2015 19:29:10 GMT
Does that tunnel really end in a roundabout at the Silvertown end? Think of the tailbacks in the tunnel! The Queensway tunnel between Birkenhead and Liverpool has a roundabout at the Liverpool end; queues into the tunnel are rare, those at the toll booths being longer! Linking things back to the UndergrounD, the Birkenhead tunnel is constructed the same way as the Deep Level shelters; the tunnel is circular with the roadway horizontal across the diameter. In a reverse of intended function the lower half of the Queensway tunnel now contains refuge shelters! |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 12, 2015 21:17:59 GMT
Well I suppose that since the Dartford Crossing is chargeable so TfL don't want a new river crossing in London to fill up on day one whilst the Dartford Crossing becomes a well deserved* place of fresh air, peacefulness and growing daises.
(*because of the duplicity in promising that tolls would eventually be withdrawn and then going back on this commitment).
I favour this third Blackwall runnel with the 1897 tunnel being reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists. This tunnel is not at all suited for modern traffic, and giving the cyclists a tunnel will be very PC... indeed a canny organisation would even use this roadspace reallocation scheme as a carrot which can be dangled in the faces of cyclists and anti-everything luddite environmentalists as a well-earned prize for not objecting to the new (replacement) tunnel.
The other Blackwall tunnel could be retained for emergency use.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Oct 12, 2015 21:38:52 GMT
Charge for the tunnels? Do TFL want a revolution on NE and SE London? Hope the consultation tells them this loud and clear my comments on the topic of road charging... ------------------------------------ If you are seriously planning to do this then you are being mean spirited and acting out of spitefulness. no No NO to road user charging. The people of west London have many bridges, all of which are free at point of use. The people of east London do not want to be milked like cash cows, simply because they have fewer river crossing options. ------------------------------------ I also said that the idea of reserved lanes for certain traffic should only apply if there are three lanes per direction of traffic. I said this because in my view a single lane for general traffic will actually act as road space reduction and therefore fail to reduce peak hour traffic delays. Simon |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 12, 2015 22:45:27 GMT
In addition to all the problems highlighted above (which are problems and TfL should be told this in no uncertain terms) the junction at the south end of the southbound tunnel sets up a short weaving section with traffic from the old tunnel wanting to head to Wooliwch and Charlton needing to move left across traffic from the new tunnel heading further south needing to move right. Short weaving sections like this have only three possible outcomes - 1. traffic jams caused by slow moving traffic. 2. traffic jams caused by accidents, 3. accidents caused by traffic jams - and these are not mutually exclusive!
Then you come to the issues of funnelling all the extra traffic onto the already overloaded roads through south London (with all the attendant air quality implications) and the very indirect connections to the A12 and A13 (where most traffic wants to go) at the north end - requiring traffic to negotiate two or three roundabouts and/or multiple sets of traffic lights (with all the attendant air quality implications).
In short, the proposal is a disaster and is only being rushed through now so that Boris can say he achieved something.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 13, 2015 23:56:44 GMT
Charge for the tunnels? Do TFL want a revolution on NE and SE London? Hope the consultation tells them this loud and clear The suggestion is that residents of boroughs located close to the river will get discounts from the tolls - much as residents of Dartford and Thurrock get a extra discount on the Dartford crossing and residents of the congestion charge zone get a discount off that scheme. TfL are of the view that Blackwall should only be for local traffic (I.e. The boroughs flanking the Thames between Thamesmead / Barking and Tower Bridge) which the proposed tolling + discount system encourages. If you live in Bexley or Sidcup or Bromley say, TfL want you to head out of London and cross the river at Dartford then come in on the A13 rather than use Blackwall. Similarly if you live in Wanstead or Walthamstow and want to get to Bromley, your route in TfLs eyes should be via Dartford then back in on the A2 / A20. You also forget that air quality is a big issue for those living around the current tunnel - something they have made abundantly clear to their elected representatives and as such there is LOTS of pressure to ensure that any new tunnel does not increase traffic volumes. Voters in the vicinity of Blackwall are also far less likely to be car owners than those in outer boroughs and as a result there is a strong green lobby in city hall. More widely those, opposed to tolling have yet to come up with a way of funding a 3rd crossing. Central Government has made it VERY CLEAR all maters regarding roads within London have been devolved and as such have to be 100% funded by the GLA out of the block grant. This is what, more than anything else saw previously drawn up plans (by the DfT) to fully grade separate the Bounds Green section of the North circular ditched, Ken (Livingstone) or no Ken. The cost of the inherited scheme was way beyond what the GLA could resource and Central Government refused to consider helping as 'roads are a deveolved matter' as far as they were concerned. The proposed Silvertown tunnel has exactly the same problem with funding and can in no way be financed by the GLA without some kind of charging regime being put in place. Thus what opponents of the charge fail to grasp is that it's not a case of 'to charge or not to charge' - it's a case of 'no charge, no tunnel' If you don't like it then the people to complain to is the DfT, or to be more accurate, the Treasuary who have (under administrations of both colours) comprehensively failed to invest in our national infrastructure over past decades and love to pass the buck to other organisations whenever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 14, 2015 0:16:19 GMT
In addition to all the problems highlighted above (which are problems and TfL should be told this in no uncertain terms) the junction at the south end of the southbound tunnel sets up a short weaving section with traffic from the old tunnel wanting to head to Wooliwch and Charlton needing to move left across traffic from the new tunnel heading further south needing to move right. Short weaving sections like this have only three possible outcomes - 1. traffic jams caused by slow moving traffic. 2. traffic jams caused by accidents, 3. accidents caused by traffic jams - and these are not mutually exclusive! Then you come to the issues of funnelling all the extra traffic onto the already overloaded roads through south London (with all the attendant air quality implications) and the very indirect connections to the A12 and A13 (where most traffic wants to go) at the north end - requiring traffic to negotiate two or three roundabouts and/or multiple sets of traffic lights (with all the attendant air quality implications). As regards weaving at the southern junctions, this could be solved in the same way the slip roads from the A13 into the exsisting tunnel are handeled - namely with traffic lights allowing traffic from the A206 and the mainline to proceed alternately. Not ideal I know but given there are already lights on the A2 at Kidbroke, and on the A12 on the section heading north from the Tunnel, plus further lights to ensure traffic does not enter the tunnel if a queue is forming at the exit, and those that stop traffic if an overweight vehicle has been detected - a further set is hardly going to be that much of an issue (which is not to say there won't be queues - but thats what happens at the moment in busy times anyway). As for the northern exit of the Silvertown tunnel - yes the onward routes to the A12 and A13 are not great, but that is not what the Silvertown tunnel is being designed for. It's function is to take traffic bound for Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks southwards and thus provide a measure of relief to the exsisting tunnel for traffic that does require the A12 or A13 when it emerges onto the north bank. The ability of the Silvertown tunnel to take lorries that are currently to tall for the northbound Blackwall bore is just the icing on the cake as it were. When looked at in this light (and not as a strategic cross London highway) the Silvertown tunnel as designed is not as bad as people think in design terms. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Oct 14, 2015 9:57:46 GMT
Well I suppose that since the Dartford Crossing is chargeable so TfL don't want a new river crossing in London to fill up on day one whilst the Dartford Crossing becomes a well deserved* place of fresh air, peacefulness and growing daises. (*because of the duplicity in promising that tolls would eventually be withdrawn and then going back on this commitment). I favour this third Blackwall runnel with the 1897 tunnel being reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists. This tunnel is not at all suited for modern traffic, and giving the cyclists a tunnel will be very PC... indeed a canny organisation would even use this roadspace reallocation scheme as a carrot which can be dangled in the faces of cyclists and anti-everything luddite environmentalists as a well-earned prize for not objecting to the new (replacement) tunnel. The other Blackwall tunnel could be retained for emergency use. Simon On the subject of cycle tunnels. Are the pedestrian tunnels such as the one at Woolwich ferry still being used? A few years ago it was reported that they were not being used very much and it was proposed that they be closed. AFAIK they are still open but if they are underused for their original purpose perhaps converting them for cyclists could be considered. Of course they would need bicycle access in the form of ramps and/or lifts for which space will be required if it is available. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,400
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 14, 2015 10:26:24 GMT
Both the tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich are still in use for pedestrians, and they do still get used. Not perhaps as much as when they were first built but that's not surprising as both now have parallel DLR routes. According to Greenwich council around 1.2 million people use the Greenwich tunnel and 300,000 use the Woolwich tunnel per year. The Woolwich tunnel was built as a backup to the ferry anyway so in the normal course of things it wouldn't be at capacity anyway. The Greenwich tunnel these days does see a fairly constant tickle of people, a lot of tourists use it to view Greenwich from the north bank for example. During the London Marathon the tunnel gets so full that it is only open for people walking south to north. Both tunnels also have large capacity lifts at both ends, refurbished about 4-5 years ago, although they are not the world's most reliable.
Cycling is officially prohibited in both tunnels, but bikes can be walked through. Off-peak it is possible to cycle through them but when it's busy there is not the space to pass pedestrians. The Greenwich tunnel has an internal diameter of about 9ft (so each lane is effectively only about 4ft wide) but this reduces significantly for a short distance near the north end. I can't quickly find a figure for the Woolwich tunnel, but it is likely the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Oct 14, 2015 11:51:28 GMT
On the subject of cycle tunnels. Are the pedestrian tunnels such as the one at Woolwich ferry still being used? A few years ago it was reported that they were not being used very much and it was proposed that they be closed. AFAIK they are still open but if they are underused for their original purpose perhaps converting them for cyclists could be considered. Of course they would need bicycle access in the form of ramps and/or lifts for which space will be required if it is available. There are lifts already. Both tunnels have recently been refurbished - the work started in 2010 and was supposed to take a year, but both encountered major problems. Woolwich was six months late, Greenwich was even longer. (Actual dates are a bit wooly as the tunnels remained open for much of the project - much of the work involved automating the lifts. www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200102/walking/693/foot_tunnels/2www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/news/article/119/cabinet_to_examine_foot_tunnels_refurbishment_reportBefore refurbishment cycling was not officially allowed (although often happened in practice) although you were allowed to wheel your bike. A trial was introduced last year to allow cycling "when conditions allow" 853blog.com/2014/08/25/greenwich-woolwich-foot-tunnel-cyclists-to-get-partial-green-light/ |
|
