London river crossing - Overground between Wapping and Rotherhithe ought to be free.

[keiran]

The issue of river crossings east of Tower Bridge in London is a long-standing one.
Multibillion pound plans have been put forward to try and improve this area of transport.

But I have a novel, low cost idea which would help address crossings (albeit in a more limited way) between the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark , just east of Tower Bridge.

The Overground runs between Wapping and Rotherhithe.
This is a less than one minute journey and is simply a river crossing.
This river crossing costs £1.50 off peak and £1.70 at peak times. (going up 10p in March 22)

I propose that this river crossing ought to be free.

It would enhance and facilitate travel and footfall between these boroughs, leading to increased economic activity and improve functioning/utility/pleasure of the local population.

The scanning machines at both stations could easily be programmed with any necessary changes to achieve this.
There wouldn't be a meaningful loss of income for TFL as I imagine this journey does not generate much. - An FOI request could easily establish how much/little.
The Overground trains run very frequently through this rail tunnel under the Thames, as it is a "pinch point" , and moreover the trains are very capacious to cope with any increased numbers.

The plan would not set a precedent for all such journeys under the Thames to be made free, as any such journeys to the west of Tower Bridge also have bridges near by, over which pedestrians can cross freely.

The other ways east of Tower Bridge that pedestrians can cross are all free - the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels and the Woolwich ferry.
The Emirates cable car (from nowhere to nowhere some would opine) is not free , but this is more of an attraction than a functional river crossing

Does this idea have any traction, and how would one try to interest a senior TFL director or the Mayor?
My concern is that it wouldn't get past the "underling" vetting emails, who wouldn't understand and think it's another crackpot email to humour and delete.

I hope that the enthusiastic and committed train and transport lovers on these threads may be able to move this forward.

 

[Wolfie]

The issue of river crossings east of Tower Bridge in London is a long-standing one.
Multibillion pound plans have been put forward to try and improve this area of transport.

But I have a novel idea which would help address crossings (albeit in a more limited way) between the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark , just east of Tower Bridge.

The Overground runs between Wapping and Rotherhithe.
This is a less than one minute journey and is simply a river crossing.
This river crossing costs £1.50 off peak and £1.70 at peak times. (going up 10p in March 22)

I propose that this river crossing ought to be free.

It would enhance and facilitate travel and footfall between these boroughs, leading to increased economic activity and improve functioning/utility/pleasure of the local population.

The scanning machines at both stations could easily be programmed with any necessary changes to achieve this.
There wouldn't be a meaningful loss of income for TFL as I imagine this journey does not generate much. - An FOI request could easily establish how much/little.
The Overground trains run very frequently through this rail tunnel under the Thames, as it is a "pinch point" , and moreover the trains are very capacious to cope with any increased numbers.

The plan would not set a precedent for all such journeys under the Thames to be made free, as any such journeys to the west of Tower Bridge also have bridges over which pedestrians can cross freely.

The other ways east of Tower Bridge that pedestrians can cross are all free - the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels and the Woolwich ferry.
The Emirates cable car (from nowhere to nowhere some would opine) is not free , but this is more of an attraction than a functional river crossing

Does this idea have any traction, and how would one try to interest a senior TFL director or the Mayor?
My concern is that it wouldn't get past the "underling" vetting emails, who wouldn't understand and think it's another crackpot email to humour and delete.

I hope that the enthusiastic and committed train and transport lovers on these threads may be able to move this forward.

In a situation where TfL is skint and HMG are setting stupid impositions on any bailouts l would have thought that prospects of this getting any traction are zero.

 

[SynthD]

I would prefer they retract the maritime right of way for large boats and just build some more pedestrian bridges. Are there some cruise ship owners in the Lords likely to fight this?

 

[Irascible]

I would prefer they retract the maritime right of way for large boats and just build some more pedestrian bridges. Are there some cruise ship owners in the Lords likely to fight this?

Most of the large ships I've come across ( usually quite unexpectedly ) in the Pool have been warships. Pedestrian bridges could be made to lift somewhat easier than road bridges, I guess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of the large ships I've come across ( usually quite unexpectedly ) in the Pool have been warships. Pedestrian bridges could be made to lift somewhat easier than road bridges, I guess.

But why build a bridge if you've already got a tunnel? There's the road tunnel for cars already.

It's an interesting idea - Oyster and contactless alongside a fully gated system do provide this unique opportunity (compared to other modes) to allow certain journeys to be free at basically very little cost.

 

[gordonthemoron]

But why build a bridge if you've already got a tunnel? There's the road tunnel for cars already.

You could walk through the tunnel, if you didn't mind being suffocated

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could walk through the tunnel, if you didn't mind being suffocated

Or we could get a bit more progressive and convert the tunnel so it is available to cycles (including e-bikes) and pedestrians only.

 

[Irascible]

But why build a bridge if you've already got a tunnel? There's the road tunnel for cars already.

It's an interesting idea - Oyster and contactless alongside a fully gated system do provide this unique opportunity (compared to other modes) to allow certain journeys to be free at basically very little cost.

There's two DLR crossings & the Jubilee line doing it twice too. Plus the ferry, I suppose. Are the Greenwich & Woolwich foot tunnels still open?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wasn't the Wapping->Rotherhithe tunnel crossing, prior to its conversion to a railway, initially used primarily by pedestrians back in Victorian times, who paid the sum of 1d a time to access same, which means it was never actually "free" as such? Or is that a different tunnel?

 

[miami]

You could walk through the tunnel, if you didn't mind being suffocated

Yes, unlike Blackwall it's allowed, and people do do it (usually for youtube)

Rotherhithe could be made electric vehicle only with a 20mph limit for all users (including bikes) which would help with the air quality

I do like the idea -- throw in a FOI request to see what the cost would be and see if it can get traction with local councillors.

 

[hwl]

Yes, unlike Blackwall it's allowed, and people do do it (usually for youtube)

Rotherhithe could be made electric vehicle only with a 20mph limit for all users (including bikes) which would help with the air quality

I do like the idea -- throw in a FOI request to see what the cost would be and see if it can get traction with local councillors.

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph doesn't improve air quality with petrol or diesel, the optimum speed for minimising is steady and in the 35-40mph bracket depending on individual vehicles.

 

[SynthD]

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph doesn't improve air quality with petrol or diesel, the optimum speed for minimising is steady and in the 35-40mph bracket depending on individual vehicles.

If it were electric only, a 20mph limit permits a comfortable co existence of cyclists and drivers in the tiny space.

 

[bramling]

Or we could get a bit more progressive and convert the tunnel so it is available to cycles (including e-bikes) and pedestrians only.

I must admit I'd probably go along with that. The tunnel in its current form is barely fit for road traffic.

 

[hwl]

I must admit I'd probably go along with that. The tunnel in its current form is barely fit for road traffic.

It also needs some major engineering attention (effectively the most "at risk" TfL structure) so could close completely in the near future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also needs some major engineering attention (effectively the most "at risk" TfL structure) so could close completely in the near future.

This depends on what the problem is. This article:

TfL unable to fund Rotherhithe Tunnel upgrade as cost rises to £178M | New Civil Engineer

Khan revealed the funding estimate for the repairs is between £116M and £178M, when responding to Lib Dem Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon during Mayor’s

www.newcivilengineer.com

suggests the issue is the ventilation system, which may not be needed to the same extent if converted to pedestrians and cycles only.

 

[keiran]

Thanks for all the comments.

Building new bridges and making/altering tunnels , though, is costly and would take a lot of time.

But the Overground is already in position, wouldn't cost much at all to adapt to fee-free between Wapping and Rotherhithe,
and could be done at a small loss of revenue to TFL, although the gain overall to London in terms of economic activity and improved quality of life would easily outweigh this minor cost.

 

[quantinghome]

There are ten fixed crossings of various descriptions accessible to pedestrians between Tower Bridge and Woolwich. Is it really a problem?

 

[SynthD]

Yes. There are already official intentions or plans for a few more. Several of the current ones are generally excluded because of broken lifts, air quality, excessive cost.

 

[Bertie the bus]

But the Overground is already in position, wouldn't cost much at all to adapt to fee-free between Wapping and Rotherhithe,
and could be done at a small loss of revenue to TFL, although the gain overall to London in terms of economic activity and improved quality of life would easily outweigh this minor cost.

And if TfL was financed by London or Londoners then it might be something that should be considered but it isn’t. Not content with having a transport system better than most cities in the world, never mind the UK, now it should be free. What about people in other areas of the country who have far worse transport links but a similar problem? Liverpool – the Wirral has no pedestrian route and you have to pay for the train, bus or ferry or a toll if you drive through the Mersey Tunnels. Arnside – Grange-over-Sands is 3 minutes on the train but 13 ½ miles by road but you still have to pay to travel on the train.

 

[hwl]

This depends on what the problem is. This article:

TfL unable to fund Rotherhithe Tunnel upgrade as cost rises to £178M | New Civil Engineer

Khan revealed the funding estimate for the repairs is between £116M and £178M, when responding to Lib Dem Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon during Mayor’s

www.newcivilengineer.com

suggests the issue is the ventilation system, which may not be needed to the same extent if converted to pedestrians and cycles only.

More to it than that.

Thanks for all the comments.

Building new bridges and making/altering tunnels , though, is costly and would take a lot of time.

But the Overground is already in position, wouldn't cost much at all to adapt to fee-free between Wapping and Rotherhithe,
and could be done at a small loss of revenue to TFL, although the gain overall to London in terms of economic activity and improved quality of life would easily outweigh this minor cost.

Neither Rotherhithe or Wapping are step free and both have short platforms that already cause issues and it is expect that both (especially Rotherhithe as it closeness to Canada water also cause potential capacity issues in terms of max train frequencies) would need to close if the rest of the ELL was targeted for trains longer than 5car as all the other stations are solvable. The new build stations North of Thames 13-17 year ago all have passive provision for 8car platforms, Surrey Quays is cheap and easy to lengthen, Whitechapel's biggest issue is the Crossrail and Canada Water would need a expensive rebuild modifications.

Hence TfL won't want to be painted into corner.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More to it than that.

Is any information available on exactly what, or are TfL keeping it close to their chest?

Neither Rotherhithe or Wapping are step free and both have short platforms that already cause issues and it is expect that both (especially Rotherhithe as it closeness to Canada water also cause potential capacity issues in terms of max train frequencies) would need to close if the rest of the ELL was targeted for trains longer than 5car as all the other stations are solvable. The new build stations North of Thames 13-17 year ago all have passive provision for 8car platforms, Surrey Quays is cheap and easy to lengthen, Whitechapel's biggest issue is the Crossrail and Canada Water would need a expensive rebuild modifications.

Hence TfL won't want to be painted into corner.

Umm, SDO?

 

[hwl]

Is any information available on exactly what, or are TfL keeping it close to their chest?

I'll have dig, the ventilation was most of the recent cost increase not the majority of the overall cost. Poor NCE reporting.

Umm, SDO?

Already used as the platforms at Wapping and Rotherhithe are to short for 5car and viewed as unworkable for significantly longer trains

 

[miami]

Umm, SDO?

Is there any SDO on the underground where an entire carriage is out of use? I know some stations only have 1 door open in an end carriage

I can't see how it would work in such a frequent stop and busy system without gangways between carriages (it's bad enough already if you get on the wrong end in rush hour)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there any SDO on the underground where an entire carriage is out of use? I know some stations only have 1 door open in an end carriage

I can't see how it would work in such a frequent stop and busy system without gangways between carriages (it's bad enough already if you get on the wrong end in rush hour)

London Overground stock is gangwayed.

 

[miami]

If it were electric only, a 20mph limit permits a comfortable co existence of cyclists and drivers in the tiny space.

And pedestrians. The lower speed would reduce the noise pollution, and electric would reduce the air pollution.

Not sure about the width, but I think there are two pavements on each side. Shift the lanes to one side, have a wider pavement and that would be more acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And pedestrians. The lower speed would reduce the noise pollution, and electric would reduce the air pollution.

Not sure about the width, but I think there are two pavements on each side. Shift the lanes to one side, have a wider pavement and that would be more acceptable.

It is already 20. The pavements are very narrow. What might be an option might be to allow electric cars in one direction only, if there is an obvious peak flow. There would then be room for a concrete barrier between cars and other users.

 

[hwl]

Is there any SDO on the underground where an entire carriage is out of use? I know some stations only have 1 door open in an end carriage

I can't see how it would work in such a frequent stop and busy system without gangways between carriages (it's bad enough already if you get on the wrong end in rush hour)

There is on the overground at the two station concerned already. Going through multiple carriages is seen a non-starter given the loadings at certain times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2022 ==

And pedestrians. The lower speed would reduce the noise pollution, and electric would reduce the air pollution.

Not sure about the width, but I think there are two pavements on each side. Shift the lanes to one side, have a wider pavement and that would be more acceptable.

Reopening the pedestrian entrances (spiral staircases) closest to the river would be much more pleasant and reduce the underground walking distance by 750m and make the route far less diagonal across the Thames.

 

[Mikey C]

Reopening the pedestrian entrances (spiral staircases) closest to the river would be much more pleasant and reduce the underground walking distance by 750m and make the route far less diagonal across the Thames.

Even without any vehicles, I can't say I'd especially want to walk through the Rotherhithe tunnel, though as you say the ramps at either end do add a lot to the total distance!

 

[keiran]

Yes. There are already official intentions or plans for a few more. Several of the current ones are generally excluded because of broken lifts, air quality, excessive cost.

Thats' interesting.
Are you able to say what options are being discussed?

 

[SynthD]

Thats' interesting.
Are you able to say what options are being discussed?

Here’s three. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-...for-the-future/new-river-crossings-for-london