|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 2, 2015 17:42:47 GMT
TfL has launched the another consultation for the River Crossings in the East End. River Crossings consultation page (this link jumps straight to the Public Transport section) Attachment Deleted -Illustrative view of the Gallions Reach Bridge (source TfL consultation page)  -possible links in east/ south east London (source TfL consultation page)
(Did anyone else notice the love TfL has for South East London in this map?) It's funny how the Gallions Reach bridge has truly hijacked Thames Gateway Bridge with a slight watering down from 2 bus lanes, 2 vehicle lanes and a DLR or tram route to what we have presently. If only the TGB wasn't shelved it would of been 2 years old by now, oh well. Whilst we are a bit of a way off for these plans to happen, I still find it quite exciting that one day you'll be able to catch a bus from Romford to Bexleyheath  Also if these plans go ahead with a DLR Extension (and it is completed on time (2025) by then it will of been 12 years without the DLR having an extension, largest gap without having an extension in its history. Not sure I completely get the point of having a tram if it doesn't link to the rest of the network or if there is only one route on an individual network. Consultation closes Friday 12th February 2016 |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 2, 2015 17:50:44 GMT
So TfL close the Silvertown Tunnel consultation and then three days later come up with *another* consultation about more road crossings with added "bribery" of potential but not committed DLR or tram links. One wonders what on earth is going on. Surely all schemes should be considered and consulted on *at the same time* with a proper trade off between schemes so people can decide which one (or more) they think is best.
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 4, 2015 22:06:03 GMT
I did not realise how detailed this consultation was. There is a: public transport connectivity report, traffic impact report, interim list (public transport), etc. Including details of 3 potential tram routes a possible tram-train route and 3 potential DLR extension. The amount of information and detail is quite outstanding and extremely through considering these crossing are not as advanced as the Silvertown Crossing. If your ready for a long ready check out the documents on consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/b5c585b1 |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2016 10:11:23 GMT
The Mayor has announced a revised approach to River Crossings to the east of Tower Bridge. www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-commits-to-east-london-crossingsSeems to consist of a - "greener" Silvertown tunnel with all the bus services being "green". - a "cycle bus" through the Silvertown tunnel - a new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf - a possible DLR extension to Thamesmead. - more "assessment" of extending the GOBLIN under the Thames - a possible extra river bus service. There will be a new consultation next week. Can't see any of the clean air campaigners nor locals in Greenwich being remotely impressed with any of this. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2016 20:53:55 GMT
The Mayor has announced a revised approach to River Crossings to the east of Tower Bridge. www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-commits-to-east-london-crossingsSeems to consist of a - "greener" Silvertown tunnel with all the bus services being "green". - a "cycle bus" through the Silvertown tunnel - a new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf - a possible DLR extension to Thamesmead. - more "assessment" of extending the GOBLIN under the Thames - a possible extra river bus service. There will be a new consultation next week. Can't see any of the clean air campaigners nor locals in Greenwich being remotely impressed with any of this. Cycle bus seems a stupid idea. just create an extra lane through the Silvertown tunnel and get rid of the nonsensical garden bridge, simples! It needs at least 3 more physical road river crossings east of tower bridge ASAP
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 18, 2016 22:18:29 GMT
The Mayor has announced a revised approach to River Crossings to the east of Tower Bridge. www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-commits-to-east-london-crossingsSeems to consist of a - "greener" Silvertown tunnel with all the bus services being "green". - a "cycle bus" through the Silvertown tunnel - a new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf - a possible DLR extension to Thamesmead. - more "assessment" of extending the GOBLIN under the Thames - a possible extra river bus service. There will be a new consultation next week. Can't see any of the clean air campaigners nor locals in Greenwich being remotely impressed with any of this. Cycle bus seems a stupid idea. just create an extra lane through the Silvertown tunnel and get rid of the nonsensical garden bridge, simples! It needs at least 3 more physical road river crossings east of tower bridge ASAP
Entirely agree regarding the garden bridge especially when, as a Lambeth resident, I have to pay for something that I'll hardly use or get any benefit from whatsoever  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 18, 2016 23:07:09 GMT
Cycle bus seems a stupid idea. just create an extra lane through the Silvertown tunnel and get rid of the nonsensical garden bridge, simples! It needs at least 3 more physical road river crossings east of tower bridge ASAP
I think there is an effective traffic ban on bicycles using any cross river tunnel which is shared with heavy traffic flows. Part of it is down to accident risk and also high levels of fumes from road traffic likely to cause breathing problems. There is also the issue about some of the gradients often found with tunnels under rivers - fit cyclists might manage it but others may not. The only way to get a cycle only crossing would be an entirely separate cycle tunnel to a different design that the road tunnel. I doubt there is any business case for that scale of spending. Hence the compromise of a cycle bus - just slightly different to shoving a bike in a van / pick up truck as happens at the Dartford Crossing. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 19, 2016 9:50:31 GMT
Cycle bus seems a stupid idea. just create an extra lane through the Silvertown tunnel and get rid of the nonsensical garden bridge, simples! It needs at least 3 more physical road river crossings east of tower bridge ASAP
I think there is an effective traffic ban on bicycles using any cross river tunnel which is shared with heavy traffic flows. Part of it is down to accident risk and also high levels of fumes from road traffic likely to cause breathing problems. There is also the issue about some of the gradients often found with tunnels under rivers - fit cyclists might manage it but others may not. The only way to get a cycle only crossing would be an entirely separate cycle tunnel to a different design that the road tunnel. I doubt there is any business case for that scale of spending. Hence the compromise of a cycle bus - just slightly different to shoving a bike in a van / pick up truck as happens at the Dartford Crossing. Or a new northbound Blackwall Tunnel with the existing one being used exclusively for cyclists? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 19, 2016 10:37:51 GMT
Or a new northbound Blackwall Tunnel with the existing one being used exclusively for cyclists? I can't see that happening. There is zero clarity as to how the Silvertown Tunnel will be funded never mind another bore at Blackwall. Another tunnel bore has also not featured in any policy statements or previous rounds of consultation so it's out of scope and I don't see there would be a business case. It's not as if we are talking about thousands of cycle borne trips being made a day. How many cyclists cross the Thames in East London via the Free Ferry, the foot tunnels and on the DLR (as it's now allowed)? If it reaches the high hundreds I'd be gobsmacked. content.tfl.gov.uk/bicycles-on-public-transport.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 18:39:31 GMT
Bexleyheath to Romford really fascinates me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 29, 2016 19:10:35 GMT
Or a new northbound Blackwall Tunnel with the existing one being used exclusively for cyclists? I can't see that happening. There is zero clarity as to how the Silvertown Tunnel will be funded never mind another bore at Blackwall. Another tunnel bore has also not featured in any policy statements or previous rounds of consultation so it's out of scope and I don't see there would be a business case. It's not as if we are talking about thousands of cycle borne trips being made a day. How many cyclists cross the Thames in East London via the Free Ferry, the foot tunnels and on the DLR (as it's now allowed)? If it reaches the high hundreds I'd be gobsmacked. content.tfl.gov.uk/bicycles-on-public-transport.pdfFootfall will be as high as the Emirates Dangleway cable car this obsession with cycling must stop. These are people just travelling to work. From 10 until about 5ish, the tunnel won't be used much, just like the cycle lanes that have taken up valuable road space and created extra traffic  We need another road crossing but these things need funding. I just hope the Garden Bridge idea dies soon  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 11, 2017 14:16:40 GMT
Seems that TfL is scaling back its aspirations for the level of bus service that would through the Silvertown Tunnel if it was built. When challenged on whether the numbers of buses per hour through the tunnel were "commitments" or not TfL's QC was rather non committal and when pushed further the response was that if TfL were forced to "commit" to a fixed number of buses then other bus services in London would have to be cut back in consequence to provide the funding!! Seems the Planning Inspector and several other parties were not very impressed. One SE London politician wanted TfL to commit to saving the 180 to Lewisham! Response there came none from TfL on that particular matter!! There is also a published bus strategy for the Silvertown Tunnel - no fancy maps or routes, more statements of intent. I haven't read it in detail nor have I checked how it fits in with the wider suite of planning documents that TfL have submitted to support their case for the Tunnel. infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010021/TR010021-001649-TfL%208.82%20Bus%20Strategy%20R1.pdfThe Planning Inspector's hearing is available as an audio file on line. The bus bit starts about 135 mins from the start - just use the slider to advance the recording. Well worth 23 minutes of your time to listen to what was said. infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010021/TR010021-001576-ISH%2028%20March%20pt%201%20aud.mp2A kind person sent me this on Twitter and I *think* they're a member of this forum who only posts occasionally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 14:30:18 GMT
It doesn't surprise me considering only one route serves the Blackwall Tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 11, 2017 15:27:25 GMT
Thanks for that document. It still talks about new routes (plural) and a turn up and ride frequency of every 12 minutes. I think that is reasonable commitment at this stage for new routes that have yet to be established. I haven't had a chance to hear the recording, but I do feel for TfL right now. They might be in the firing line, but the document is clear on what budgetary pressures they are faced with.
1. Government funding gone by 2018
2. MoL fare freeze until 2020(!)
3. Local travel concession granted by the MoL costing £2M - what the heck!!! That was news to me. Sadiq is just giving things away. He can't keep on spending without increasing revenues. TfL is having to make those tough choices by cutting services before making improvements elsewhere.
4. Councils will have to do their share of the lifting by negotiating large enough S106's revenues to pay for bus network improvements. There are some huge developments taking place either side of the tunnel. Newham seem to be competent, but I fear that Greenwich council will not make sufficient demands from the likes of Knight Dragon, IKEA etc
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 11, 2017 15:54:06 GMT
Thanks for that document. It still talks about new routes (plural) and a turn up and ride frequency of every 12 minutes. I think that is reasonable commitment at this stage for new routes that have yet to be established. I haven't had a chance to hear the recording, but I do feel for TfL right now. They might be in the firing line, but the document is clear on what budgetary pressures they are faced with. 1. Government funding gone by 2018 2. MoL fare freeze until 2020(!) 3. Local travel concession granted by the MoL costing £2M - what the heck!!! That was news to me. Sadiq is just giving things away. He can't keep on spending without increasing revenues. TfL is having to make those tough choices by cutting services before making improvements elsewhere. 4. Councils will have to do their share of the lifting by negotiating large enough S106's revenues to pay for bus network improvements. There are some huge developments taking place either side of the tunnel. Newham seem to be competent, but I fear that Greenwich council will not make sufficient demands from the likes of Knight Dragon, IKEA etc Greenwich Council are already sitting on millions and millions of pounds of past S106 contributions. For whatever reason it won't spend them on buses or public realm or cycling or walking. It's not as if there are not a myriad of improvements that could be made in the Borough. I've lost count of the amount of criticism that is directed at the Council / councillors and yet nothing seems to happen. It's not as if the money can be used for other things - it's effectively hypothecated so why not spend it and deliver some benefit to residents? |
|
