TfL Thames Cable Car - Planning Permission Application goes in

[editor]

This could be ace!

Erection of a cable car for the length of 1,100m over the River Thames from North Woolwich Peninsula to Royals Victoria Dock at a minimum clearance of 54.1m above mean high water springs, consisting of:

- a north main tower (to a maximum height of 93m AOD) at Clyde Wharf (north west of Bell Lane) and a north intermediate tower (to a maximum height of 66m AOD) to south west of DLR and Silvertown Way/Dock Road to support the gondola cable and communication cable;

- a two storey station (incorporating mechanical drive room, concourse, ticket office, an retail space on ground floor, and gondola arrival and departure platform on first floor) and associated compression tower,(to a maximum height of 17m height AOD) and boat impact protection within Royal Victoria Dock and associated works to the public realm between Western Gateway and Royal Victoria Dock including raising the dock edge and provision of a kiosk (comprising 14m2 of floor space and sub-station)

(THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO AN 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AFFECTING THE SETTING OF A LISTED BUILDING AND IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN).

http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2010/11/tfl-submit-thames-cable-car-planning.html

 

[Lorelei]

Superb! I would love this to happen, but it won't will it?

 

[_pH_]

what a fucking stupid idea. is this one of Boris's vanity projects?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Aren't there better places for it to start and finish? Soho to South Bank, say.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what a fucking stupid idea. is this one of Boris's vanity projects?

IIRC it's to take the strain off/partially replace the ferry, so hardly "fucking stupid".
It's not a new idea, either. Cologne has had a cross-river cable car for over 50 years.

 

[editor]

They could do it cheaper by adding rubber bands to the two supports and catapulting people across the river.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Aren't there better places for it to start and finish? Soho to South Bank, say.

Plenty of existing crossing points and methods on that stretch of the Thames, though.

 

[editor]

Aren't there better places for it to start and finish? Soho to South Bank, say.

Pretty sure there's no shortage of bridges and tourist attractions around that area.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They could do it cheaper by adding rubber bands to the two supports and catapulting people across the river.

Swap the word "people" for "politicians" and it's a goer!!!

 

[_pH_]

IIRC it's to take the strain off/partially replace the ferry, so hardly "fucking stupid".
It's not a new idea, either. Cologne has had a cross-river cable car for over 50 years.

yes it's fucking stupid. build a new ferry.

 

[Crispy]

Aren't the O2 people behind this?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Aren't there better places for it to start and finish? Soho to South Bank, say.

You want to get in a cable car for the sake of a 15 minute walk that already has a bridge in the way as the crow flies?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It's for tourists. Not for real people.

 

[scifisam]

yes it's fucking stupid. build a new ferry.

You don't get good high views from a ferry. Keeping/having the Woolwich ferry would be good, though.

Is the Woolwich ferry actually gone now? Apparently my Grandparents worked on it a few decades ago - he steering, she doing something or other at the Woolwich end (docking it maybe?)

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

It's for tourists. Not for real people.

Ok then, let me say again then. How are they going to do that over the existing bridge and why they fuck would anyone take a cable car ride over a bridge?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

IIRC it's to take the strain off/partially replace the ferry, .

Wouldn't two ferries be cheaper?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Sell the bridge to Americans.

 

[_pH_]

You don't get good high views from a ferry.

Yeah, spend a few million quid just to get 'good high views'. Yeah great idea.

If you want views go on the London Eye.

 

[scifisam]

Ok then, let me say again then. How are they going to do that over the existing bridge and why they fuck would anyone take a cable car ride over a bridge?

You can't sit down and still be moving on a bridge. Unless you're in a wheelchair, in which case you either have to expend effort yourself or someone else does for you.

Woolwich is better anyway - there are afew touristy places there but it's still got lots of derelict land, meaning there's space for a cable car entrance, structure and queue, unlike in Soho where there's barely space for an extra cable.

 

[scifisam]

Yeah, spend a few million quid just to get 'good high views'. Yeah great idea.

If you want views go on the London Eye.

But that doesn't have the plus of taking you across the river. Actually, the views thing is a good reason for placing it not too close to the Eye.

 

[_pH_]

But that doesn't have the plus of taking you across the river. Actually, the views thing is a good reason for placing it not too close to the Eye.

I have no fucking idea what you're on about.

There's a boat. If you want to get across the river there, get the boat. Or the tube or something.

 

[editor]

I have no fucking idea what you're on about.

There's a boat. If you want to get across the river there, get the boat. Or the tube or something.

Boat and tube would be considerably slower and neither would offer such ace views. I'd love to go over the Thames on a cable car.

 

[scifisam]

I have no fucking idea what you're on about.

There's a boat. If you want to get across the river there, get the boat. Or the tube or something.

What I'm saying is that the London Eye gives you great views, but doesn't take you across the river. Bridges give you quite good views, but not as much as something higher up (particularly in Woolwich). A cable car does both.

It would also just be damn cool.

Whether it would work in practice is another thing, but as long as it worked then it'd probably become a London landmark just as quickly as the London Eye did. That is mainly for tourists, but it's not like we don't make any money from tourism. I'm not a huge fan of the Eye myself, but it has always been extremely popular with the tour groups I've led.

 

[Badgers]

Mono-Rail first then this!!!

 

[ferrelhadley]

Is the Woolwich ferry actually gone now?

Nope still there.

If it takes bicycles then it will be quite hand as there are only 3 places east of Tower Bridge you can get a bike across the Thames, the ferry, the Woolich and the Greenwich foot tunnels. It may also be reasonably useful for people who use the bus to get from SE London to the Isle of Dogs or London Airport for work.

 

[mauvais]

Barcelona has one of these. It takes about a decade to get on the damn thing and just as long to go anywhere.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

You can't sit down and still be moving on a bridge. Unless you're in a wheelchair, in which case you either have to expend effort yourself or someone else does for you.

Dur, so read my post again and answer how they are going to
A. build it along an existing bridge
B. Justify that.

 

[scifisam]

Dur, so read my post again and answer how they are going to
A. build it along an existing bridge
B. Justify that.

Dur?

You asked how they'd do it and why anyone would want to use it. I answered the second bit. I can't answer the first bit; as I said, I don't know if it is practically feasible because I don't know enough about engineering - bet you don't either. I can't see anything about it being built along an existing bridge, though.

 

[TopCat]

They could do it cheaper by adding rubber bands to the two supports and catapulting people across the river.

This is your best idea evah...

 

[Streathamite]

IIRC it's to take the strain off/partially replace the ferry, so hardly "fucking stupid".
It's not a new idea, either. Cologne has had a cross-river cable car for over 50 years.

I presume you mean the Woolwich ferry? IIRC from my Thames Poly days, isn't that further east?