Hammersmith Flyover Replacement Tunnel

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I am only whinging, as its always US that end up paying for it.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I am only whinging, as its always US that end up paying for it.

Well, at least you live there Arthur. Think about all the taxpayers in the rest of the Country who will never use it but also fund it.

You should be more concerned about mansion tax anyway .

[alanbjames]

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.

Do u think many people would suddenly decide to use public transport? And what about the disabled or sick that need their cars?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by alanbjames

Do u think many people would suddenly decide to use public transport? And what about the disabled or sick that need their cars?

If the compulsory option was public transport or walk (or cycle), they would soon get used to using public transport. Besides, gridlock will remove the option soon, there's no point delaying the inevitable at such exorbitant cost.

Qualifying road users such as the emergency services, police, some disabled could be allowed into the City Centre.

Think how much better the environment would be.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Kursk

If the compulsory option was public transport or walk (or cycle), they would soon get used to using public transport. Besides, gridlock will remove the option soon, there's no point delaying the inevitable at such exorbitant cost.

Qualifying road users such as the emergency services, police, some disabled could be allowed into the City Centre.

Think how much better the environment would be.

It's something I'd like to see, but I doubt it's a viable option without someone spending a *lot* more upgrading the public transport networks to cope with the extra demand. These upgrades would also like take many decades. To give an idea of the time scale. I live near a relatively small, but busy national rail train line. One which has been earmarked by National Rail, TFL and the Mayor as being a line they want converted to the underground to reduce the strain on Lewisham station (which is a massive choke point for the South Eastern rail network). Even though the project to convert this line to an extension of the Bakerloo line has the support of all those authorities, we've been told it's unlikely to be completed before 2040.

This is apparently considered to be a cheap way to increase capacity, only costing £3bn.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Stuart

It's something I'd like to see, but I doubt it's a viable option without someone spending a *lot* more upgrading the public transport networks to cope with the extra demand. These upgrades would also like take many decades. To give an idea of the time scale. I live near a relatively small, but busy national rail train line. One which has been earmarked by National Rail, TFL and the Mayor as being a line they want converted to the underground to reduce the strain on Lewisham station (which is a massive choke point for the South Eastern rail network). Even though the project to convert this line to an extension of the Bakerloo line has the support of all those authorities, we've been told it's unlikely to be completed before 2040.

This is apparently considered to be a cheap way to increase capacity, only costing £3bn.

The bullet has to be bitten. A super highway will not be cheap either and it will become clogged up just like every other road 'improvement' does.

Our young people already have some pretty crummy legacies from this generation; this is something we could get right for them.

It's radical change but imho it is unavoidable. Otherwise we'll have paved the UK and put up a parking lot (apologies to Joni Mitchell )

London, or a substantial part of it, could be a beautiful City without all that traffic. The Underground artery is there - all it needs is developing. Political clout is needed to speed it up.