| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Engineers' view of what the tunnel construction would mean in Chiswick | |
| Posted by: | Thomas Barry | |
| Date/Time: | 15/02/15 23:23:00 |
| In that PDF they claim that traffic forecasts out to 2031 are for more traffic on the A4 corridor, but all the lovely illustrations show Hammersmith with a lot less roadspace (half the gyratory is removed, and the four lane flyover is replaced like for like by a four lane tunnel). You can't really have both in the same document if you're intending being honest. Mind you, that entire document cherrypicks the engineering report so badly as to be essentially best seen as a PR exercise. I particularly love page 19 which tries to explain why, the public having overwhelmingly rejected the short tunnel option they went ahead with studying it anyway while pretending to have the public's support. In fact, that slide goes to the heart of the problem; the public want the option that doesn't work (i.e. the one dreamt up by architects with no engineering input, and heavily pushed in the press and by the council), while the simpler option that is at least plausibly buildable would generate so much opposition ('hey, this isn't what you said originally, what gives?') that it wouldn't be possible. |