Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

TfL Thames Cable Car - Planning Permission Application goes in

editor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither are particularly good options for either ambulant or non-ambulant crips, whereas the cable car appears to have a lift from ground to car.
Of course, disability-friendliness isn't really a concern for most people, I know...
 
Streathamite said:
I presume you mean the Woolwich ferry? IIRC from my Thames Poly days, isn't that further east?:confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but the point is that providing another crossing point isn't a bad idea, especially given the capacity of the ferries. They only take 400-500 per trip.
 
ViolentPanda said:
The stupidity quotient rather depends on whether the throughput of a cable car system would be greater than the (packed to fuck at rush hours) ferry service.
Click to expand...

To be fair I always associate cable cars with gawping tourists (myself included) and tools bearing skis. Are there many high capacity commuter cable cars out there really?

In any case you'd suspect any London cable car would be overrun by tourists with cameras and rucksacks plenty. I'm not convinced of its mass transport appeal for that reason, although it could be a pleasant diversion
 
The cable car to Roosevelt Island in NYC seemed to be enjoyed by commuters and tourists alike.
 
Portland, Oregon has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Aerial_Tram which is a traditional cable car with two cabs (one for each direction at a time) that turns a 2 mile drive into a 3 minute ride. Cabs arrive/depart every 6 minutes. It can do 780 people/hour and costs $4 round trip. It's very popular, exceeding projected usage.

I've been reading the planning documents, so here's some details to compare:
The Thames gondola scheme is designed for 2500 people/hour for a 5 minute journey, costing £2.50 (oyster) £3.50 (cash) each way. Cabs arrive/depart every 15 seconds.
 
I rather belatedly tumbled that this is more about encouraging non-car use to spasmodically popular destinations only, so no ferries that could carry cars, etc.

No flies on me, etc.
 
It would be good if you could get on your Barclays/TfL bike, pedal to North Woolwich Peninsula and then get the cable car over and pick up a bike at the other end for the total win.
 
Well, it'll be pretty and everything, I spose. But it's not as if you can't already get over/under the river, and it's not as if the money isn't desperately needed elsewhere.
 
Interesting that TfL is seemingly funding this alone when the owners of the O2 and Excell will benefit considerably. Good link though, two areas that are a nightmare via any public transport / tunnel option.
 
Tiny amount of money, in transport terms, and it provides a new pedestrian/bike crossing in between Greenwich and Woolwich. Would have been better if the Rotherhithe foot/bike bridge had been built, but that would have been even more pricey.
 
The TfL statement seems honest enough:

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy recognises the need for additional river crossings east of Tower Bridge for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. A range of options for new vehicle crossings are currently being examined.

However many of these measures will take many years to implement, so the cable car offers a solution in the short term improving connections across the river for pedestrians/cyclists and providing much needed resilience while the road links are progressed in parallel. In order to progress the cable car TfL will provide upfront funding, it remains our intention to recoup as much of the cost as possible through a number of sources including adverting, sponsorship and fare revenue.

New passenger ferry links are one of the measures included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. However, at this location the cable car option would be more cost effective. A passenger ferry, although supported in principle, would require new pier infrastructure on both sides of the Thames, the purchase or lease of a boat and is likely to require ongoing public support. In addition, a passenger ferry would only link the river banks, unlike a cable car which can link ExCeL and development sites in the Royal Docks with existing leisure attractions on the Greenwich Peninsula.
Click to expand...
i.e. it's cheap, it's cheerful and it makes Johnson look like he's doing something. Barclays, anyone?


http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2011/04/where-things-stand-with-london-cable.html
 
£50m is quite a lot of money, though. Maybe not for this type of project, granted, but it is a lot of money to spunk on something not required in the slightest.
 
Onket said:
£50m is quite a lot of money, though. Maybe not for this type of project, granted, but it is a lot of money to spunk on something not required in the slightest.
Click to expand...

Yep, but it'll be (almost) finished in time to be cited by Johnson in his mayoral campaign as evidence of his... whatever.
 
I can't count the number of times I have wanted to go from the o2 to the victoria docks. Or even to see that area from the sky.
 
There is a requirement for more thames crossings east of tower bridge though - especially for pedestrians and cyclists. The canceled rotherithe ped/cycle bridge round the corner was going to cost £65m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Trade union recognition for graduates and apprentices at TfL
Replies
0
Views
322
mn123
M
Winot
5am bacon butties on River Thames
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Winot
Winot
editor
Plans to open a disused railway as the “Camden Highline” are approved
Replies
3
Views
477
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
ricbake
Beehive Pub, Penrose Street, Walworth - planning for residential!
Replies
4
Views
492
mango5
mango5
Crispy
TfL funding crisis
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Hollis
Hollis
Back
Top Bottom