Concept images London Bridge

Nice pictures but where is the traffic?

Well its not like anyone needs to work, live or deliver stuff round here is it?
(Sarcasm)

Davies wrote:

Well its not like anyone needs to work, live or deliver stuff round here is it?
(Sarcasm)

Spot on Davies.

What they should have done is invited local workers and residents – as well as businesses and property owners – to submit their ideas for any changes.

turtmcfly wrote:

What they should have done is invited local workers and residents – as well as businesses and property owners – to submit their ideas for any changes.

They did.

Obviously without more details on the practicalities of any suggested changes to traffic flows it's difficult to comment - but surely it's not such a bad thing to imagine a future where our public spaces are less dominated by motor cars?

James Hatts wrote:

turtmcfly wrote:

What they should have done is invited local workers and residents – as well as businesses and property owners – to submit their ideas for any changes.

They did.

Obviously without more details on the practicalities of any suggested changes to traffic flows it's difficult to comment - but surely it's not such a bad thing to imagine a future where our public spaces are less dominated by motor cars?

Yep, I know. I nicked most of the line word-for-word from the original story, as a rejoinder to Davies' tiresome post. I'm pretty much permanently pissed off with the petulant, reactionary and utterly, utterly tedious cynicism being displayed pretty much any time anything is announced by anyone who isn't an old lady with a Victoria Cross and some manner of (non-communicable, naturally) degenerative disease.

James Hatts wrote:

turtmcfly wrote:

What they should have done is invited local workers and residents – as well as businesses and property owners – to submit their ideas for any changes.

They did.

Obviously without more details on the practicalities of any suggested changes to traffic flows it's difficult to comment - but surely it's not such a bad thing to imagine a future where our public spaces are less dominated by motor cars?

I agree with your words completely, but there is an absurdity about the concept drawings article...

There is a *massive* difference between - being less dominated by motor vehicles - and - images with not a single motor car in sight on a main A road!. (Tooley and St Thomas are the A200).

And I suspect the businesses behind these proposals are only concerned with making the area a profit generating theme park, call me a cynic. I would suggest it is off the same page as the Garden Bridge and I blame Architects - <spits>! ;-)

You and I agree, Johnny!

johnnytee wrote:

And I suspect the businesses behind these proposals are only concerned with making the area a profit generating theme park, call me a cynic.

You're a cynic.

johnnytee wrote:

I blame Architects - <spits>

Of course you do <of course you do>

johnnytee wrote:

James Hatts wrote:

turtmcfly wrote:

What they should have done is invited local workers and residents – as well as businesses and property owners – to submit their ideas for any changes.

They did.

Obviously without more details on the practicalities of any suggested changes to traffic flows it's difficult to comment - but surely it's not such a bad thing to imagine a future where our public spaces are less dominated by motor cars?

I agree with your words completely, but there is an absurdity about the concept drawings article...

There is a *massive* difference between - being less dominated by motor vehicles - and - images with not a single motor car in sight on a main A road!. (Tooley and St Thomas are the A200).

And I suspect the businesses behind these proposals are only concerned with making the area a profit generating theme park, call me a cynic. I would suggest it is off the same page as the Garden Bridge and I blame Architects - <spits>! ;-)

There is half a car in image two, and a further 2.5 cars in image 4. A very 'nice' idea but probably not practical, and I'm sure nobody really thinks it will happen.

Image 3 is the most unrealistic of the lot though - a broad cycle lane which appears not to have pedestrians wandering aimlessly into it while staring at their phones, and not a single car parked in it either - it's like something from a movie.

The concept drawings are absurd.
If you take all of those streets out of circulation you create gridlock in the streets around them. How are deliveries to local shops supposed to work?
Someone has been paid to do some pretty pictures that have no research behind them into the impact on local businesses and people.

I am all for more trees and a cleaner nicer environment but proper planning has to be involved and viable alternatives for all the people and their journeys displaced by this plan. Round here a great deal that should have been preserved has been destroyed and none of it is about making it a nicer place to live and work, its about making it a nicer place to visit and making money for developers.

It's a Theme Park they want, not a functioning city that evolves to fit the needs of those who live and work here.

I would be delighted to have fewer cars on Londons streets but it has to be done intelligently and the first thing they can do is ban all diesel engines (if they are serious about health considerations and making the place safer). Starting with the busses and taxies and all delivery vehicles.