£50M cable car across the river thames ..

Drysuitdiver

daviesee wrote:

@ Drysuitdiver.

Do you really think bikes would be allowed on the cable car? I don't.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/project ... 15959.aspx


would suggest its going to be allowed

simonaspinall

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I really don't think London needs further transport infrastructure.

Certainly not when the rest of the country, even in the south east around London is considered. Yes, you can always argue that something is more convenient but look at the frankly incredible mobility that is already available in London compared to Leeds (reference to OP)

The luxury of the tube, light railway, buses and the fact that a lot of major landmarks and buildings are within easy travelling distance in London is amazing! As if a cable car is needed as well!

Having spent much of my childhood in Leeds and now living in SE London, I think it's fair to state that the populations of east London and south east London by far outnumber the population of Leeds, nay, the population all three Ridings of Yorkshire. Now, look at a map centred on, say, Woolwich and count the river crossings in the 15 or so miles between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing. Now look at a map of Leeds and count the river crossings over the Aire. I think you'll find that Leeds has far, far more crossings than that part of London.

And the '' incredible mobility'' of London means that a recent 20-mile as-the-crow-flies return trip from Deptford to Rainham entailed cycling over 50 miles. If a similar situation exists around urban Leeds please let me know...I can't imagine having to cycle over 20 miles just to be able to get across the Aire from one part of Leeds to another place just outside Leeds.

There actually is an intense need for more river crossings but the problem is that there are already too many people living where the crossings would discharge the traffic. It's a stalemate of inadequate provision on a huge scale, not an over-provision viewed from a provincial perspective.

Well you could make the argument that static bridges would be very useful, but a £50m cable car??! Surely it would be more sensible and in the long-term much cheaper to have a new bridge(s).

I was referring to the public transport provision which is massively superior to Leeds.

Greater Leeds has about 2.5 million people in it so it's not exactly a minor place yet the transport for the local area is appalling. The main difference is how buses, tube and trains are integrated. In Leeds you just don't have anything approaching that.

If you just continually fund more and more transport in London you'll always have a cycle of more people living and working in London due to the transport links and business/jobs and other places simply don't get investment because London has it and local business then never develops so everybody moves to London and more transport investment is needed...

Ben6899

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Leeds Supertram. I'm reminded of the phrase: "white elephant". Speaking as a Chartered Civil Engineer; I can assure you it was a very flawed concept on many levels and that it was scrapped for the greater good.

In what way? I'm curious. The routes seemed pretty misguided to me (Headingley particularly stupid as one of the least badly served parts of Leeds) which is somewhat fundamental but I don't see why we couldn't have had a tram system in principal - at least something better than the comedy Nottingham 'system'.....

It was going to cost way much more than expected/acceptable due to unforeseen circumstances and the value for money was no longer there.

On a professional level, I'm reluctant to say much more to be honest, but I can point you in the direction of the reports and press releases. Leave it with me.

Ben6899

This is a good article: http://www.leedsconstructionlink.co.uk/tramend.htm

daviesee

Drysuitdiver wrote:

daviesee wrote:

@ Drysuitdiver.
Do you really think bikes would be allowed on the cable car? I don't.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/project ... 15959.aspx
would suggest its going to be allowed

But that's the theoretical sales pitch. I can imagine the reality of rush hour being very different.

unixnerd

New transport links in London may save people time. But if the same money were put use upgrading the mainly single carriageway A9 from Perth to Inverness and Wick it would save both time and peoples lives. Same goes for many roads I'm sure.

knedlicky

Even if it’s not dear compared to the Leeds Supertram, how come the London Gondola now costs so much?
When the idea was first announced about 8 months ago, the estimate was for £25 million, half the current figure, and that was already high then, compared to what a typical gondola system costs.

Last summer in Germany, the gondola system with the largest capacity in the world (7600 passengers/hour, 3 times the London figure) was opened and that cost £10 million.
Even given the German one is only ¾ the length of the London one, and maybe on average not so high above the ground/water (it spans the Rhine), five times the cost seems a bit stiff.


The picture makes it look like a traditional cable car, but it works the same as a gondola system, with its 18 carriages constantly moving.

Richard_D

The difference in price is purely the 'London' factor. Compare the price of revamping the millenium stadium in Cardiff or Stade France in Paris to Wembley or the London Olympics compared to the Manchester Commonwealth Games. Not direct comparisons I admit but the diferences in price are greater than they should be.
Using the dificulty to get from one part of a city to another place just out side. How about Liverpool to anywhere on the Wirral by Bike?
London might be our Capital city but 85 % of the population do not live there and all the policies and funding seem to head back to London. They may be net contributors but that is most probable due to bankers with multi million pound bonuses.

bearfraser

is it going to have multiple gondolas or just one single ,such that it needs to go back and forth or as a continous cycle of cars . will make a conciderable differance on passenger per hour thro-put . if you want to see a proper set up "google" the peak to peak gondola at " Whistler " Canada (complete with a glass floor at god knows how many thousand feet in the air,shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ) and scuse my ignorance but will it conect with any of the 2012 infrastructure

Drysuitdiver

bearfraser wrote:

is it going to have multiple gondolas or just one single ,such that it needs to go back and forth or as a continous cycle of cars . will make a conciderable differance on passenger per hour thro-put . if you want to see a proper set up "google" the peak to peak gondola at " Whistler " Canada (complete with a glass floor at god knows how many thousand feet in the air,shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ) and scuse my ignorance but will it conect with any of the 2012 infrastructure

depends on your definition of infrastructure.

the cable car system is going to go from Excel to the Dome ( OK O2) 2 venues for the 2012 games. the DLR links to excel have been improved and the overground extension , which in reality is new stations on the old Stratford North woolwich line , will also go to excel. the jubilee line , already over capacity in just 10 years goes to the o2 so it will reduce the strain on that. especially with the signalling upgrade thats just not working properly at the moment despite what the management say ( speak to the commisioning guys and the installers if you want a true picture of how a project is going)


a fixed bridge isn't what the area needs , as this will encourage car use and the areas round both have pretty poor road links, the o2 being at the end of a peninsula and excel isn''t famed for its vehicular access.

rick_chasey

Indeed. the Jubilee line has been horrific in 2011.

I read somewhere the tube only had one day in the entire year where there were no delays or suspensions over the whole network in 2010...

here it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12733824

And for the londoners here - how irritating is the 'good' service anouncement?

I'll be the judge of that. Presumably they can't say "normal" service since that would mean delays, but 'good'?

Pfft.

northernneil

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I really don't think London needs further transport infrastructure.

Certainly not when the rest of the country, even in the south east around London is considered. Yes, you can always argue that something is more convenient but look at the frankly incredible mobility that is already available in London compared to Leeds (reference to OP)

The luxury of the tube, light railway, buses and the fact that a lot of major landmarks and buildings are within easy travelling distance in London is amazing! As if a cable car is needed as well!

Having spent much of my childhood in Leeds and now living in SE London, I think it's fair to state that the populations of east London and south east London by far outnumber the population of Leeds, nay, the population all three Ridings of Yorkshire. Now, look at a map centred on, say, Woolwich and count the river crossings in the 15 or so miles between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing. Now look at a map of Leeds and count the river crossings over the Aire. I think you'll find that Leeds has far, far more crossings than that part of London.

And the '' incredible mobility'' of London means that a recent 20-mile as-the-crow-flies return trip from Deptford to Rainham entailed cycling over 50 miles. If a similar situation exists around urban Leeds please let me know...I can't imagine having to cycle over 20 miles just to be able to get across the Aire from one part of Leeds to another place just outside Leeds.

It does from the centre of leeds going out towards calverly on the bradford border you can cross the river just 4 times, Armley Gyratory, Canal Road, Bramley Morrisons and then finally Calverly at the ring road. Thats 4 crossing from Leeds centre to the edge of the city along the main arterial commuter route in - the A65

Drysuitdiver

northernneil wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I really don't think London needs further transport infrastructure.

Certainly not when the rest of the country, even in the south east around London is considered. Yes, you can always argue that something is more convenient but look at the frankly incredible mobility that is already available in London compared to Leeds (reference to OP)

The luxury of the tube, light railway, buses and the fact that a lot of major landmarks and buildings are within easy travelling distance in London is amazing! As if a cable car is needed as well!

Having spent much of my childhood in Leeds and now living in SE London, I think it's fair to state that the populations of east London and south east London by far outnumber the population of Leeds, nay, the population all three Ridings of Yorkshire. Now, look at a map centred on, say, Woolwich and count the river crossings in the 15 or so miles between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing. Now look at a map of Leeds and count the river crossings over the Aire. I think you'll find that Leeds has far, far more crossings than that part of London.

And the '' incredible mobility'' of London means that a recent 20-mile as-the-crow-flies return trip from Deptford to Rainham entailed cycling over 50 miles. If a similar situation exists around urban Leeds please let me know...I can't imagine having to cycle over 20 miles just to be able to get across the Aire from one part of Leeds to another place just outside Leeds.

It does from the centre of leeds going out towards calverly on the bradford border you can cross the river just 4 times, Armley Gyratory, Canal Road, Bramley Morrisons and then finally Calverly at the ring road. Thats 4 crossing from Leeds centre to the edge of the city along the main arterial commuter route in - the A65

thats not a 20 mile crow fly though is it? and the A65 veers north from the river after the 4 crossings. all of the arterial routes along the thames estuary run parallel with it for a large amount of miles.

rolf_f

Thanks for the link Ben6899 - I'll have a look at it when I get home.

As for Leeds - the river crossings depend on how you look at it. The Aire is hardly the Thames so the investment in crossings must be much less. For cars though, there certainly aren't enough crossings. Everything gravitates to the Armley Gyratory so traffic is slow there (though Leeds in the rush hour is, IMO, far less of a bother than, for example, Hatfield which is a fraction of the size of Leeds - traffic down south is far worse to be fair).

As for the others, they are all prone to slow traffic but not disasterously so. As has been said though, this is about public transport.

For example, if you leave out the very well served Harrogate line (which parallels the Leeds Supertram route - one of the big, boneheaded own goals of that project), the only train stations in Leeds, within the ring road, aside from the city station itself, are Bramley and Pudsey. Try counting how many train stations in a similar area you find in other big cities and I think there will be quite a lot more.

daviesee

Rolf F wrote:

For example, if you leave out the very well served Harrogate line (which parallels the Leeds Supertram route - one of the big, boneheaded own goals of that project)

The over due, over budget and possibly never to be completed Edinburgh tram system follows a well used, frequent service bus route - exactly. Never underestimate the stupidity of a councillor wanting to deliver a flagship "World class public transport system".

Drysuitdiver

daviesee wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

For example, if you leave out the very well served Harrogate line (which parallels the Leeds Supertram route - one of the big, boneheaded own goals of that project)

The over due, over budget and possibly never to be completed Edinburgh tram system follows a well used, frequent service bus route - exactly. Never underestimate the stupidity of a councillor wanting to deliver a flagship "World class public transport system".

is the bus route oversubscribed at peak times ? some of the tube routes in London follow earlier train routes , but without one the other would be even more oversubscribed than they are already.

i have no doubt council clerks at the time complained of the silliness of putting in a new line parallel to an existing line. sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture to understand the detaill of the small picture

daviesee

Drysuitdiver wrote:

is the bus route oversubscribed at peak times ? some of the tube routes in London follow earlier train routes , but without one the other would be even more oversubscribed than they are already.

As I am not there at that time, I cannot comment on oversubscription.

What I do know is that it wouldn't cost multi-millions to add another couple of buses and if there is room for the tram on the road, there is room for a bus. (Note that the tram is going on existing roads - not parallel or similar)

The whole point from what I can see is to be "seen" to be green. Let's just ignore the fact that the "green" power will come from coal fired or nuclear power stations will we?

DCowling

It's probably some egotists wanting to leave their stamp / folly on London. If it's that vital to have another crossing in order to enable throughflow, why not a pontoon type ferry crossings , surely this would be far more useful

Stick8267

They have now announced the expenditure of £800 million to revamp London Bridge station.

Now I live in and love London but £800 million to make a station more attractive! Seems an absurd amount of money.

rolf_f

daviesee wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

For example, if you leave out the very well served Harrogate line (which parallels the Leeds Supertram route - one of the big, boneheaded own goals of that project)

The over due, over budget and possibly never to be completed Edinburgh tram system follows a well used, frequent service bus route - exactly. Never underestimate the stupidity of a councillor wanting to deliver a flagship "World class public transport system".

Ditto replace councillor with Government and 'World class public transport system' with 'TGV link to Brum and Leeds'

Drysuitdiver wrote:

is the bus route oversubscribed at peak times ? some of the tube routes in London follow earlier train routes , but without one the other would be even more oversubscribed than they are already.

i have no doubt council clerks at the time complained of the silliness of putting in a new line parallel to an existing line. sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture to understand the detaill of the small picture

In the case of Leeds, Headingley is very well served indeed already. The bigger picture would have found rather better things to do. West Leeds for example is particularly badly served because of the elongate shape of the city meaning commutes are longer and restricted to fewer options. Furthermore, unless things have changed, there is barely any option for public transport around the ring road. Despite my old office and my home not being far from the ringroad, when I worked there I couldn't get a bus in.