Apparently one of the numerous green lights that a project goes through
has been given.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-Thames.html

Loved the reader's comment "how long before we get the first 'MUGGING'
over the thames??"

"Basil Jet" wrote:

Apparently one of the numerous green lights that a project goes through
has been given.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-Thames.html

Loved the reader's comment "how long before we get the first 'MUGGING'
over the thames??"

Not quite what I'd regard as the pinnacle of wit, but anyway.

The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.

The Sun article is spawned of this comprehensive TfL press release:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/19805.aspx

The press release in turn refers to some new (?) 'Cable car' pages on the
TfL website (part of the 'projects and schemes' section), which features a
couple of fly-through videos:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cablecar

The fly-through video of the route carefully glosses over the
quasi-wasteland east of Dock Road / Silvertown Way, part of which is used as
a breaker's yard, and is I think safeguarded from being developed because
it's a potential site of the approach roads to a new bridge or tunnel portal
linking Silvertown and the Greenwich peninsula.

As an aside, I hadn't come across the idea of a new vehicle ferry service to
Gallions Reach which is mentioned in the notes to editors at the end of the
aforementioned press release (not a brand new idea I see, but new to me).
It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might be
in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.

Going back to the cable car - if it is going to be built to open in time for
the Games, then things are going to have to move rapidly - otherwise it'll
end up like the Millennium Wheel that missed the millennium celebrations
(note the careful wording, pedants!) - though of course that's ended up
being a great success anyway... but it is right bang slap in the midst of
things, which the planned cable car is not.

"Mizter T" wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote:

Apparently one of the numerous green lights that a project goes through
has been given.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-Thames.html

Loved the reader's comment "how long before we get the first 'MUGGING'
over the thames??"

Not quite what I'd regard as the pinnacle of wit, but anyway.

The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.


The same thing happened to all the various Olympic construction
packages. Many of these were supposed to be financed wholly or partly
by private enterprise - notably the athlete's village and the media
centre. But the private sector wasn't remotely interested.

So it is with the cable car.

snip

It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might be
in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.


The cable car is going ahead because it is a quick fix that might just
be ready in time ... might.

Contrast that with the proposed East London River Crossing - a road
bridge to replace the Woolwich Ferry. ELRC has been on the cards
since the 1970s, but still hasn't been started, largely because the
road network to the south of ELRC doesn't have the capacity to take
the expected traffic.

"Bruce" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:
[snip]
The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.

The same thing happened to all the various Olympic construction
packages. Many of these were supposed to be financed wholly or partly
by private enterprise - notably the athlete's village and the media
centre. But the private sector wasn't remotely interested.

I demur from that characterisation of events - the private sector were
interested until the credit crunch kicked in (and at the most inopportune
moment in terms of the timing).


So it is with the cable car.

snip

It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of
vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might
be
in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.

The cable car is going ahead because it is a quick fix that might just
be ready in time ... might.

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's a quick fix because it doesn't really address any
of the issues


Contrast that with the proposed East London River Crossing - a road
bridge to replace the Woolwich Ferry. ELRC has been on the cards
since the 1970s, but still hasn't been started, largely because the
road network to the south of ELRC doesn't have the capacity to take
the expected traffic.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...
Apparently one of the numerous green lights that a project goes through
has been given.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-Thames.html

Loved the reader's comment "how long before we get the first 'MUGGING'
over the thames??"

How disappointing, from the subject line I had visions of San Francisco!

[Apols - managed to post an unfinished reply - this is the finished version]

"Bruce" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:
[snip]
The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.

The same thing happened to all the various Olympic construction
packages. Many of these were supposed to be financed wholly or partly
by private enterprise - notably the athlete's village and the media
centre. But the private sector wasn't remotely interested.

I demur from that characterisation of events - the private sector were
interested until the credit crunch kicked in (and at the most inopportune
moment in terms of project timing).


So it is with the cable car.

snip

It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of
vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might
be in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.

The cable car is going ahead because it is a quick fix that might just
be ready in time ... might.

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's a quick fix because it doesn't really address any
of the underlying cross-river access issues - it might relieve the Jubilee
line a bit, but I don't really see this as some sort of crucial transport
link, more of a novelty attraction type thing (in the broad mould of the
London Eye).


Contrast that with the proposed East London River Crossing - a road
bridge to replace the Woolwich Ferry. ELRC has been on the cards
since the 1970s, but still hasn't been started, largely because the
road network to the south of ELRC doesn't have the capacity to take
the expected traffic.

Boris of course cancelled the Thames Gateway bridge, which was the latest
iteration of the ELRC. Tis a thorny issue indeed.

"Mizter T" wrote:

[Apols - managed to post an unfinished reply - this is the finished version]

"Bruce" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:
[snip]
The 'we won't pay for it' - 'we'll provide upfront funding' - 'well, maybe
we'll end up paying for a bit of it' shift is kinda amusing - Boris might
eventually come to the realisation that fancy wordplay alone cannot make
things happen for free.

The same thing happened to all the various Olympic construction
packages. Many of these were supposed to be financed wholly or partly
by private enterprise - notably the athlete's village and the media
centre. But the private sector wasn't remotely interested.

I demur from that characterisation of events - the private sector were
interested until the credit crunch kicked in (and at the most inopportune
moment in terms of project timing).


I agree that the credit crunch arrived at a bad time, but the private
sector had already rejected both the media centre and the athletes'
village as being unsuitable for private involvement because of their
designs. I doubt that the credit crunch played any part in their
decision.

I concede that the credit crunch can probably take the blame for other
Olympic projects not being funded by the private sector. However, I
did not mention those projects. I would make the general comment that
the private sector contribution to the cost of London 2012 is as close
to zero as makes no significant difference.


So it is with the cable car.

snip

It's perhaps slightly peculiar that there's all those mentions of
vehicular
river crossing options appended to the press release, when the cable car
obviously isn't going to cater for that demand, but I suppose that might
be in anticipation of questions being asked as to why the cable car is
(supposedly) going ahead whilst the thorny issue of other new river
crossings remains up in the air.

The cable car is going ahead because it is a quick fix that might just
be ready in time ... might.

Hmm, I wouldn't say it's a quick fix because it doesn't really address any
of the underlying cross-river access issues - it might relieve the Jubilee
line a bit, but I don't really see this as some sort of crucial transport
link, more of a novelty attraction type thing (in the broad mould of the
London Eye).


I wasn't suggesting it was a significant, or even useful transport
link. Its importance is purely symbolic, in that Something Must Be
Seen To Be Done. The cable car is that Something.


Contrast that with the proposed East London River Crossing - a road
bridge to replace the Woolwich Ferry. ELRC has been on the cards
since the 1970s, but still hasn't been started, largely because the
road network to the south of ELRC doesn't have the capacity to take
the expected traffic.

Boris of course cancelled the Thames Gateway bridge, which was the latest
iteration of the ELRC. Tis a thorny issue indeed.


It's a thorny issue because politicians have had to accept that they
must take on board the views of people whose lives and environment
would be significantly affected by ELRC - or the Thames Gateway
Bridge, if you prefer. I would observe that no such consideration has
been shown to people living on or near the proposed route of HS2.

"Mizter T" wrote
the thorny issue of other new river crossings remains up in the air.

Up in the air? You mean they're *all* going to be cable cars?

* Cable Car - It's hard to write about such 'nature-based'tourism Development without mentioning about Cable Car
* Skyrail Rainforest Cableway, is a world first in environmental tourism. Skyrail is also the World's Most Beautiful Rain-forest Experience - Cairns, Australia 1995
* Cable Car has been in operation since November 2000, in The Botanical Garden which is situated in the Inn Quinta do Bom Sucesso - Madeira Island, seven minutes from the centre of Funchal city, Portugal.