Cable Car for London

[marinyork]

I don't see how this cable car can be a bad thing. For people using Oyster as a day, week or month travelcard it's be free. I just want it to happen now!

I think oyster and the prospect of more being built if it goes well just shows you how far ahead London is compared to other UK cities.

 

[ianrauk]

I think oyster and the prospect of more being built if it goes well just shows you how far ahead London is compared to other UK cities.

Indeed

 

[subaqua]

It depends what you mean by close. I wouldn't call any of them 'very, very close'. Funnily enough on some level someone must agree with me which is why the thing is being built. Again that's another one you don't seem to have really thought much about. The other point being that the other facilities have their issues.



Who is being negative? I think fossyant and darth vader's post have been the only negative ones on this thread. I just don't like the laziness of your posts not bothering to see other people's points of view.



It's not just number of bridges or cost but where they are located. Cycling and walking are activities you want to encourage, you want as many crossings as possible, it is not odd in the slightest for people to get excited/upset about new/removed crossings further east. Depending on how much it costs I don't think a cost is the end of the world, it's just you with your intolerance and lack of thought went off on one and didn't bother to ask me what my views were. I don't like people like you who don't bother to put very much thought into things and not consider other people's points of view, that's why I posted on what someone else said, not that I particularly agree with it.

reading this post it seems that you want the thing to be built, which is the opinion I have about it. It needs to be built, and sooner rather than later. I can see other points of view and in this case it seems to be you who cant read this.

did one of the logs from logopolis hit you on the head ?

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

In fact, on reflection, I can't think of any large 'prestige' road bridge which allows cyclists.

[QUOTE 1370049"]
You can cycle over the Severn Bridge.
[/quote]

You can cycle over both the Erskine and (I am led to believe) the Forth Road Bridge.

 

[StuartG]

what is your problem ??

No my problem Sub.

But this crossing is alongside/over the Blackwall which is banned to cyclists & peds. Cars go free. But we have to pay. TfL are supposed to be encouraging walking/cycling at the expense of car commuting. This does the opposite.

Again remind me why you think we should pay a toll where cars go free?

We don't do it on the Rotherhithe Tunnel , Woolwich Ferry, Greenwich foot tunnel or Dartford Crossing. So why here?

Stuart

 

[subaqua]

No my problem Sub.

But this crossing is alongside/over the Blackwall which is banned to cyclists & peds. Cars go free. But we have to pay. TfL are supposed to be encouraging walking/cycling at the expense of car commuting. This does the opposite.

Again remind me why you think we should pay a toll where cars go free?

We don't do it on the Rotherhithe Tunnel , Woolwich Ferry, Greenwich foot tunnel or Dartford Crossing. So why here?

Stuart

do you pay a toll to use the tube ? yes, there is no difference
Dell points out Use oyster on a travelcard for tube or rail in London and the cost will be covered anyway. the only thing i miss about not using the tube to commute is having to pay for personal journeys on tube with family at the weekend.


how can this scheme be encouraging car use ? it does the exact opposite its going to encourage people in SE london to use greener transport to get to E london. or further. not get in the metal box .

you can't take a bike on the jubilee line or the DLR , but you can take a bike on this then use it to travel further afield . I commuted to Rickmansworth in the winter from east london. using my bike and chiltern rail I could have driven but i had the option to do green.

give people the green option and you will be surprised at how many take it .

 

[dellzeqq]

You can cycle over both the Erskine and (I am led to believe) the Forth Road Bridge.

you can indeed cycle over the Forth Road Bridge, and also the Kessock Bridge east of Inverness.

Cycles cannot go over the new Sheppey Bridge, but have to travel on the much nicer old bridge below.

The designers of Tarr Steps did not make provision for cycles. It's a disgrace!

 

[StuartG]

do you pay a toll to use the tube ?

The railway, the airlines, the bus - YES of course.

Those are public transportation systems so you don't have to walk, cycle or drive a car. Whereas here we are talking river crossings. Not the same. Whether you have a fixed system (tunnel/bridge) or moving system (ferry/van/cable car) is irrelevant.

Where a crossing saves a large quantity of fuel (Severn, Dartford etc) and costs a great deal of money than tolling is not unreasonable.

But here TfL appear to have chosen to toll peds & cyclists and give a free passage to cars/lorries. Is this an irrational application of transport policy? Is it in the public interest?

 

[661-Pete]

Seems I was wrong about the lack of 'big' bridges admitting cyclists. I don't recall ever going across one myself, but evidently I'm not travelled enough.

Where I live, there are just three crossing points on a river which is 38 miles long, and any hold up or closure on any one of those involves something like a 20 or 30 miles detour.

I know of a stretch of the Trent which is very poorly provided with crossing points - not one between Gainsborough and Scunthorpe, AFAIK - a stretch of some 20 miles. But then - I suppose that's a bit more 'rural' than East London - but still a nuisance to cyclists who like the flat countryside thereabouts.

Who is being negative? I think fossyant and darth vader's post have been the only negative ones on this thread. I just don't like the laziness of your posts not bothering to see other people's points of view.

Errr... I suppose I was a bit 'negative' - early on in the thread. We do seem to get rather London-centric at times!

 

[marinyork]

I know of a stretch of the Trent which is very poorly provided with crossing points - not one between Gainsborough and Scunthorpe, AFAIK - a stretch of some 20 miles. But then - I suppose that's a bit more 'rural' than East London - but still a nuisance to cyclists who like the flat countryside thereabouts.

Good point. It's a similar thing for the stretch of the Trent below that isn't it with only the A57 crossing and the newly restored bridge and cyclepath at Fledborough and nothing else in the 20 miles between the outskirts of Gainsborough and outskirts of Newark? A similar thing on various other rivers.

 

[marinyork]

reading this post it seems that you want the thing to be built, which is the opinion I have about it. It needs to be built, and sooner rather than later. I can see other points of view and in this case it seems to be you who cant read this.

did one of the logs from logopolis hit you on the head ?

I'm generally very sympathetic to bridges or crossings for cyclists on rivers (and motorways, railways and canals). I think people tend to forget about them for pedestrians and cyclists and also as a tool among others in regenerating an area.

 

[subaqua]

I'm generally very sympathetic to bridges or crossings for cyclists on rivers (and motorways, railways and canals). I think people tend to forget about them for pedestrians and cyclists and also as a tool among others in regenerating an area.

agreed. good green links are a whole lot better for kick starting a regeneration .

 

[subaqua]

The railway, the airlines, the bus - YES of course.

Those are public transportation systems so you don't have to walk, cycle or drive a car. Whereas here we are talking river crossings. Not the same. Whether you have a fixed system (tunnel/bridge) or moving system (ferry/van/cable car) is irrelevant.

Where a crossing saves a large quantity of fuel (Severn, Dartford etc) and costs a great deal of money than tolling is not unreasonable.

But here TfL appear to have chosen to toll peds & cyclists and give a free passage to cars/lorries. Is this an irrational application of transport policy? Is it in the public interest?

1) exactly what the cable car is- public transport. so it should be charged. and the other alternative was a bridge for all to use , which means more cars for free. the tunnels for the tube are still a river crossing, or is it time for me to bang head against wall now??

2) erm have you forgotten about the LEZ and the CC zone. the LEZ criteria get more stringent from July or January OK cars are not hit by this -Yet- but lorries are , pikey pick ups are , Vans are.

 

[StuartG]

1) exactly what the cable car is- public transport.

Just like the Woolwich Ferry? How would you feel if they started charging cyclists and pedestrians but cars & lorries could go for free?

I guess I'm never going to get you see the difference between a transportation method and how one crosses a particular obstacle. Hey ho at least you have more friends than I at TfL!

 

[subaqua]

Just like the Woolwich Ferry? How would you feel if they started charging cyclists and pedestrians but cars & lorries could go for free?

I guess I'm never going to get you see the difference between a transportation method and how one crosses a particular obstacle. Hey ho at least you have more friends than I at TfL!

how do we get a car and a lorry on a cable var ??

and the dartford crosing does it the other way round . should they start charging to take cyclists across? currently its free.

as for charging. a £1 nominal wouldn't bother me if it was used to invest in sustainable transport. as it is the woolwich ferry being free takes some vehicles off a lot of other routes ( rotherhithe blackwall etc.)