SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 2329 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Is there an overview of any additional electrification plans (except the Goblin)?

Some of the plans on these maps aren't new but are either cunningly added to make it look better (Thameslink) or were existing plans but had their funding increased (HS2).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·



"End of the road? Are major routes through cities outdated?"

"A report looking at Birmingham's transport network for the next 20 years has concluded the future of the Queensway tunnels should be examined. It is not the only place in the UK that relies on a route for cars through the city. So are such roads outdated?

"When it emerged Birmingham's Queensway tunnels would be closed for six weeks over the summer, it is no surprise there were predictions of 'chaos'.

"The main through route for the A38, the tunnels are used by thousands of drivers each day and have been an integral part of the city's transport network since they were built in the 1970s.

"There was some surprise, therefore, when the anticipated gridlock did not materialise."​


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25420370

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,911 Posts
Funnily enough said the same thing about them being an evolutionary dead end and that traffic should be diverted around city centres rather than through them while driving through the tunnels on the 27th :p
 

·
*THEIYR'RE
Joined
·
7,300 Posts
So how would you re-route traffic that currently uses Manchester's Mancunian Way (which while elevated as opposed to being in tunnels, does the same job)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,175 Posts
The thing about the Birmingham tunnels closure is though that there is no way of telling how the scare stories of potential gridlock affected peoples' transport choices (and thus in turn averted the gridlock). Had nothing been said, maybe it would have been gridlock.

If you keep cars out of city centres, then you keep people out of city centres.

I don't think the article is suggesting getting rid of traffic from the centre, but just overly wide roads and structures that form barriers. In the article they talk about Boston and how they took a highway underground.

Thinking about Birmingham, I can imagine some enhancements to the a38 that could come to similar effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
The thing about the Birmingham tunnels closure is though that there is no way of telling how the scare stories of potential gridlock affected peoples' transport choices (and thus in turn averted the gridlock). Had nothing been said, maybe it would have been gridlock.

If you keep cars out of city centres, then you keep people out of city centres.

I don't think the article is suggesting getting rid of traffic from the centre, but just overly wide roads and structures that form barriers. In the article they talk about Boston and how they took a highway underground.

Thinking about Birmingham, I can imagine some enhancements to the a38 that could come to similar effect.
Yes, it's not the tunnel itself that's the barrier, it's what the A38 does to Great Charles Street and Bristol Street, and that could all be improved. Most of the rest of the 'concrete collar' of the inner ring road has been demolished.

This was the 1946 plan:







There's a potted history at http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A4400

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,911 Posts
No the issue is that your directing traffic trying to cross the city into the city centre where they are competing for roadspace with those who want to use the city centre itself. By burying the freeway you remove the conflict, as in Boston they removed the on ramps connecting to the city centre and removed the ability to directly connect between the East-West and North-South freeways. That means traffic no longer interacting with city centre traffic and pushing the congestion out of the city centre and into the suburbs where the freeways are acessed from.

Before


After
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
No the issue is that your directing traffic trying to cross the city into the city centre where they are competing for roadspace with those who want to use the city centre itself. By burying the freeway you remove the conflict, as in Boston they removed the on ramps connecting to the city centre and removed the ability to directly connect between the East-West and North-South freeways. That means traffic no longer interacting with city centre traffic and pushing the congestion out of the city centre and into the suburbs where the freeways are acessed from.

Any idea if they seriously considered any alternative, like spending the same amount of money of rail and light-rail in the city?
 

·
IT City Planner
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
The Big Dig was an awesome project - cost billiions and billions of dollars - I spent a fair bit of time working in and around Boston in spates from 1995 to 2003 - and I never saw the job started, and never saw it finished; but having visited on holiday in 2011, the transformation of the east side of the city centre is unbelievable - the green elevated highway replaced by a park and a clear view to the waterside
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
The Big Dig was an awesome project - cost billiions and billions of dollars - I spent a fair bit of time working in and around Boston in spates from 1995 to 2003 - and I never saw the job started, and never saw it finished; but having visited on holiday in 2011, the transformation of the east side of the city centre is unbelievable - the green elevated highway replaced by a park and a clear view to the waterside
And meanwhile in Singapore, where there are massive disincentives to owning and running a car, massive projects such as the Marina Coastal Expressway are still considered to be a legitimate way of preventing the city becoming gridlocked, along with mass transit.

For cities in the UK I think the notion taking traffic off local streets and into tunnels is a valid proposition, so long as the space left behind can be given over to people. It's less about increasing road capacity and more about organising it to encourage a smoother faster flow and giving people streets back. Its about getting the right balance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
And meanwhile in Singapore, where there are massive disincentives to owning and running a car, massive projects such as the Marina Coastal Expressway are still considered to be a legitimate way of preventing the city becoming gridlocked, along with mass transit.

For cities in the UK I think the notion taking traffic off local streets and into tunnels is a valid proposition, so long as the space left behind can be given over to people. It's less about increasing road capacity and more about organising it to encourage a smoother faster flow and giving people streets back. Its about getting the right balance.
I hear what you say. As a test case, it will be interesting to see how the potential plans for replacing the Hamamersmith flyover with a tunnel develop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I hear what you say. As a test case, it will be interesting to see how the potential plans for replacing the Hamamersmith flyover with a tunnel develop.


I cannot see how they can expect to progress that. If they want an unbroken A4 tunnel from Hogarth Roundabout to Earl's Court, they will still need surface roads, which is unlikely to release much land for development.

And if they want slip roads at Hammersmith, they will need an awful lot of land.

This is one of the wealthiest local authorities in the UK (Hammersmith & Fulham) and maybe they could just put up with what they have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,738 Posts
I think the point is the flyover will need replacing at some point, so money has to be spent on another one or a tunnel, both relative degrees of being expensive. A tunnel would probably be more, but it also might offer better value in the broader sense over the longer-term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,890 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I think the point is the flyover will need replacing at some point, so money has to be spent on another one or a tunnel, both relative degrees of being expensive. A tunnel would probably be more, but it also might offer better value in the broader sense over the longer-term.
Much to the annoyance of Hammersmith & Fulham, the concrete of the flyover is apparently in good condition, and the current TfL work on the flyover's tensioned steelwork and the sliding expansion pads at the top of the columns has a design life of 60 years, so not until 2074!
 
1 - 20 of 2329 Posts
Top