Sh*r*d use bridge.

Tom Crispin

5Mb PDF download
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles...asibility_2.pdf

Martin Dann

Tom Crispin wrote:
> 5Mb PDF download
> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles...asibility_2.pdf

"
Pedestrians and cyclists alike need to rise approximately ten metres
from the level of the river bank to the
end of the opening span of the bridge; a large distance for a pedestrian
bridge, equivalent to three flights of
stairs or 200 metres of ramp, rising at 1 in 20. This is not a problem
for cyclists, and will in fact increase their
enjoyment and delight in using the bridge.
"

So making cyclists cycle up a 200m ramp will increase our enjoyment.

The question is, will we be able to pedal down the other side, without
any needless braking, and without any junctions at the bottom that we
will need to slow for after claiming back all that P.E. that we have
worked for.
Or will the silly spiral just mean that we have to brake all the way down?

Martin.

vernon

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:fcq114tlm69njb3295l1p6o9rggudmknfd@4ax.com...
> 5Mb PDF download
> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles...asibility_2.pdf

and your opinion of it is....?

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:47:19 +0100, "vernon"
<publicity_shy@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>news:fcq114tlm69njb3295l1p6o9rggudmknfd@4ax.com...
>> 5Mb PDF download
>> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles...asibility_2.pdf
>
>and your opinion of it is....?

Fantastic.

The Rotherhithe Tunnel is very uncomfortable to cycle through. Tower
Bridge is 20 minutes upstream. Cycling in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
is prohibited, the lifts are only open 7am - 7pm and the lifts are
frequently closed. The Woolwich Ferry is 40 minutes downstream, and,
again, has limited opening hours and is frequently closed. The wait
for a Crossing Patrol lift over the Queen Elizabeth II bridge or
through the Dartford Tunnel can be up to one hour and is a good 2
hours downstream following the Thames Path, though faster along the
A2.

I would prefer a cycle tunnel parallel to the Greenwich Foot Tunnel as
it is more local to me, the Greenwich foot tunnel is 15.2 m below mean
high water, so a 1:20 ramp to take cyclists to that level suggests a
ramp about a quarter of a mile long. The Durand's Wharf to Impounding
Lock location for a bridge makes a great deal of sense and would take
a lot of sustainable traffic over the River.

The downside is the need for the bridge to close for up to 2 hours
about 30 times per years. This length and frequency of closure would
be unacceptable for a road or rail tunnel - though the trade off is
that cycling over a bridge is far more enjoyable then through a
tunnel, and a bridge height of 45 metres (which would allow large
ships to pass safely without opening) suggests a ramp length of over
half a mile each end. When closed, the Rotherhithe Tunnel is a local
alternative. The proposed deck width of 9m seems unusually generous
for a shared use path, with the cycle ramps leading to the main deck
being 3 - 4m wide.

Colin McKenzie

Tom Crispin wrote:
> The downside is the need for the bridge to close for up to 2 hours
> about 30 times per years. This length and frequency of closure would
> be unacceptable for a road or rail tunnel

Is this in addition to closures to let ships through? Tower Bridge
seems to close a few times a day for about 15 minutes at a time.

The new bridge, further downstream, would be passed by more ships -
but it sounds as if the deck is a bit higher. So I'd expect it to have
to open about as much.

I agree that the ability to go fast down from the bridge would make it
much more attractive. Maybe uphill cyclists and pedestrians should be
segregated from downhill cyclists.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

google@woodall.me.uk

On Apr 24, 10:23 pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> 5Mb PDF downloadwww.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/london/Thames_Bridge_Feasibility_2.pdf

Having a quick skim though I noticed a picture of the Gateshead
Millennium bridge.

I've never cycled across it but I've walked across it lots of times.
The surface of the cycling deck appears to be metal but also appears
to be non-slippery, even when wet.

Does anyone know any more details about this surface and can it be
used on manhole covers or does it need to rely on rain being able to
drain through and into the river?

Tim.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:03:34 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> The downside is the need for the bridge to close for up to 2 hours
>> about 30 times per years. This length and frequency of closure would
>> be unacceptable for a road or rail tunnel
>
>Is this in addition to closures to let ships through? Tower Bridge
>seems to close a few times a day for about 15 minutes at a time.

No.

>The new bridge, further downstream, would be passed by more ships -
>but it sounds as if the deck is a bit higher. So I'd expect it to have
>to open about as much.
>
>I agree that the ability to go fast down from the bridge would make it
>much more attractive. Maybe uphill cyclists and pedestrians should be
>segregated from downhill cyclists.

Pedestrians and, I expect, wheelcahir and push chair users, have an
alternative route - using a lift This would be the main ramp for
pedestrians. 3 - 4m seems sufficiently wide for uphill and downhill
cyclists to pass, though at 75cm each, overtaking downhillers passing
overtaking uphillers would be very tight.

Nick

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:47:19 +0100, "vernon"
> <publicity_shy@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> news:fcq114tlm69njb3295l1p6o9rggudmknfd@4ax.com...
>>> 5Mb PDF download
>>> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles...asibility_2.pdf
>> and your opinion of it is....?
>
> Fantastic.
>
> The Rotherhithe Tunnel is very uncomfortable to cycle through. Tower
> Bridge is 20 minutes upstream.

5 minutes. Maybe 10.



> Cycling in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
> is prohibited, the lifts are only open 7am - 7pm and the lifts are
> frequently closed.

The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.


> The Woolwich Ferry is 40 minutes downstream, and,
> again, has limited opening hours and is frequently closed. The wait
> for a Crossing Patrol lift over the Queen Elizabeth II bridge or
> through the Dartford Tunnel can be up to one hour and is a good 2
> hours downstream following the Thames Path, though faster along the
> A2.
>
> I would prefer a cycle tunnel parallel to the Greenwich Foot Tunnel as
> it is more local to me, the Greenwich foot tunnel is 15.2 m below mean
> high water, so a 1:20 ramp to take cyclists to that level suggests a
> ramp about a quarter of a mile long. The Durand's Wharf to Impounding
> Lock location for a bridge makes a great deal of sense and would take
> a lot of sustainable traffic over the River.
>

It would only be worthwile for cyclists living locally or coming from
the west. Even then I think it might be quicker to go over Tower Bridge.

> The downside is the need for the bridge to close for up to 2 hours
> about 30 times per years. This length and frequency of closure would
> be unacceptable for a road or rail tunnel - though the trade off is
> that cycling over a bridge is far more enjoyable then through a
> tunnel, and a bridge height of 45 metres (which would allow large
> ships to pass safely without opening) suggests a ramp length of over
> half a mile each end. When closed, the Rotherhithe Tunnel is a local
> alternative. The proposed deck width of 9m seems unusually generous
> for a shared use path, with the cycle ramps leading to the main deck
> being 3 - 4m wide.

Nick

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> The downside is the need for the bridge to close for up to 2 hours
>> about 30 times per years. This length and frequency of closure would
>> be unacceptable for a road or rail tunnel
>
> Is this in addition to closures to let ships through? Tower Bridge seems
> to close a few times a day for about 15 minutes at a time.
>

The great thing about Tower Bridge closures is the race when it opens.
50-100 cyclists, there are always a few going your way home willing to play.

> The new bridge, further downstream, would be passed by more ships - but
> it sounds as if the deck is a bit higher. So I'd expect it to have to
> open about as much.
>
> I agree that the ability to go fast down from the bridge would make it
> much more attractive. Maybe uphill cyclists and pedestrians should be
> segregated from downhill cyclists.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>

Paul Boyd

Colin McKenzie said the following on 25/04/2008 08:03:

> Is this in addition to closures to let ships through? Tower Bridge seems
> to close a few times a day for about 15 minutes at a time.

Shouldn't that be "Tower Bridge seems to open a few times a day..."? :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

David Hansen

On 25 Apr 2008 15:42:38 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote this:-

>Reading it more carefully I've become more convinced that the
>consultants who wrote that report were muppets.

I hope you have fed this back to Sustrans.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

john.sabine@gmail.com

On 25 Apr, 09:28, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:

> >> and your opinion of it is....?
>
> > Fantastic.
>
> > The Rotherhithe Tunnel is very uncomfortable to cycle through. Tower
> > Bridge is 20 minutes upstream.
>
> 5 minutes. Maybe 10.

10 I'd say. The tunnel isn't that bad if you ride on the pavement -
it's
about the only place where, in the interests of avoiding conflict, I
do
that for any sustained period.

> > Cycling in the Greenwich Foot Tunnel
> > is prohibited, the lifts are only open 7am - 7pm and the lifts are
> > frequently closed.
>
> The stairs aren't that bad. Running up the stairs carrying a bike is
> still easier than cycling up the hill by Greenwich park.

True, if your bike is unloaded. It becomes grim if you have panniers.

John

Ian Jackson

In article <t2s3149sohcf525o6fso7iht36nf1vudce@4ax.com>,
David Hansen <> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2008 15:42:38 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
><ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote this:-
>>Reading it more carefully I've become more convinced that the
>>consultants who wrote that report were muppets.
>
>I hope you have fed this back to Sustrans.

No, I don't have any respect for Sustrans.

If there is someone who does have such respect or thinks at the very
least that they might be susceptible to constructive critical input,
they're welcome to pass it on to. Feel free to CC me, give them my
email address, etc., or to hack my text about (provided you then take
my name off it).

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

David Hansen

On 25 Apr 2008 16:33:59 +0100 (BST) someone who may be Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote this:-

>>I hope you have fed this back to Sustrans.
>
>No, I don't have any respect for Sustrans.

Your personal opinions are not particularly important. I have
recently sent feedback two three organisations that I have no
respect for. In the future, when I expect them to claim that nobody
criticised their plans, I will be able to point out that their
assertion is incorrect.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54