Hammersmith Flyover Replacement Tunnel

[Arthurgray50@blu]

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...uld-pay-tolls/

Why is it, everything that Boris aims to do - is charging the public for the use in using it.

I was born in Hammersmith, and know the Broadway, the flyover very well. Like all main town centres, he would like a tunnel built under it

Yes, there is a flyover Hammersmith Broadway, but if it is maintained properly. Then it will last for years.

Yes, the Broadway is busy, but there is other ways he can waste money on.

[Ignitionnet]

This is worth doing a proper feasibility study on. If the evidence indicates it's a bad idea hopefully it stays on the drawing board.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Yes, there is a flyover Hammersmith Broadway, but if it is maintained properly. Then it will last for years.

The problem is that its a 50+ year old reinforced concrete structure, and the time will come in the next couple of decades where it will have to be replaced. You can't just keep patching it up indefinitely.

When that time comes, you're left with a big question, how to replace the flyover while still keeping the traffic moving. It might actually be faster and cheaper to build a replacement tunnel rather than try and replace the flyover in-situ.

Regarding tolls, that's an aside regarding how you'd finance such a scheme, especially as the A4 is now one of TfL's roads, and no longer a national transport priority.

[Stephen]

Tolls can be a good thing. They bring in extra money and that can help with repairs and upkeep. Also by charging a fee it means that not everyone will want to use it so it won't get too busy.

Its not crazy at all. Whats crazy is you thinking everything is crazy. Its not Bori's idea I'm sure. It will have been a group of folk at TfL that will have probably suggested it,

Its also only a study to see if it is feasible to do that. So its got every chance that it may never happen.

[Osem]

If the population of London continues to grow as it has, this will be the tip of a very large and expensive iceberg. Anyone who uses the M25, Dartford Crossing, Blackwall Tunnel etc. etc. will know just how close to capacity they are. How much will it cost to deal with those? It's all very well telling us that they're building new infrastructure etc. but who's confronting the reality that more people cannot continue being squeezed into London without radical changes to the way of life of its residents? Does anyone have a long term plan for the population of London or are we just going to wake up one day and find things have ground to a halt?

[Ken W]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Tolls can be a good thing. They bring in extra money and that can help with repairs and upkeep. Also by charging a fee it means that not everyone will want to use it so it won't get too busy.

Its not crazy at all. Whats crazy is you thinking everything is crazy. Its not Bori's idea I'm sure. It will have been a group of folk at TfL that will have probably suggested it,

Its also only a study to see if it is feasible to do that. So its got every chance that it may never happen.

It is right that all options are looked at.

Ken

[MalteseFalcon]

Forgive me though, which Party's mayor of London was responsible for the congestion charge?

[Ignitionnet]

Must we bring party politics into everything? No-one is planning on removing the congestion charge any time soon so that's a non-issue.

Give it a bit longer and all major roads will end up underground in London as land will cost so much selling it will cover some of the construction costs.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...uld-pay-tolls/

Why is it, everything that Boris aims to do - is charging the public for the use in using it.

I was born in Hammersmith, and know the Broadway, the flyover very well. Like all main town centres, he would like a tunnel built under it

Yes, there is a flyover Hammersmith Broadway, but if it is maintained properly. Then it will last for years.

Yes, the Broadway is busy, but there is other ways he can waste money on.

It's a 50 year old structure that is *extremely* heavily used. Even with the best maintenance in the world, it's not going to last for years, and is going to become increasingly expensive to maintain.

Regarding a replacement, a tunnel may or may not be the best option. The pros are that it frees up a *lot* of space currently occupied by the flyover and other roads that could be used for other things, and will not cause the same widespread disruption that patching or rebuilding the flyover will. The cons are the cost (it will cost potentially billions) and that it will cause disruption.

However, in the long term, patching the current flyover will cause a lot more disruption and will cost more to maintain.

[Osem]

We all know that whatever is done and however it's funded Arthur will whine about it. Unhappy is as unhappy does after all...

[Kursk]

What a waste of money. Build a less expensive cycleway instead and divert car drivers onto public transport. Sustainable and sensible.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Kursk

What a waste of money. Build a less expensive cycleway instead and divert car drivers onto public transport. Sustainable and sensible.

whats the point you wont use it

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

whats the point you wont use it

That's true because I don't live anywhere near that steaming, fleapit den of iniquity you call a Capital City

Which reminds me, London isn't the only place that £bns of taxpayers cash should be spent.

[Pierre]

Nothing wrong with tolls used to finance specific projects, as long as when the project is paid for the toll is removed or reduced to maintain only.

I use the M6 toll regularly.

[Osem]

I agree and that was the 'plan' with the Dartford Crossing IIRC. Of course it didn't work out like that and it's been a cash cow for years.