Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]

[anonymous-user]

SpeckledJim said:

OpulentBob said:

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

As a way to cross a big river like the Thames at that point, is it generally cheaper to build a bridge or a tunnel?

(accepting there are dozens of 'it depends on' and quickly ignoring them, because I'd just like a neat little answeroid)

Probably bridge. It can be built pretty much in a factory and driven to site in sections. Much easier to maintain. Much nicer to use/work on.

[captain_cynic]

OpulentBob said:

Probably bridge. It can be built pretty much in a factory and driven to site in sections. Much easier to maintain. Much nicer to use/work on.

This,

I saw the Bangkok airport rail extension, pylon bases had to be constructed on site, but the pylons and railway segments (Bangkok is mainly an elevated railway) were fabricated elsewhere and transported to the site by rail. They'd literally build the next segment from the one they just made.

But with the Dartford M25 crossing... Wouldn't it make more sense to put in a relief bridge/road nearby to try and stop so many vehicles from crossing at one point?

[Clockwork Cupcake]

captain_cynic said:

Facebook is bleeding users left, right and centre... Mainly due to their own f**ked up UI design.

Another reason is that Facebook has become "the kind of place where my parents and grandparents are" to the younger generation, so they are leaving.

[48k]

captain_cynic said:

But with the Dartford M25 crossing... Wouldn't it make more sense to put in a relief bridge/road nearby to try and stop so many vehicles from crossing at one point?

They already did.

[captain_cynic]

48k said:

captain_cynic said:

But with the Dartford M25 crossing... Wouldn't it make more sense to put in a relief bridge/road nearby to try and stop so many vehicles from crossing at one point?

They already did.

I meant one a few miles up/down river to bypass the M25 completely.

[anonymous-user]

captain_cynic said:

OpulentBob said:

Probably bridge. It can be built pretty much in a factory and driven to site in sections. Much easier to maintain. Much nicer to use/work on.

This,

I saw the Bangkok airport rail extension, pylon bases had to be constructed on site, but the pylons and railway segments (Bangkok is mainly an elevated railway) were fabricated elsewhere and transported to the site by rail. They'd literally build the next segment from the one they just made.

But with the Dartford M25 crossing... Wouldn't it make more sense to put in a relief bridge/road nearby to try and stop so many vehicles from crossing at one point?

The original Dartford crossing was intended to relieve the Blackwall tunnel. And the LTC is proposed to relieve the Dartford crossing... (It's only a couple of miles upstream)

[V8mate]

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

[anonymous-user]

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

Not exactly - the aim isn't to make it awful to generate further support. Natural traffic growth will significantly impact on the existing problems. I know it's amusing/cathartic to imagine deliberate pro-congestion policies, but they simply do not exist. There may be traffic issues that are essentially helpful to other more contentious schemes, but they will be side effects and not targeted results.

But. The funding for any significant potential improvement will (probably) be diverted to the LTC. Essential maintenance will still happen, but the bridge/tunnel won't be widened/increased.

[Shakermaker]

OpulentBob said:

Probably bridge. It can be built pretty much in a factory and driven to site in sections. Much easier to maintain. Much nicer to use/work on.

but then a bridge for something like the Thames, in that situation, has to be tall enough to let big ships underneath, how much extra cost does that add? Probably still less than tunneling, but you can use a tunnel in high winds..

[V8mate]

OpulentBob said:

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

Not exactly - the aim isn't to make it awful to generate further support. Natural traffic growth will significantly impact on the existing problems. I know it's amusing/cathartic to imagine deliberate pro-congestion policies, but they simply do not exist. There may be traffic issues that are essentially helpful to other more contentious schemes, but they will be side effects and not targeted results.

But. The funding for any significant potential improvement will (probably) be diverted to the LTC. Essential maintenance will still happen, but the bridge/tunnel won't be widened/increased.

So we're agreed then. Good

[AppleJuice]

Prince Charles: King Charles III or another title?

[anonymous-user]

Shakermaker said:

OpulentBob said:

Probably bridge. It can be built pretty much in a factory and driven to site in sections. Much easier to maintain. Much nicer to use/work on.

but then a bridge for something like the Thames, in that situation, has to be tall enough to let big ships underneath, how much extra cost does that add? Probably still less than tunnelling, but you can use a tunnel in high winds..

Doesn't have to be that tall - the big ships will dock at Felixstowe, Harwich, Tilbury, Gateway. Maybe a masted boat will need to go through but you can gain 6m clearance by going through at low tide. I'm sure it's not a massive problem in practice. Adding height wouldn't add a huge amount, IMO. A bit more material maybe, but the planning and land and utilities and structural calcs would probably all be the same method/cost.

(Yes, lots of "probably"s in there!)

[anonymous-user]

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

Not exactly - the aim isn't to make it awful to generate further support. Natural traffic growth will significantly impact on the existing problems. I know it's amusing/cathartic to imagine deliberate pro-congestion policies, but they simply do not exist. There may be traffic issues that are essentially helpful to other more contentious schemes, but they will be side effects and not targeted results.

But. The funding for any significant potential improvement will (probably) be diverted to the LTC. Essential maintenance will still happen, but the bridge/tunnel won't be widened/increased.

So we're agreed then. Good

All apart from the "as bad as possible".

[Jonboy_t]

captain_cynic said:

Jonboy_t said:

I saw a tv advert for Facebook last night which got me thinking - do huge companies actually get any significant benefit from advertising?! Surely everyone knows about Facebook/Coke/Apple etc?

(As you may be able to tell, I know nothing about marketing so this may be a stupid question!)

Facebook is bleeding users left, right and centre... Mainly due to their own f**ked up UI design.

For brands like coke or McDonalds, they get a huge benefit from advertising. Because they're fast moving, they quickly fade from consciousness so advertising is just a way of saying "We're still here, think of us... Wouldn't you like some McDonalds?". Its heavily affects sales as it will publicise the fact that they have a sale, special item or promotion on.

Apple is a bit different, advertising for them is a way of reinforcing their groupthink. Seeing as most Apple products sold are replacements for the same product, they are trying to prevent the loss of custom rather than increase it.

Cool, cheers

[V8mate]

OpulentBob said:

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

Not exactly - the aim isn't to make it awful to generate further support. Natural traffic growth will significantly impact on the existing problems. I know it's amusing/cathartic to imagine deliberate pro-congestion policies, but they simply do not exist. There may be traffic issues that are essentially helpful to other more contentious schemes, but they will be side effects and not targeted results.

But. The funding for any significant potential improvement will (probably) be diverted to the LTC. Essential maintenance will still happen, but the bridge/tunnel won't be widened/increased.

So we're agreed then. Good

All apart from the "as bad as possible".

But that is what will happen. If something is breaking/broken, leaving it will ensure that things become 'as bad as possible'. Just a natural consequence. And it's leading to exactly the kind of questions being posed above^.

[StevieBee]

Jonboy_t said:

I saw a tv advert for Facebook last night which got me thinking - do huge companies actually get any significant benefit from advertising?! Surely everyone knows about Facebook/Coke/Apple etc?

(As you may be able to tell, I know nothing about marketing so this may be a stupid question!)

The short answer is yes, it most certainly works. CokeCola is the world's most recognisable brand and to test the theory, some years ago they cut their global ad spend and sales dropped almost overnight. But there are more complex reasons at play too.

If you have a dominant position in the market place, you want to protect that position so committing a high spend to advertising means that anybody else looking to get in on the same market will have to at least match that spend if they want a slice of the pie. This increases the risk to them and thus makes entering a market much more risky and thus keeps the competition at bay.

Sometimes, big companies might want to attract more investment via shares or direct investment. Running major ad campaigns can have the effect of stimulating confidence amongst potential investors by demonstrating recognition of the brand.

And it's also worth noting that for the big companies, the proportional spend on advertising is fractional to the increased revenue only a small increase in sales a campaign might stimulate would deliver.

[StevieBee]

OpulentBob said:

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

Is anyone in the DoT or any other institution of relevant authority actually aware of the permanent congestion at the Dartford Tunnel and actively looking at ways to address it?

No. They are deliberately leaving it because they hate traffic and want the bridge solely for peds and cyclists and immigrants.

But.

How would you address it? There are 4 x lanes through the tunnel(s). Which means approximately 4800 vehicles/hour max. Or, 115,200 vehicles/day, if all tunnel bores were at 100% 24/7. (A standard traffic lane tends to block when it carries over 1200vph).

In 2016, the average daily flow was 122,681 vehicles - not spread out across the day, but in peaks and troughs.

Then you have to shut one bore to escort hazardous loads through (regularly).

Then you have to count for people who have "difficulty" - so foreign trucks, foreign drivers, people confused by the tolls, people breaking down, overheating, having accidents etc.

There are 5(?) lanes heading south over the bridge so the capacity is slightly higher, but still borderline breaking point.

There is simply not the space to have free-flowing traffic in either direction - and with all the development there, it is going to be cheaper and easier to put in the Lower Thames Crossing than find space for another tunnel/widen the bridge.

You were right in your first few words... they are deliberately leaving it to be as bad as possible, in order to generate wider public and political support for the Lower Thames Crossing

Not exactly - the aim isn't to make it awful to generate further support. Natural traffic growth will significantly impact on the existing problems. I know it's amusing/cathartic to imagine deliberate pro-congestion policies, but they simply do not exist. There may be traffic issues that are essentially helpful to other more contentious schemes, but they will be side effects and not targeted results.

But. The funding for any significant potential improvement will (probably) be diverted to the LTC. Essential maintenance will still happen, but the bridge/tunnel won't be widened/increased.

My original question was partly angry / rhetorical as I typed it sat in the usual jam towards the tunnel.

I've no doubt it's being looked at. the Lower Thames Cross will help.

FWiW...one issue I see is that there are many roads feeding traffic onto the approach road within a very short distance.

[anonymous-user]

StevieBee said:

My original question was partly angry / rhetorical as I typed it sat in the usual jam towards the tunnel.

I've no doubt it's being looked at. the Lower Thames Cross will help.

FWiW...one issue I see is that there are many roads feeding traffic onto the approach road within a very short distance.

London/South East England busy-ness, and the hulking great river that needs crossing and no way it can happen any further inland, maybe due to being the most expensive land going, and one of the busiest freight routes in Europe. All pretty impossible to change without some epic government plans and more budget than we could ever hope for. We need a hard winter, cut down the government pension liability, and then steal the £350M/week from the NHS, save it for ten years, then get China to come and fix it all.

[V8mate]

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

My original question was partly angry / rhetorical as I typed it sat in the usual jam towards the tunnel.

I've no doubt it's being looked at. the Lower Thames Cross will help.

FWiW...one issue I see is that there are many roads feeding traffic onto the approach road within a very short distance.

London/South East England busy-ness, and the hulking great river that needs crossing and no way it can happen any further inland, maybe due to being the most expensive land going, and one of the busiest freight routes in Europe. All pretty impossible to change without some epic government plans and more budget than we could ever hope for. We need a hard winter, cut down the government pension liability, and then steal the £350M/week from the NHS, save it for ten years, then get China to come and fix it all.

And a war!

[SpeckledJim]

V8mate said:

OpulentBob said:

StevieBee said:

My original question was partly angry / rhetorical as I typed it sat in the usual jam towards the tunnel.

I've no doubt it's being looked at. the Lower Thames Cross will help.

FWiW...one issue I see is that there are many roads feeding traffic onto the approach road within a very short distance.

London/South East England busy-ness, and the hulking great river that needs crossing and no way it can happen any further inland, maybe due to being the most expensive land going, and one of the busiest freight routes in Europe. All pretty impossible to change without some epic government plans and more budget than we could ever hope for. We need a hard winter, cut down the government pension liability, and then steal the £350M/week from the NHS, save it for ten years, then get China to come and fix it all.

And a war!

Between Kent and Essex!