|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Jul 23, 2014 11:20:44 GMT
Have I missed something in the article - according to it, Plumstead is a 'quiet' & 'peaceful' suburb lool. Plumstead is a strange place if you are down the hill on the high street where the station is, it is pretty chaotic and noisy but if you live on the Common like I do it is actually quite peaceful by London standards with only peak traffic to ruin it LOL.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2014 11:32:10 GMT
Have I missed something in the article - according to it, Plumstead is a 'quiet' & 'peaceful' suburb lool. Plumstead is a strange place if you are down the hill on the high street where the station is, it is pretty chaotic and noisy but if you live on the Common like I do it is actually quite peaceful by London standards with only peak traffic to ruin it LOL. Well exactly. Most areas are a mix. Vjaska's Plumstead remark is like me saying Brixton is a warzone and riots happen all the time. Clearly not correct but let's not worry about perception overriding reality. Almost all bits of London have their "sink estates" and share of problems but they aren't all condemned like some places are.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 23, 2014 11:58:22 GMT
Just build a bridge at Woolwich, would save so much hassle, would improve the 474 and 473, would stop the roundabout getting blocked on the Woolwich end, I can't see any disadvantage other than it would draw mega traffic towards it, would most likely have some toll device fitted, it would also have to be able to be raided so boats can get through You've hinted at the major flaw with your idea - the lack of height. Any new bridge needs to be high enough to allow shipping to pass unhindered and without the bridge itself needing to move. There's no scope to gain enough height on the north bank and it must be doubtful on the south side without creating some monstrous road junction requiring housing and shops to be demolished. I'm pretty certain the height issue is what has forced the choice of the Galleons Reach or Belevedere locations plus certain road links already in existence. Plus any new bridge has to be low enough not to hinder London City airport! One of the big problems with the Silvertown Tunnel proposal is that it doesn't make the road system much more resilient. It encourages more traffic onto the A102: one accident on the tunnel approach and you're back where you started. It's naive to think that the Gallions Reach bridge would only carry local traffic. It would be a magnet for traffic from all over Kent and then you're back to the Oxleas Wood road scheme. The Belvedere idea may have more legs. Perversely, you probably need all three rather than trying to funnel the traffic into one route. But you'd also need to load all three to the gills with public transport and charge big tolls to avoid a congestion apocalypse. In short, I don't know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2014 12:40:43 GMT
You've hinted at the major flaw with your idea - the lack of height. Any new bridge needs to be high enough to allow shipping to pass unhindered and without the bridge itself needing to move. There's no scope to gain enough height on the north bank and it must be doubtful on the south side without creating some monstrous road junction requiring housing and shops to be demolished. I'm pretty certain the height issue is what has forced the choice of the Galleons Reach or Belevedere locations plus certain road links already in existence. Plus any new bridge has to be low enough not to hinder London City airport! One of the big problems with the Silvertown Tunnel proposal is that it doesn't make the road system much more resilient. It encourages more traffic onto the A102: one accident on the tunnel approach and you're back where you started. It's naive to think that the Gallions Reach bridge would only carry local traffic. It would be a magnet for traffic from all over Kent and then you're back to the Oxleas Wood road scheme. The Belvedere idea may have more legs. Perversely, you probably need all three rather than trying to funnel the traffic into one route. But you'd also need to load all three to the gills with public transport and charge big tolls to avoid a congestion apocalypse. In short, I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer either. Interestingly Boris has just said in MQT this morning that TfL will seek powers in 2015 to construct two crossings so I wonder what the point of the consultation is if they already have a plan to build two? He said the projects will be "well under way" by the time of the Mayoral Election but given they'll almost certainly end up in public inquiries I don't know how he can be quite so bold. As soon as build closer to the Dartford Crossing you run the risk of pulling traffic from there - especially if the new crossing is not tolled. If it is then you risk overloading existing crossing further east so you gain no relief to the Woolwich Ferry or Blackwall Tunnel. If you slap charges on the existing crossings then people will claim they're being subject to stealth taxes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2014 13:11:54 GMT
Plumstead is a strange place if you are down the hill on the high street where the station is, it is pretty chaotic and noisy but if you live on the Common like I do it is actually quite peaceful by London standards with only peak traffic to ruin it LOL. Well exactly. Most areas are a mix. Vjaska's Plumstead remark is like me saying Brixton is a warzone and riots happen all the time. Clearly not correct but let's not worry about perception overriding reality. Almost all bits of London have their "sink estates" and share of problems but they aren't all condemned like some places are. But riots DO happen all the time in Brixton My comment about Plumstead was merely 'tongue in cheek'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 7:48:38 GMT
A new bridge is needed. Whilst people living near the bridge claim they would suffer, I would point out that vast swathes of east and SE London suffer now from Blackwall tunnel delays, congestion etc. And not just Charlton, Poplar, Bromley by Bow residents, when the tunnel is messed up the chaos and congestion spreads much further and gridlocks the entire SE London road network. So a bridge / tunnel is required urgently. I don't see why a tunnel from Belvedere across to Dagenham can't be proposed.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 24, 2014 10:16:01 GMT
Hmm... tough call.
I think doing nothing is no longer an option. I think, given a choice, I would go with a crossing of some description at Gallion's Reach, rather than Belvedere. The worry is clearance for both planes and the enormous cruise liners that will imminently be heading for the new terminal at Greenwich, so my feeling is a tunnel might be better. With the opening of roads such as Bronze Age Way and the roads west of Dartford, plus my feeling that traffic on the new crossing will generally be heading west/east, means that Oxleas Woods shouldn't be an issue, and I agree with southeastlondonbus that it should be preserved at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jul 24, 2014 10:36:39 GMT
Hmm... tough call. I think doing nothing is no longer an option. I think, given a choice, I would go with a crossing of some description at Gallion's Reach, rather than Belvedere. The worry is clearance for both planes and the enormous cruise liners that will imminently be heading for the new terminal at Greenwich, so my feeling is a tunnel might be better. With the opening of roads such as Bronze Age Way and the roads west of Dartford, plus my feeling that traffic on the new crossing will generally be heading west/east, means that Oxleas Woods shouldn't be an issue, and I agree with southeastlondonbus that it should be preserved at all costs. As a bridge seems to be out of the question due to height and approach problems, an alternative to a full blown bored tunnel might be what the Danes and the Swedes did with the Drogden Tunnel as part of the Oresund Bridge. Dredge out the Thames and lay precast Concrete sections? I'm no civil engineer, so I'll leave it for others to pull my suggestion apart
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 24, 2014 11:27:22 GMT
Hmm... tough call. I think doing nothing is no longer an option. I think, given a choice, I would go with a crossing of some description at Gallion's Reach, rather than Belvedere. The worry is clearance for both planes and the enormous cruise liners that will imminently be heading for the new terminal at Greenwich, so my feeling is a tunnel might be better. With the opening of roads such as Bronze Age Way and the roads west of Dartford, plus my feeling that traffic on the new crossing will generally be heading west/east, means that Oxleas Woods shouldn't be an issue, and I agree with southeastlondonbus that it should be preserved at all costs. Indeed, roads in the Belvedere area such as Bronze Age Way & Picardy Manorway are wide enough to handle traffic of that volume both west & eastbound - the Blackwall Tunnel is only going to get worse so some sort of crossing is urgently needed.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 24, 2014 16:21:36 GMT
Hmm... tough call. I think doing nothing is no longer an option. I think, given a choice, I would go with a crossing of some description at Gallion's Reach, rather than Belvedere. The worry is clearance for both planes and the enormous cruise liners that will imminently be heading for the new terminal at Greenwich, so my feeling is a tunnel might be better. With the opening of roads such as Bronze Age Way and the roads west of Dartford, plus my feeling that traffic on the new crossing will generally be heading west/east, means that Oxleas Woods shouldn't be an issue, and I agree with southeastlondonbus that it should be preserved at all costs. As a bridge seems to be out of the question due to height and approach problems, an alternative to a full blown bored tunnel might be what the Danes and the Swedes did with the Drogden Tunnel as part of the Oresund Bridge. Dredge out the Thames and lay precast Concrete sections? I'm no civil engineer, so I'll leave it for others to pull my suggestion apart Its called an immersed tube, quite common nowadays. The one in Limerick Ireland used to have a good website. They exist in UK too, Conway is one. Much cheaper than a TBM if you want a dual carriageway. If there is the room (width) for approach ramps can make it 3 or 4 lanes each way easily which is cheaper than two 2 lane tunnels in different locations. As I have said before could have fitted new large cutter head to the cross Thames crossrail TBMs and reused the back up train sections
|
|
|
Post by lc1 on Jul 31, 2014 17:47:54 GMT
Belvedere Bridge would be my favoured option, but then I'm biased in that I live in Erith and travel to Rainham everyday...still by the time it's built (if it got the go ahead) I doubt I'd be doing that journey anymore.
Alternative crossing ARE needed as the chaos that ensued the other week when one of the Dartford Tunnels showed. Also EVERYDAY I'm sitting in traffic one way or the other to get across the river...the bridge is getting worse IMO, the other day when I finished at 14:30, I went what on paper is probably the longer way round by going down the A13 to the Blackwall Tunnel and then back up the A2 yet it seemed to be quicker.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 2, 2014 9:22:04 GMT
I'd much rather a railway link through a tunnel perhaps from Barking to Thamesmead as part of an eventual outer circle line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 11:34:25 GMT
I'd much rather a railway link through a tunnel perhaps from Barking to Thamesmead as part of an eventual outer circle line. But that won't solve the grid lock around Blackwall Tunnel
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 4, 2014 8:51:03 GMT
I'd much rather a railway link through a tunnel perhaps from Barking to Thamesmead as part of an eventual outer circle line. But that won't solve the grid lock around Blackwall Tunnel I suspect it would go a long way to doing so by providing a viable public transport option for many cross river journies. Providing more roadspace at the Blackwall Tunnel isn't a long term solution just like the southbound tunnel which was opened in the 1960's hasn't been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 19:34:01 GMT
But that won't solve the grid lock around Blackwall Tunnel I suspect it would go a long way to doing so by providing a viable public transport option for many cross river journies. Providing more roadspace at the Blackwall Tunnel isn't a long term solution just like the southbound tunnel which was opened in the 1960's hasn't been. People are creatures of habit, I doubt you would see a mass change from car to train! but could be wrong. Also don't forget all the lorries , vans etc that use the tunnel daily.
|
|