"Ridiculous" bike bus through controversial new tunnel to cost £2m, as cycling campaign says "greenwashing" project "won't help" cyclists

OldRidgeback wrote:

Both the new tunnel link and existing tunnel link will now be tolled, with revenue going to TfL. Maybe instead of complaining about the tunnel, it'd be more constructive to campaign for a chunk of the toll revenue to be directed towards cycle lanes and other active travel measures?

That would be lovely, but the 25 year running costs of the tunnel have been estimated at £1 billion (if they follow the usual form in public finance costings they will doubtless end up a great deal higher) and there is the £2.2 billion capital cost to be repaid as well. Estimated revenues from both tunnels combined are £100 million, so it's going to be a good three decades before there is any surplus to be spent on active travel or anything else.

It would be the first vehicle route ever built that decreases pollution, we all know 10years from now traffic will have increased on the routes, maybe sooner, and the new tunnel will just be like the old one, except we'll now have two tunnel traffic problems to solve, so build a 3rd right ?

But there we are billions spent on a tunnel, millions spent on a bus, just so TfL can claim not to be hypocrites, whilst the rest of the country watches on at the largesse whilst waiting for pennies to be spent locally to them

OldRidgeback wrote:

For those complaining about the extra pollution from the new tunnel, you might want to consider the pollution from all the standing traffic around the Blackwall Tunnel at present and what this means for the residents at those portals. My feeling is that the new tunnel will mean exhaust fumes are more widely dispersed and will be reduced overall as the standing traffic will be reduced significantly and perhaps even eliminated.

Having been a student of roads and traffic for over fifty years, I can confidently predict that none of that will happen.  What will happen, what has always happened in the past, is that suppressed demand will be released, traffic will rapidly build up to what existed previously and nothing worth having will be gained.

two20 wrote:

Any one remember the last new tunnel under the Thames in London, me neither. Instead of doing a Daily Mail and moan about everything, look on the positive side. You can always ride over Tower Bridge and get some miles in if you want. 

Anyone remember the last new cycle crossing built over the Thames in London, me neither because they've never built one. We were told we couldn't have a new cycle bridge from Greenwich to Canary Wharf because it was too expensive, even though it would have cost about 20% of the price of the Silvertown Tunnel and had the potential to revolutionise commuter cycling for a huge section of the capital.

Boring company is absolute vapourware nonsense. It's just Elon M**k spouting rubbish, their Vegas tunnel is an absolute laughing stock

massive4x4 wrote:

Their new TBM just points down and digs.

Sounds like a great idea as long as you don't mind it boring through your power/broadband/water/sewage/undeground line/etc.

Sounds handy if we ever need to restart the rotation of the Earth's core with a nuclear bomb, anyway.

Aren't they principally interested in driving (!) motor traffic use?  Being that the main man is separately flogging responsibility-dodging high-status-signalling conspicuous consumption vehicles harm-reducing smart and efficient electric transportation solutions?

massive4x4 wrote:

I'd be interested to see what the Boring company would charge for an active travel tunnel under the Thames. It's pretty obvious that infrastructure can be done on a completely different cost basis than TFLs regular contractors. I suspect that Boring would do it for about £15-20m if there was a good launching spot on either side. Their new TBM just points down and digs. If you don't have anything combustible in the tunnel your requirements for support run to pumping water out, circulating air and CCTV.

Yeah, that would be really useful - a tunnel built without all the usual safeguards and experts checking it. I bet it would suddenly flood or burst into flames if it's anything like Tesla's engineering.

Another fan of pettifogging regulations, inefficient self-serving bureaucracies and the deep state?

Clearly what we need is a few high IQ geeks with no limiting preconceptions to get disrupting everything old to cut costs for massive profit to advance humanity.

In fact - hey, we could reuse those fracking boreholes...!

chrisonabike wrote:

Another fan of pettifogging regulations, inefficient self-serving bureaucracies and the deep state?

Clearly what we need is a few high IQ geeks with no limiting preconceptions to get disrupting everything old to cut costs for massive profit to advance humanity.

Move fast and break other people's things!

Backladder wrote:

Move fast and break other people's things!

I'm guessing because the bus is free (for now, I don't like the sound of that "for at least twelve months") and although as you say the cable car is free in the mornings it's £6 coming home; also it's not entirely reliable as it doesn't run during thunderstorms and in strong winds, plus you can't take an ebike on it.

Bonus - we can spend money on things like buses which aren't "active travel" but still claim "sustainable" and "active travel" points (and possibly money?)

(Yes - I know that any improvements in the UK will probably involve more bus-capacity building than cycle stuff anyway.  Multi-modal transport has way more to offer for alternatives to driving than just cycling or public transport in isolation.)

Many people must be put off cycling from South East London to Canary Wharf, because of the hassle of the Greenwich foot tunnel, and its frequently broken lifts. A bike bridge or tunnel would make a huge difference. The Silvertown tunnel is too far out of the way.

At Greenwich the bridge would have to be up as high as the cable car which is why it's always been a non starter.

stonojnr wrote:

At Greenwich the bridge would have to be up as high as the cable car which is why it's always been a non starter.

No it wouldn't, clearly that would be daft (although an excellent climbing challenge); the proposals put forward in the past have always been for either a swing bridge or a bascule bridge that would allow river traffic through - screenshot of one proposal below. The only reason TfL dropped plans for the Rotherhithe – Canary Wharf Bridge was affordability, not practicality.

Ok I was discounting bascule/swing bridges specifically because affordability usually rules them out straight away. Also I don't know if we've ever built a pedestrian/cycling only version in the UK, I'm sure I've seen one in Belgium/Holland near a major canal, but don't recall ever seeing one in the UK.

The point is it's alot harder to just build a bridge at some points in London than people think. There have been tons of ideas and lots of architects impressions for centuries, but very few ever make it off the drawing board.