Possible London cable car

[HollyBlack]

Originally Posted by GaFe

100,000 a year = 274 a day.
Are u serious??

I stand corrected, capacities are indeed similar.
Source
http://www.poma.net/en/project/index/pdf/id/5

[CharlieP]

Isn't this roughly where they hold the Red Bull Air Race?

[iranair777]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Isn't this roughly where they hold the Red Bull Air Race?

we might be able to integrate it into the track of course.... fly under the span?

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Leeds No.1

Well yes but that's it isn't it. They're for steep areas with difficult terrain. aka not London. The money could go towards some far better transport links.

This one travels along the river, hardly steep terrain. Very much used.

[JamesWales]

Seems like an interesting idea to me.

Is it being proposed as a genuine transport solution though, or tourist folly?

[sirstan74]

I think it's great - tourist fodder which will have some transport benefits. We're not paying for it out of our taxes, and I don't agree it will be really ugly.

[woodgnome]

Bid for cable car to link 2012 Games venues imminent

-- Link to BBC article --

A planning application for a £25m cable car across the Thames will be submitted in a few weeks, BBC London has learned. The project is intended to link 2012 Olympics venues. It will connect Greenwich and the Royal Docks, carrying up to 2,500 passengers an hour.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show a planning application is imminent. Because it will be privately funded no definite commitment had previously been given. The cable car is designed to cut journey times between the 02 Arena and the ExCel exhibition centre - both of which are Olympic locations.

Kulveer Ranger, the Mayor of London's transport adviser, said: "Work is well under way ahead of the submission of a planning application to provide a cable car across the Thames. The mayor believes a cable car spanning our majestic river would provide a unique addition to the capital's sky line and proved a much needed boost to river crossings in the east of the city. We hope to able to make an announcement regarding a planning application this autumn and to be able to provide further details about third party funding by the end of the year."

[Sy]

I like the idea of this but I can't see how it can be up and running for the Olympics? I also hope they spend some money to make this looks nicer than most existing cable cars, especially the pylons.

[i_like_concrete]

The only heavy engineering work required would be the foundations for the pylons and the stations at either end... The wires could be fabricated quickly and the cars themselves can probably be purchased "off the shelf" as it were. I can imagine it being perfectly possible to construct in under two years. Probably less than a year if they really pulled out all the stops.

[Langur]

I've always like the idea of a cable car in London ever since it was mooted for the Millennium (they deceided on the London Eye and Millennium Dome instead). I'd like to this go ahead.

[Justme]

I know of only one successful urban cable car, and that would be the Roosevelt Island Tramway in New York. Yes, Barcelona has a spectacular one over it's harbour, but with very poor frequencies, a starting location in the middle of nowhere and incredibly high ticket costs, it is purely a tourist ride. The Roosevelt Island Tramway on the other hand uses the metrocard of the city's subway system so if fully integrated.

I've also seen in photos a system in at least one Chinese city, but have no other personal knowledge though it did look like a proper transport alternative rather than a tourist route.

As for this one in London, it even seems to fail as a tourist route.
A) it's not really on any tourist trail.
B) How many people use both the Arena in the Greenwich peninsula and Excel in one day?
C) Let's be honest, this part of the river isn't exactly around Big Ben or even the Tower Bridge, it's smack in the middle of an industrial wasteland and even the river is too tidal here to be considered attractive.

As for a commuter service, it does sound good when they mention a car available within seconds, but I can see a couple of major problems?

A) Will this be integrated into the Oyster card or be available to use on a standard travel card? I doubt it. London transport is expensive enough as it is, to add additional costs already onto a transport card does not attract custom.

B) Does it have any direct connections to the tube or DLR?

Overall, I wouldn't oppose this construction. Hell, if a private company funds it, good for them. The area is ugly enough already that this will hardly make it any uglier. So, if it's built, sure, I will ride it once. But I doubt if it will really achieve anything other than people in London saying that they also have an aerial cable car... even if it is useless.

[Rational Plan]

If it costs the same as an Oyster ticket of £1.30 then it can connect people living near or visiting the Excel centre with the Restaurants and Entertainment venues. There is not much going on at The Excel centre while the O2 centre has the best(if corporate) leisure offer in East London, very family orientated.

Plus as Greenwich peninsula develops it will pull in more people during the day.

On the other hand if they try an charge to high a price then it will just be tourist attraction and after the Olympics I'm not sure how busy it will be.

[stimarco]

Naples has a number of cable-based systems as part of its metro network, albeit mostly at grade (i.e. up steep hills) or, in at least one case, underground. They're all integrated into their fares system and even appear on the maps.

[Jon10]

Boris ‘breaks cash pledge’ to help pay for £40m Thames cable car

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...s-cable-car.do

[ajaaronjoe]

"I'm sorry folks, i let you down" and " i know i made a huge mistake"

image hosted on flickr



Yours, Boris

[Trances]

" But he has now directed the taxpayer-funded London Development Agency to put £1.2 million towards it"

1.2 million. Thats hardly anything

[Jon10]

Instead of always blaming politicians, is it (sometimes) civil engineers who are to blame?

A job like this must be a nice little earner. Underspecify to begin with, to convince the naiive politicans, then overspecify later.

[stimarco]

Originally Posted by Jon10

Instead of always blaming politicians, is it (sometimes) civil engineers who are to blame?

No. This is just a weak, pig-ignorant politician rolling over like a cheap 1980s ro-ro ferry and giving in to corporate blackmail:

"Hey! How about you give us some taxpayer dosh so we can 'guarantee' that this will be built in time for your Olympics event? Just conveniently ignore the fact that our business partners will be raking in plenty of profits from this."

"Ooh, er, crikey! Gosh! I suppose that makes sense! Can't have my London Olympics idea looking silly! Who do I ask my people to make the cheque out to?"

A job like this must be a nice little earner. Underspecify to begin with, to convince the naiive politicans, then overspecify later.

Civil engineers—at least those with letters after their names, and a sense of ethics—don't "underspecify". They're not allowed to. Engineering is a profession, with all that that implies: f*ck it up and people die! No civil engineer would jeopardise their reputation and career like this.

It's the politicians you need to aim your anger at. It's a businessman's job to try and get the best value for money for their shareholders. It's an accountant's job to trim costs to the bone and increase profits. And it's a politician's job to get the best value for money for his stakeholders: i.e. the taxpayers.

The civil engineers will have given a range of figures for the total project costs: "Best-case scenario: £X million. Worst-case scenario, £Y million." Where Y is often substantially greater X.

Naturally, the business owners are hardly going to advertise a worst-case figure. (Hence the government's insistence on adding an "optimism bias" to quotes from the private sector when it comes to most transport infrastructure projects.) The media only ever report the information they're given, but that information is invariably economical with the truth. A good businessman never puts all his cards on the table up-front.

The accountants will have tried to keep the project's costs to a minimum already, but they'll be as aware as the engineers and business owners that the figures quoted in the media will be for the best-case scenario only.

Naturally, as no plan ever survives contact with the enemy—in this case, London's geography, topology and myriad other unique features—that best-case scenario is no longer applicable. Costs inevitably creep upwards.

So the business' owners have tried to outstare Boris in an attempt to finagle some taxpayer cash to avoid having to risk even more of their own money up-front, by trying to blackmail the Mayor of London into letting the taxpayer shoulder some of that risk too.

Given Boris' track record, it's hardly surprising that he blinked first.

[DarJoLe]

He wants it built as quick as possible to get a few Evening Standard snaps on his new toy before the 2012 election.

[Langur]

By the time the LDA had "investigated" the scheme, it would have been too late for 2012. Time is of the essence. Boris did the right thing.