London tunnel ring road

[telstarbox]

Is this likely to happen and is there much room in the earth below London any more?

Plans to transform central London with a 22-mile-long underground ring road can be revealed today.

Costing £30 billion to construct, it would remove tens of thousands of cars from the crowded streets above.

The Inner Orbital Tunnel would be one of the most ambitious infrastructure schemes ever seen in the city, with subterranean dual carriageways linking key routes, from the A40 Westway to the A12 in the east, and the A1 route north to the A2 running south.

It would mean quieter neighbourhoods and cleaner air for millions of families living in the centre and along overcrowded arteries like the South Circular. Motorists would enjoy faster trips, with bottlenecks like the Earl’s Court one-way system given relief.

Tower Bridge would be closed to all traffic except buses and bicycles, with the new tunnel creating two new crossings beneath the Thames.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...ile-ringroad-tunnel-under-london-9354896.html

 

[edwin_m]

Should rename it the Inner Drive-In Orbital Tunnel. Think about it.

 

[bangor-toad]

Wow.
Nice to see that the old ideas are being recycled

Here's s sketch of the current proposal (From a Londonist.com article)

And here's map from the "1956 Conference on Urban Motorways" (From Pathetic motorways)

Amazingly similar aren't they?
The 1956 one scared the life out of the government of the time as it would have been so disruptive and expensive. It was swiftly dropped.

(For students of traffic, politics and people's ability to make odd decisions in groups, do look up information on London Ringways...)

Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[DJL]

This idea was talked about recently over on London Reconnections.
They suggested that it would be a toll road.
If that's true I'm not sure how much benefit it would bring in terms of reducing congestion above ground.
Of course if the alternative is 5 hours in traffic + paying the congestion charge then the tunnel toll may actually prove to be cheaper.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It'd need a pretty substantial ventilation system to deal with all the exhaust fumes, which would probably be pumped straight into the city centre above anyway... :roll:

 

[jon0844]

By the time it's built (and never say never, as it might be something that HAS to be built in 40-50 years from now), you'd have hopefully got all cars running on electric power. The tunnel itself would quite possibly have a road that powers/charges vehicles while driving (inductive charging) too.

The vehicles would also, I expect, be automated so as to ensure there aren't nasty accidents caused by idiotic motorists taking risks.

Let's imagine it was built tomorrow and ordinary cars, vans or lorries were able to use it. I imagine there'd be more than one accident per day, or some incident that would cause gridlock and then introduce even more problems for a tunnel of such a length. It just isn't going to happen based on what we have today.

 

[3141]

Between the two tunnel schemes described in post no. 3, there was the Motorway Box in the late 60s/early 70s, which was going to be a surface or viaduct route running a little further out. The road southwards from the A40 Westway to Shepherds Bush was going to be a part of that, and there's a bridge under the Hammersmith and City Line which it was going to use.

But only a few fragments were built, probably because of the huge cost and the likelihood that, if it was built, the amount of traffic using it would clog it up and there'd be big jams at all the junctions.

So I don't expect this latest proposal to get far either.

I wonder whether electric cars, as suggested above, plus automatically-driven cars, like the Google car about which there was another report this morning on Today, would make such a project more feasible.

 

[Class172]

Between the two tunnel schemes described in post no. 3, there was the Motorway Box in the late 60s/early 70s, which was going to be a surface or viaduct route running a little further out. The road southwards from the A40 Westway to Shepherds Bush was going to be a part of that, and there's a bridge under the Hammersmith and City Line which it was going to use.

But only a few fragments were built, probably because of the huge cost and the likelihood that, if it was built, the amount of traffic using it would clog it up and there'd be big jams at all the junctions.

So I don't expect this latest proposal to get far either.

I wonder whether electric cars, as suggested above, plus automatically-driven cars, like the Google car about which there was another report this morning on Today, would make such a project more feasible.

I assume you are referring to the former Ringways project, of which, only small parts were built. Ringway 1 consisted of what used to be the A40(M), M41 and A102(M). The A406 North Circular was part of ringway 2, whilst the M25 was effectively a bodge of ringways 3 and 4 after the project was curtailed. I could go on at length to explain it, but if you want to read more, there is an excellent account here.

Even more ambitious were the Underways, which as the name suggests, were a grid of sub-surface roads to make London easily traversable and accessible to all. The new project proposed is a reincarnation in effect of ringway 1 as an underway. £30bn in my opinion should be spent on something that doesn't just benefit London, for example nationwide road improvements or an extensive electrification programme for the railways.

If you find this interesting, try looking at the SABRE forums where there lots to be seen related to roads.

 

[telstarbox]

By the time it's built (and never say never, as it might be something that HAS to be built in 40-50 years from now), you'd have hopefully got all cars running on electric power. The tunnel itself would quite possibly have a road that powers/charges vehicles while driving (inductive charging) too.

The vehicles would also, I expect, be automated so as to ensure there aren't nasty accidents caused by idiotic motorists taking risks.

But if automatic cars become commonplace, you would get a lot more capacity out of the existing network so would the new road be needed?

 

[DJL]

But if automatic cars become commonplace, you would get a lot more capacity out of the existing network so would the new road be needed?

Or to ask a slightly different question -
If automatic cars means a substantial increase in capacity - would the railways be needed?

Hear me out on this one.

One of the benefits of public transport is not having to control the vehicle.
Another is capacity.
Both of these could also be provided by automatic cars, which can run very close together in total safety.

Of course public transport does have disadvantages - the need to change trains and to walk between station and desired location. Both of which are removed by automated cars.

I guess what I'm saying is that the line between trains and cars (in terms of pros and cons, not appearance or methods) could potentially become sufficiently blurred that neither remain the correct answer.

 

[Emyr]

So instead of a Ro-Ro train like Eurostar's non-cabin units, cars would become ad-hoc Multiple Units on (potentially intangibly) Guided Busways?

This idea sounds nice, but would be inefficient unless you redesigned cars to have active aerodynamic surfaces to manage the turbulence behind each unit.

 

[gordonthemoron]

how many cars/passengers in the same footprint as a double decker bus?

 

[455driver]

how many cars/passengers in the same footprint as a double decker bus?

Don't spoil their dream!

 

[jon0844]

We'll end up having the same situation as the 50s/60s where everyone assumed - probably quite rightly at the time - that roads would replace the need for railways.

Even though I know cars will be a lot more automated, I am still not of the opinion that we'll have the true driverless cars or the cars we 'call' on demand that some members believe. At least not for ages, and only then if we get rid of all manually driven cars and work out how to keep people/animals away from the roads.

In other words, such a future is perfectly possible, but it isn't going to be cheap or easy.

Better systems to avoid accidents, such as cars being more aware of other vehicles and obstructions, will be a given rather than options on some cars - and cars will likely be able to communicate with others - but you'll still need manual drivers and will still only have so much capacity on the roads.

Even if every car has some form of adaptive cruise control for use in congested streets, you still can't simply make everyone get to where they want to go quickly if there's a load of people in front. And cars will still need to stop, which means places for them to stop and park.

In other words, I doubt public transport systems have much to fear this time around.

 

[LexyBoy]

Costing £30 billion to construct, it would remove tens of thousands of cars from the crowded streets above.[...] It would mean quieter neighbourhoods and cleaner air for millions of families living in the centre and along overcrowded arteries like the South Circular. Motorists would enjoy faster trips, with bottlenecks like the Earl’s Court one-way system given relief.

Like most bypass projects, the roads would be just as busy as at present in a short space of time. Doubly so in London where congestion is the main disincentive to driving over the alternatives. The Big Dig project in Boston cited in the article as a "success" has not made a dent on traffic levels long-term.

Still, not surprising from Boris who is naturally going to be pro-car rather than public transport - see also Boriswatch for some comment on the plans for Hammersmith.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Like most bypass projects, the roads would be just as busy as at present in a short space of time. Doubly so in London where congestion is the main disincentive to driving over the alternatives. The Big Dig project in Boston cited in the article as a "success" has not made a dent on traffic levels long-term.

Still, not surprising from Boris who is naturally going to be pro-car rather than public transport - see also Boriswatch for some comment on the plans for Hammersmith.

Boris is really not "pro-car". I wouldn't say he's huge on pushing public transport, but then Boriswatch seems to just rubbish every single thing he backs, regardless of what it is.

 

[LexyBoy]

Agreed Boriswatch gets a bit tiresome with its hobbyhorses - still banging on about the "Roastmaster" for example. But has he done anything pro-public transport? I'd say not - the NBfL is a monstrous waste of money at the same time the Mayor is cutting bus subsidy by 10-20% a year, and the other developments (Crossrail, Overground) were in place before he came to office. And of course he axed the western extension of the congestion charge zone pretty sharpish.

Maybe he's not pro-car in a strong sense. Anyways, this scheme looks classic Boris - expensive, flashy and a waste of time. And not going to happen.

 

[Robertj21a]

Agreed Boriswatch gets a bit tiresome with its hobbyhorses - still banging on about the "Roastmaster" for example. But has he done anything pro-public transport? I'd say not - the NBfL is a monstrous waste of money at the same time the Mayor is cutting bus subsidy by 10-20% a year, and the other developments (Crossrail, Overground) were in place before he came to office. And of course he axed the western extension of the congestion charge zone pretty sharpish.

Maybe he's not pro-car in a strong sense. Anyways, this scheme looks classic Boris - expensive, flashy and a waste of time. And not going to happen.

All true, but why shouldn't he cut the subsidy by quite a bit ?

Londoners don't seem to appreciate that their bus fares on Oyster are ridiculously cheap when compared to virtually anywhere outside the TfL area.

Robert

 

[radamfi]

Londoners don't seem to appreciate that their bus fares on Oyster are ridiculously cheap when compared to virtually anywhere outside the TfL area.

Singles are cheap, but only if you don't need to change buses. If you do, then for a return trip you will be paying the daily cap of £4.40, which is in line with day ticket prices outside London.

 

[deltic]

We'll end up having the same situation as the 50s/60s where everyone assumed - probably quite rightly at the time - that roads would replace the need for railways.

Even though I know cars will be a lot more automated, I am still not of the opinion that we'll have the true driverless cars or the cars we 'call' on demand that some members believe. At least not for ages, and only then if we get rid of all manually driven cars and work out how to keep people/animals away from the roads.

In other words, such a future is perfectly possible, but it isn't going to be cheap or easy.

Better systems to avoid accidents, such as cars being more aware of other vehicles and obstructions, will be a given rather than options on some cars - and cars will likely be able to communicate with others - but you'll still need manual drivers and will still only have so much capacity on the roads.

Even if every car has some form of adaptive cruise control for use in congested streets, you still can't simply make everyone get to where they want to go quickly if there's a load of people in front. And cars will still need to stop, which means places for them to stop and park.

In other words, I doubt public transport systems have much to fear this time around.

Partially automated vehicles are slowly being introduced, from self parking to slow speed automatic driving when stuck in traffic. I can see fully automated cars operating in certain circumstances within 20 years eg motorways and possibly everywhere by around 2050. The unknown as to their impact will be the cost of the vehicles and fuel and road pricing. They have the potential to decimate public transport in smaller urban areas and less heavily used inter urban areas, although driverless buses could make the bus far more cost effective. However, limited road capacity within cities such as London will mean the road network could not accommodate car demand and rail network would be little impacted.