You are so quick to pick up on tiny references in these videos- even when you have no idea what they reference! "Local bridge, for local people" is a misquote from the Comedy series "League of Gentlemen" which features (amongst many weird and wonderful characters) a brother and sister who run a small shop on isolated moorland, which they are at pains to tell everyone is a "Local shop for Local people" These characters have distinctive pig-like noses, which is what you spotted. The quote has passed into British cultural life- you often here references to something being a 'Local X for local people' It's a well known planning phenomenum that if you build more roads (or tunnels, in this case) then it encourages more car journeys, and after a few years (months even) the roads are as crowded as they were before the 'improvements'.
15:30 He's talking about "induced demand" which is a very well known and understood phenomenon in urban planning, and has seen practical proof all over the world, especially in the USA. The more roads you build, the more people will drive untill they're all congested again. Adding lanes and widening roads and highways only encourages more people to drive, quickly completely saturating the road or highway again in a matter of years or even months. This phenomenon is especially pronounced with cars, because they're inherently inefficient when it comes to space usage, especially when there's barely 1-2 people per car on average in those 2 ton steel boxes. And this isn't even taking into account all the space that needs to be allocated for parking these metal boxes both in the public space and at home. Induced demand also works for cycling, walking and public transit. The more pleasant and safe infrastructure you build for these modes, the more it attracts users. But the difference is that cycling, walking and public transit are far more space efficient and can carry far more people while using FAR less space. Just one example: a metro/underground line with a frequency of 5 minutes can transport over 30 000 people per hour easily. And that's on two rial tracks, one in each direction, only as wide as a two lane street. For a road or highway to transport 30 000 people per hour, you'd need a 8-10 lane highway over 20m wide, and even then it'd probably not reach those numbers. For example the Brooklyn bridge in new York carries slightly less than 5000 vehicles per hour, about 120 000 per day. And that's with 5 lanes solely dedicated to motor traffic. A few years back one lane of 6 was converted to a cycle lane and that one lane carried at the start about 1200 cyclists per day, but is now quickly approaching 5000 per day or 200 per hour. And it's nowhere even near capacity. And that's with the space of just one 2.5m car lane. There are bike paths just as wide/narrow in the Netherlands that carry over 20 000 - 30 000 commuter cyclists per day! The modern subway crossings in new York through tunnels and over other bridges can easily carry 30 000 people per hour, on only 2 tracks, one in each direction. So you see, induced demand very much is a well understood and well proven thing that really exists. The massive 8-10 lane highway systems in cities all over the cities of the USA that are still congested are proof enough of this. Every single highway in which billions were invested to add "just one more lane" was congested again almost immediately after the "upgrade". Private cars are just so incredibly space inefficient, they'll never work in dense urban areas without either massive continuous congestion, or without a ton of alternative modes of convenient and safe alternative modes of transport like cycling, walking, and public transit. The problem is that many cities in N-america simply do not have any alternatives to the car and simply do not even offer the alternative to safely and conveniently walk or cycle somewhere. I advise you react to the "not just bikes channel". He explains all this in a funny, clear, and concise way from the perspective of someone who has lived all over the world in all kinds of cities, but now lives in the Netherlands. And he explains a lot of these urban planning principles we've known about for over half a century now, but were ignored completely in N-America up until the last 10 years.
The League of Gentlemen is about as far from American TV humour that you can get. Deeply weird - I love it. There's a local shop for local people run by a couple with pig-like snouts... I did say weird. ua-cam.com/video/F75d01l5AxM/v-deo.htmlsi=XT-wj08n9TJys--_
It's set in the fictional town of Royston Vasey (the real name of comedian Roy Chubby Brown) but it's filmed in the real town of Hadfield in Derbyshire. Originally it was set in Alston, Cumbria. A complex answer to a question that wasn't even asked.
"People could just walk across the river" fun fact, people now and then did used to be able to cross the river. Occasionally in very harsh winters, the Thames would freeze over, and when this occurred, they held frost fairs on the river. Not only did people walk across it, but you'd have circus tents, food stalls, ice skating; normal standard fairground stuff, on a frozen river. These occurred not every year of course, but between 625 to 1814, so only for about 1200 years
They will NEVER drain the Thames. It is a huge supplier of London's water supply. Draining it would cause water shortages all over the city and a new source would have to be found that could reasonably supply around 10 million people. Remember, people build cities near rivers for a reason. It is only worth draining the river if it has become useless to everyone but the Thames isn't. Plus, there are a bunch of canal boats people live on so that would make a good 5,000+ people homeless whom you now how to provide housing for and that is even if you got their support to drain it in the first place. It is definitely never happening.
@@maozedong8370 Well, I should've thought if anyone would be in favour of all that, it would be you, most honourable Chairman. Who knows, perhaps it would initiate a Great Leap Forward
The world was a much cooler (colder) place in general for large parts of that period of time you highlighted. There was a 'mini ice age' in there at some point. The world now has been trending towards a warmer period of it's life. These cycles have been recorded to take place for thousands of years and most likely have happened for unknown millions of years before that when there were no written records of it.
@maozedong8370 But the water wouldn't just vanish - the Thames is a major river with a large catchment area, not a lake. The water would still have to be conveyed to the sea, by buried tunnels (like Bazalgette's 19th-century sewers and the new Thames Tideway Tunnel recently opened), which would actually be cleaner than the pollution-vunerable open river. As for canal boat dwellers, there is already a network of canals in London, where most occupied boats moor - linking it up further to replace the gaps caused by an absent Thames would be comparatively trivial, and make it easier for canal boats to use - the Thames itself can get quite rough!
In most towns and cities, the prevailing wind is from the west. So all the well-off people tended to settle in the western part to escape the smell and smoke. The richest areas would usually be in the west, and the industrial areas would usually be in the east.
Mentioned was the Tower bridge construction. Tower bridge was built by the Victorians using the new British technology of the day, building with metal beams. Both the Tower bridge & Westminster Parliament were constructed with this method & were then cladded with stone. The Victoria tower at Westminster Parliament was the tallest metal beamed building in the World when constructed in 1860 at a height of 323 ft. The first multi floored building built with metal beams was in England: Ditherington Flax Mill had been built in 1797 using cast iron beams. The first iron bridge can be seen at Iron Bridge in Shropshire England & was completed in 1779. The use of quality steel (including beams for construction) was also created in Britain, with the Bessemer process (Sir Henry Bessemer) in 1856. Sir Alastair Pilkington invented the process of manufacture of plate glass. Imagine New York or any other modern city globally without three of Britain's greatest inventions, building with metal beams, making steel & plate glass for windows!! Lol. 🇬🇧❤🇺🇸
@@h-Qalziel Thank you for your comment & a fine bridge it is too! 👍 Of course the guy hardly reads his comments, so won't learn anything you or i have stated. All the Best.
The local shop set was built quite close to where I used to live. For years after it was burnt down in the programme people would come looking for it. I was asked a number of times 'where is it?'. The answer I gave was 'you do know it was burnt down, don't you?'
West London and East London are very cool in different ways. I work in London a couple of days each week, near Ealing Art College, where Freddie Mercury used to go. Ronnie Wood from the Rolling Stones went there too. There are many stories about musicians, writers, artists, etc....we are very lucky with our talent and our architecture!
Millennium Bridge: if I remember rightly, once a few 00 people were walking across it, the weight caused it to jiggle/sway a tiny tiny little bit.... but the subconscious minds/bodies of all the people crossing end up walking in tune with the sway... which very quickly compounds the issue!
I have watched (on YT) a video about a bridge somewhere in America (maybe called the Silver something ? Bridge) which swayed as traffic crossed it and it actually fell down - whilst vehicles were actually using it and a dog in a van, died. 😢🐕🦺😢 I _think_ the bridge had to be 'completely redesigned' & rebuilt, to stop it happening again).
When his nose looks weird he is referencing“the league of gentlemen” a British comedy series. A mix of comedy/ horror….it’s not to everyone’s taste, but give it a try😉 I’m new to your channel, loving your reactions to uk stuff 😂 Would be great to actually see you react to some classic British comedy series. 😊👍
The skit with the fake nose, when he said "a local bridge, for local people", was a reference to a comedy show called "The League of Gentlemen" and an inbred couple who run the village shop, "this is a local shop for local people". The reason Tower Bridge is the only one to the East of the Port of London is, it's a drawbridge, so the roadway rises up to allow ships with masts to get underneath. .
His odd nose appearance is referencing 'The League of Gentlemen' - a UK surreal horror comedy that was set in a fictitious town - Royston Vasey - a reference itself the real name of Roy Chubby Brown - a notorious British 'blue' comedian. There was a sketch about a local shop, kept by two weird sisters (played by men) who would serve only local people "a local shop for local people". The sisters had that odd turned-up nose.
This has probably been mentioned already. However, I don't have time to check out all the comments at the moment, so apologies if you've already read this... The river passing through London is the river Thames. Pronounced 'Tems'. At the estuary, it flows into the North Sea. It is a tidal river. At the estuary, there are two high tide and two low tide times per day. East of the boundary of Greater London, on the northern shore of the river, is the county of Essex. On the south shore of the river is the county of Kent. There are two Bridges on the river Thames east of London Bridge. The iconic Tower Bridge, located close by the Tower of London. This bridge is the subject of another of Jay Foreman's London videos. The other bridge is located much further east at the Dartford/Thurrock Crossing between Kent and Essex. The bridge itself is named the 'Queen Elizabeth II Bridge'. It was opened officially by HM the late Queen in 1991 and forms part of the M25 ring road around outer London. All lanes of traffic across the bridge travel in one direction. From Essex south to Kent. The traffic travelling on the M25 north from Kent to Essex goes through two tunnels under the river.
@2:16: They're connected. Because there was shipping there, any bridge build would have to be moveable like tower bridge, open wide enough for ocean-going ships plus their rigging, and across a wider part of the river. All of which comes with drawbacks and costs. Or they would need to be extremely tall with massive off- and on-ramps, which is an even worse idea.
It was difficult to build realistic bridges to the east of the port and docks otherwise the ships wouldn't haven't been able to get through to the docks and unload their cargoes !
The Millennium Bridge problem was not due to the weight of people using it. It had a resonant frequency that caused it to wobble due to people walking in step, like marching soldiers.
A v good example if an architectural phenomenon I can't recall the name of, which basically says 'it's not enough that it's safe it has to FEEL safe'. It didn't need modifying but no-one would use it otherwise.
Hammersmith Bridge closure is not without issues, much of the traffic shifted to Putney Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge, and this has had an impact on the local traffic there and also to the bridge structures themselves.
The problem with draining the Thames is the river is massive. Where would all the inland water go that the Thames sends to the sea? The Thames is not just London. It's a massive ecological feature of England. So no, we cannot just drain it. It's not even a consideration that can be taken seriously. It was a joke. It's the longest river in England.
It's a fairly known fact that building new roads (including bridges for cars) or widening roads, or raising speed limits, causes slower traffic in towns even surprisingly smallish. It's a bit unintuative, but was proven by American traffic researchers back in the 50ies if I remember correctly.
I love Rotherhithe, the east of tower bridge, it makes for lovely Tameside walking, free of traffic and has fascinating beaches and history going back centuries. Of course, it’s local to me.
A really frustrating and surprising consequence, even further along the Thames to the Estuary, is jobs. Your job market is cut in half completely, but you’re still bombarded with jobs being less than a mile away by job sites! It’s so frustrating!!! ‘Hi, we have your dream job 0.5 miles away! Apply now!’ ‘Oh yes where? Oh. It’s a 2 hour drive!’
He taped his nose up when saying "local bridge, for local people" as there's some characters in comedy show The League of Gentleman who have that nose and say they run "a local shop, for local people". Deep cut.
@ 7:22 when you asked what was with his nose and if in reference to something, yes! The somewhat surreal and dark comedy progranne of the late 90's early 00's "The League of Gentlemen" [AKA "the League of Gents"] written by a team of 4 men, 3 of whom play all the characters in the show. It is worth checking out, I recommend you do watch them in order though because there is a loose throughline that connects everything so it makes (slightly) more sense. in particular the nose relates to Edward and Tubbs who run the local shop. It is a good show, but it is a local show for local people...there's nothing for you here!
It's a well known fact in urban design. "One more lane, bro!" is a meme for urban transport geeks, because we all know that adding an extra lane to a highway makes traffic worse, not better. The principle is known as "induced demand". Similarly, making cycling infrastructure better encourages people to cycle, and thereby takes cars off the road, reducing traffic and also making things better for the people who do have to drive for whatever reason.
The nose thing is a reference to characters in a BBC comedy series called the League of Gentlemen and the upturned nosed characters catch phrase was.. "a local shop for local people."
Tower Bridge raises, allowing masted ships to pass underneath it. Any bridge down stream would necessarily have to do the same but be bigger because the river is wider there.
There’s a few issues with removing the river, wildlife is one, but also a number of other rivers outside London come from the Thames, it’d have really far reaching consequences and would straight ruin a number of businesses which would damage the economy
I'm subbed and watched all of Jay's vids, but I also really enjoyed watching your reaction to it. I live not far from the river and as a young 17yo 30 years ago worked the pleasure boats taking American tourist from Westminster Pier to Hampton Court and back, fun trips but Richmond on the way is the best spot.
until the mid 20th century London was one of busiest ports in the world. so ships sailed up the Thames and were offloaded by huge cranes that have since been removed. ppl may remember the cranes lowering in salute as the barge carrying Winston Churchill to his resting place passed by in 1965.
Shipping - East London is a port - if you want ships to get to it you can’t have convention bridges because the ships can’t get past. If you really must have a bridge it has to be high (like the Sydney Harbour Bridge), lift (like Tower Bridge) or turn - all of which are complex and expensive, especially as the span increases. Tower Bridge was expensive, if you needed to build something similar to the east it would need to be wider so even more complex and expensive.
I know all too well how bad it is in East London. I live north of the Thames and live directly opposite an industrial site 😅. I would be happy for more bridges connecting the north to the south, although I would worry about more people trying to come over to my area more often, increasing crime rates. I like how my part feels like its own village.
I honestly don't know if you're ready for The League of Gentlemen. I loved it, but even then I knew it was freaky. Papa Lazarou still gives me shivers.
I’ve lived in both East London and Southeast London, most people just use public transport instead of driving, especially if we need to cross the river, it’s much quicker!
The logic is the same for motor bridges and pedestrian bridges. If you build more ways to cross by using X means of transport, that means of transport will become more popular. You build more tunnels for cars? You encourage people to drive more cars. You build more bridges for bikes? You encourage more people to drive bikes. The demand for transport isn't entirely static, but assuming it were, then people will choose their mode of transportation based on what is easy, fast, and cheap. So if you make it faster and easier to take the car than go by bike, that's what people tend to do.
That traffic increases when you build more roads is a well-known phenomenon related to induced demand. There are various videos on here explaining how and when it happens.
His nose is a reference to a TV program called Little Britan where one of the characters (either for real or because of make-up) has a nose like that....the phrase he uses [local for local people] is used in the program.
The reason his nose changed, was because of an oldish comedy sketch show called "The League of Gentlemen". Your going to have to watch the show to get the reference, but i was laughing at it. So it is worth a look.
when London was the biggest port in the world the ships where sailing ships travelling from London the the sea meant going east the river being wider meant it was impossible to build a bridge long enough to span the river and high enough for the sailing ships to pass under the only option was to build more bridges like tower bridge and because of the span that would have been far too expensive the cheap option was to build no bridges to the east also remember at this time people traveled by horse and cart and as most trade took place in London there was little need to consider local traffic
the idea of more infrastructure dedicated to cars making more car journeys and thus prioritising other public transport or pedestrian solutions is actually very well documented, unfortunately the UK is far far behind the rest of Europe with this idea who have already seen massive effect from adopting such policies. as for the US it simply flat out refuses to consider the idea despite it being suggested many many times from both internal and international sources, the US design has always focused around the use of cars and its lack of any decent mass transit systems means to even start to benefit from such a policy it would need to redesign most of its transport infrastructure.
Often, unless you can get an excessive amount of capacity for cars, building more infrastructure just means more people shift to driving, but increase their travel times. For example, 3 years after the Katy Freeway expansion to 26 lanes, travel times had increased by 30-60 % during rush hour, because it caused so much additional traffic. A new car tunnel will cause more traffic in the neighboring areas, which will make walking and cycling slower, less pleasant and more dangerous, and will make public transport slower. So people will shift to cars. If you could build enough capacity, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue, then it would only cost in terms of healthcare, quality of life and environment, not travel times. But that would be impossible in London.
Height! The ocean going tall-ships would need a very high bridge, the ports were all east of the bridges. Only London Bridge has a centre rising section.
You are right to be sceptical of a view of civil engineering based upon a potential change in the way people travel. The only reason "the tide is shifting" in London, is because transport in London is absolute hell. I would expect ULEZ and Congestion Charging are the real culprits of people not using cars. That, and how shitty it is to drive a car in London. If they actually built these tunnels and bridges rather than spending millions just talking and researching them, it wouldn't funnel all the traffic across a limited number of bridges. If you consider that now, if you want to get across to the other bank in the East, you have to drive across London, go across a bridge/tunnel, and then drive across London again... or go out of London, to the M25 and go all around London and then back in, a bridge or tunnel in the East makes perfect sense. And if he's correct, and "green" transport takes over, then just convert that car bridge to a pedestrian one later. It's not like the costs are hugely different.
There is only one to the esat. Tower bridge which opens tolet shipsthough. London was a port so in the age of sailing ships yiu would have to make any bridges high!
One of the reasons that all the industry was in the East rather than the West, was that the prevailing winds were from the West and therefore the stink of the poor and the industrial processes was carried out to the sea.
They have proved that, if you build a road people use it, but it does not improve the traffic flow of the area you are trying to help. You just have to look at our national car park, commonly known as the M25. The M25 is a road to nowhere, basicly it's the biggest 2 way round about in the world. All it does is go around London. The idea of it was to relieve the traffic problem in London, which it did not. The M25 started off as a mix of 2 and 3 lane segments, it got so bad they had to upgrade the 2 lane segments to 3 lane, now there is/was talk of increasing it to 4 lanes each way, as it is so congested.
At which point it will surely continue to be the giant circular car park that it's always been. The M25 is to be avoided unless you've no other option.
Canary Wharf is (mostly) full of *redacted* but occasionally my partner as his office is there. Still a pain in the arse to navigate though, especially when meeting up with said person.
2 tunnels soon to be 3 and a HUGE bridge and the woolwich ferry all east of tower bridge EDIT actually soon to be 4 tunnels forgot about the woolwich walking tunnel
Draining the river wouldn't work lol😂 cause the river stretches long past London, and provides water to English canels that are popular with our amazing long boats
could you imagine the smell of a thames if it were to be drained? I know some life is returning to it as its gotten cleaner but im pretty sure it has had long amounts of time where next to nothing could live in it safely from all the sewerage and pollution. If you were to drain it the smell and amount of rubbish found at the bottom would be awful haha.
It cost £53mill to cancel the garden bridge. A string of consultancies and architects needed paying. The idea of removing road access to cars to reduce traffic is not a good one if you are doing so before alternative transport os in place. Car access is also useful to business where public transport is not suitable. So to make bridges in East London but not allow cars to cross it will not benefit the prosperity of the region, even with cycle connections, light rail and public footpaths. To close a two lane road for cycle use only in order to discourage cars is having minimal impact on the air quality and simply making life more difficult if your not sporty or at least spy and time rich enough for public transport.
Consider each journey taken within a city and decide if it is profitable or not for the individual and therefore tax revenue of the borough. A commute over the bridge would have to be more efficient and comfortable for the traveller to be attractive and be valuable. If the underground is not as good then foot and cycle traffic could increase in that area. This might encourage food and retail on the street level for passing traffic But when you need to deliver a large high value item to a household and you can’t drive to collect it yourself, you would have to order a delivery and reduced the purpose of a physical retail location. So the ultimate effect of punishing drivers is to reduce economic activity in the area and increase demand for warehouses in industrial parks. What this means is that large areas become similar to the kind of environment you see in the pre-industrial age of barren working areas with only transient residents living in in bedsits for as little as a night. So you city centre is nice and pretty and quiet. But it’s not a working place and has become gentrified. What this means is that the residents are not contributing tax in the same quantities that a mix of commerce, business and light industry would be contributing and the more remote, working locations become relative to the area. To remove car traffic is to limit movement. The solution to congestion is not punishing drivers but improving public transport. Without offering a better option it simply harms economic activity.
@@iwanttocomplain Yes, the reason you have problems with car traffic in the first place is the concentration of workplaces in particular locations. If you reduce connectivity then this concentration will increase in the long-run as businesses are forced to relocate nearer to the remaining major connections. This strains these remaining connections even more than before. The solution is maximising transport connectivity and transport options as well as the facilitation of work-from-home to enable businesses and workplaces to efficiently spread out across the land as much as possible.
@EvsEntps I’m not sure what you’re proposing. An urban sprawl? If you replace office space with residential in urban areas, you will reduce economic activity. There’s no reason to do this on environmental grounds. Working from home is facilitated by providing office space and free child care for every employee. As isolation affects mental health, a move like this will trigger additional stress and possibly reduce productivity. If all this is on the name of reducing greenhouse emissions then I’m not sure it’s helpful.
You are so quick to pick up on tiny references in these videos- even when you have no idea what they reference!
"Local bridge, for local people" is a misquote from the Comedy series "League of Gentlemen" which features (amongst many weird and wonderful characters) a brother and sister who run a small shop on isolated moorland, which they are at pains to tell everyone is a "Local shop for Local people" These characters have distinctive pig-like noses, which is what you spotted. The quote has passed into British cultural life- you often here references to something being a 'Local X for local people'
It's a well known planning phenomenum that if you build more roads (or tunnels, in this case) then it encourages more car journeys, and after a few years (months even) the roads are as crowded as they were before the 'improvements'.
ua-cam.com/video/F75d01l5AxM/v-deo.html
Keep going on the Jay Foreman reactions.
15:30 He's talking about "induced demand" which is a very well known and understood phenomenon in urban planning, and has seen practical proof all over the world, especially in the USA.
The more roads you build, the more people will drive untill they're all congested again. Adding lanes and widening roads and highways only encourages more people to drive, quickly completely saturating the road or highway again in a matter of years or even months.
This phenomenon is especially pronounced with cars, because they're inherently inefficient when it comes to space usage, especially when there's barely 1-2 people per car on average in those 2 ton steel boxes. And this isn't even taking into account all the space that needs to be allocated for parking these metal boxes both in the public space and at home.
Induced demand also works for cycling, walking and public transit. The more pleasant and safe infrastructure you build for these modes, the more it attracts users. But the difference is that cycling, walking and public transit are far more space efficient and can carry far more people while using FAR less space.
Just one example: a metro/underground line with a frequency of 5 minutes can transport over 30 000 people per hour easily. And that's on two rial tracks, one in each direction, only as wide as a two lane street. For a road or highway to transport 30 000 people per hour, you'd need a 8-10 lane highway over 20m wide, and even then it'd probably not reach those numbers.
For example the Brooklyn bridge in new York carries slightly less than 5000 vehicles per hour, about 120 000 per day. And that's with 5 lanes solely dedicated to motor traffic. A few years back one lane of 6 was converted to a cycle lane and that one lane carried at the start about 1200 cyclists per day, but is now quickly approaching 5000 per day or 200 per hour. And it's nowhere even near capacity. And that's with the space of just one 2.5m car lane. There are bike paths just as wide/narrow in the Netherlands that carry over 20 000 - 30 000 commuter cyclists per day! The modern subway crossings in new York through tunnels and over other bridges can easily carry 30 000 people per hour, on only 2 tracks, one in each direction.
So you see, induced demand very much is a well understood and well proven thing that really exists. The massive 8-10 lane highway systems in cities all over the cities of the USA that are still congested are proof enough of this. Every single highway in which billions were invested to add "just one more lane" was congested again almost immediately after the "upgrade". Private cars are just so incredibly space inefficient, they'll never work in dense urban areas without either massive continuous congestion, or without a ton of alternative modes of convenient and safe alternative modes of transport like cycling, walking, and public transit. The problem is that many cities in N-america simply do not have any alternatives to the car and simply do not even offer the alternative to safely and conveniently walk or cycle somewhere.
I advise you react to the "not just bikes channel". He explains all this in a funny, clear, and concise way from the perspective of someone who has lived all over the world in all kinds of cities, but now lives in the Netherlands. And he explains a lot of these urban planning principles we've known about for over half a century now, but were ignored completely in N-America up until the last 10 years.
Love NotJustBikes 🧡
He was referencing a tv program the league of gentleman you wont like it, its for local people.
The League of Gentlemen is about as far from American TV humour that you can get. Deeply weird - I love it. There's a local shop for local people run by a couple with pig-like snouts... I did say weird. ua-cam.com/video/F75d01l5AxM/v-deo.htmlsi=XT-wj08n9TJys--_
and they won't burn you!
@@muppeteer You heard the man Tubbs, get undressed.
I am a (South East) Londoner and wherever 'The League of Gentlemen' is set / made, I _don't_ like it, at all !
It's set in the fictional town of Royston Vasey (the real name of comedian Roy Chubby Brown) but it's filmed in the real town of Hadfield in Derbyshire. Originally it was set in Alston, Cumbria. A complex answer to a question that wasn't even asked.
"People could just walk across the river" fun fact, people now and then did used to be able to cross the river. Occasionally in very harsh winters, the Thames would freeze over, and when this occurred, they held frost fairs on the river. Not only did people walk across it, but you'd have circus tents, food stalls, ice skating; normal standard fairground stuff, on a frozen river. These occurred not every year of course, but between 625 to 1814, so only for about 1200 years
They will NEVER drain the Thames. It is a huge supplier of London's water supply. Draining it would cause water shortages all over the city and a new source would have to be found that could reasonably supply around 10 million people. Remember, people build cities near rivers for a reason. It is only worth draining the river if it has become useless to everyone but the Thames isn't. Plus, there are a bunch of canal boats people live on so that would make a good 5,000+ people homeless whom you now how to provide housing for and that is even if you got their support to drain it in the first place.
It is definitely never happening.
@@maozedong8370 Well, I should've thought if anyone would be in favour of all that, it would be you, most honourable Chairman. Who knows, perhaps it would initiate a Great Leap Forward
The world was a much cooler (colder) place in general for large parts of that period of time you highlighted. There was a 'mini ice age' in there at some point. The world now has been trending towards a warmer period of it's life. These cycles have been recorded to take place for thousands of years and most likely have happened for unknown millions of years before that when there were no written records of it.
@maozedong8370 But the water wouldn't just vanish - the Thames is a major river with a large catchment area, not a lake. The water would still have to be conveyed to the sea, by buried tunnels (like Bazalgette's 19th-century sewers and the new Thames Tideway Tunnel recently opened), which would actually be cleaner than the pollution-vunerable open river.
As for canal boat dwellers, there is already a network of canals in London, where most occupied boats moor - linking it up further to replace the gaps caused by an absent Thames would be comparatively trivial, and make it easier for canal boats to use - the Thames itself can get quite rough!
In most towns and cities, the prevailing wind is from the west. So all the well-off people tended to settle in the western part to escape the smell and smoke. The richest areas would usually be in the west, and the industrial areas would usually be in the east.
In London you can add the smell and pollution of the Thames puting people off living downstream. Worryingly, I think that still applies.
The Silvertown Tunnel is no longer "proposed", it's being built, right now.
Yup, and I'm sure the residents of Newham will absolutely love the pollution and congestion the tunnel will introduce.
Mentioned was the Tower bridge construction. Tower bridge was built by the Victorians using the new British technology of the day, building with metal beams. Both the Tower bridge & Westminster Parliament were constructed with this method & were then cladded with stone. The Victoria tower at Westminster Parliament was the tallest metal beamed building in the World when constructed in 1860 at a height of 323 ft. The first multi floored building built with metal beams was in England: Ditherington Flax Mill had been built in 1797 using cast iron beams. The first iron bridge can be seen at Iron Bridge in Shropshire England & was completed in 1779. The use of quality steel (including beams for construction) was also created in Britain, with the Bessemer process (Sir Henry Bessemer) in 1856. Sir Alastair Pilkington invented the process of manufacture of plate glass. Imagine New York or any other modern city globally without three of Britain's greatest inventions, building with metal beams, making steel & plate glass for windows!! Lol. 🇬🇧❤🇺🇸
To add to this, the first major structure in the UK made of steel was the Forth Bridge in Scotland, completed in 1890.
@@h-Qalziel Thank you for your comment & a fine bridge it is too! 👍 Of course the guy hardly reads his comments, so won't learn anything you or i have stated. All the Best.
The local shop set was built quite close to where I used to live. For years after it was burnt down in the programme people would come looking for it. I was asked a number of times 'where is it?'. The answer I gave was 'you do know it was burnt down, don't you?'
You missed a trick by saying ''that's local knowledge for local people''
West London and East London are very cool in different ways. I work in London a couple of days each week, near Ealing Art College, where Freddie Mercury used to go. Ronnie Wood from the Rolling Stones went there too. There are many stories about musicians, writers, artists, etc....we are very lucky with our talent and our architecture!
That clip in the Rotherhithe tunnel must be old, because the traffic is moving.
I once walked through the Rotherhithe tunnel and can report that his coughing was an understatement of what it’s like.
Millennium Bridge: if I remember rightly, once a few 00 people were walking across it, the weight caused it to jiggle/sway a tiny tiny little bit.... but the subconscious minds/bodies of all the people crossing end up walking in tune with the sway... which very quickly compounds the issue!
I have watched (on YT) a video about a bridge somewhere in America (maybe called the Silver something ? Bridge) which swayed as traffic crossed it and it actually fell down - whilst vehicles were actually using it and a dog in a van, died. 😢🐕🦺😢 I _think_ the bridge had to be 'completely redesigned' & rebuilt, to stop it happening again).
@@brigidsingleton1596 That was the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge. There is video of its collapse in November 1940, just four months after it opened
@@boz1810
Ah, thank you. I couldn't recall the name of the bridge.
Break step in the Army when marching over bridges to stop the resonance building till it collapsed.
The millennium bridge swaying was nothing to do with weight, it was caused by harmonic resonance, ie people walking in step. Even the Romans knew this
When his nose looks weird he is referencing“the league of gentlemen” a British comedy series. A mix of comedy/ horror….it’s not to everyone’s taste, but give it a try😉
I’m new to your channel, loving your reactions to uk stuff 😂
Would be great to actually see you react to some classic British comedy series. 😊👍
"The fundamental Pacmanaty" must be one of the greatest phrases ever uttered.
The skit with the fake nose, when he said "a local bridge, for local people", was a reference to a comedy show called "The League of Gentlemen" and an inbred couple who run the village shop, "this is a local shop for local people". The reason Tower Bridge is the only one to the East of the Port of London is, it's a drawbridge, so the roadway rises up to allow ships with masts to get underneath. .
"Does it harbour a lot of wildlife that would miss it ?" - great pun (even if it unintentional).
His odd nose appearance is referencing 'The League of Gentlemen' - a UK surreal horror comedy that was set in a fictitious town - Royston Vasey - a reference itself the real name of Roy Chubby Brown - a notorious British 'blue' comedian. There was a sketch about a local shop, kept by two weird sisters (played by men) who would serve only local people "a local shop for local people". The sisters had that odd turned-up nose.
Sisters? Which show were you watching? The characters were actually a (married?) couple.
Fair enough - just relying on memories of a long time ago. Take care.@@DaveBartlett
This has probably been mentioned already. However, I don't have time to check out all the comments at the moment, so apologies if you've already read this...
The river passing through London is the river Thames. Pronounced 'Tems'.
At the estuary, it flows into the North Sea.
It is a tidal river. At the estuary, there are two high tide and two low tide times per day.
East of the boundary of Greater London, on the northern shore of the river, is the county of Essex. On the south shore of the river is the county of Kent.
There are two Bridges on the river Thames east of London Bridge.
The iconic Tower Bridge, located close by the Tower of London. This bridge is the subject of another of Jay Foreman's London videos.
The other bridge is located much further east at the Dartford/Thurrock Crossing between Kent and Essex.
The bridge itself is named the 'Queen Elizabeth II Bridge'. It was opened officially by HM the late Queen in 1991 and forms part of the M25 ring road around outer London.
All lanes of traffic across the bridge travel in one direction. From Essex south to Kent.
The traffic travelling on the M25 north from Kent to Essex goes through two tunnels under the river.
@2:16: They're connected. Because there was shipping there, any bridge build would have to be moveable like tower bridge, open wide enough for ocean-going ships plus their rigging, and across a wider part of the river. All of which comes with drawbacks and costs. Or they would need to be extremely tall with massive off- and on-ramps, which is an even worse idea.
It was difficult to build realistic bridges to the east of the port and docks otherwise the ships wouldn't haven't been able to get through to the docks and unload their cargoes !
(because they were tall, due to sails and masts and stuff)
The Millennium Bridge problem was not due to the weight of people using it. It had a resonant frequency that caused it to wobble due to people walking in step, like marching soldiers.
A v good example if an architectural phenomenon I can't recall the name of, which basically says 'it's not enough that it's safe it has to FEEL safe'. It didn't need modifying but no-one would use it otherwise.
I thought it wasn't about weight! That didn't seem right. Gosh, it was soooo long ago since all that happened.
Hammersmith Bridge closure is not without issues, much of the traffic shifted to Putney Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge, and this has had an impact on the local traffic there and also to the bridge structures themselves.
The problem with draining the Thames is the river is massive. Where would all the inland water go that the Thames sends to the sea? The Thames is not just London. It's a massive ecological feature of England. So no, we cannot just drain it. It's not even a consideration that can be taken seriously. It was a joke. It's the longest river in England.
It's a fairly known fact that building new roads (including bridges for cars) or widening roads, or raising speed limits, causes slower traffic in towns even surprisingly smallish. It's a bit unintuative, but was proven by American traffic researchers back in the 50ies if I remember correctly.
I love Rotherhithe, the east of tower bridge, it makes for lovely Tameside walking, free of traffic and has fascinating beaches and history going back centuries. Of course, it’s local to me.
Thames side not Tame. Tameside is a district of Greater Manchester
@@pedanticradiator1491 Sue me, I made a typo!
A really frustrating and surprising consequence, even further along the Thames to the Estuary, is jobs. Your job market is cut in half completely, but you’re still bombarded with jobs being less than a mile away by job sites! It’s so frustrating!!!
‘Hi, we have your dream job 0.5 miles away! Apply now!’
‘Oh yes where? Oh. It’s a 2 hour drive!’
Hehe Google almost anything in Margate and Google thinks Southend is your next nearest option 🤣
Tower Bridge opens up .Any Bridges to the East would have to be bigger and open up even more for shipping.
4:00. Jay is about to discover why walking through the Rotherhithe tunnel is a bad idea! I did it once when I was young and foolish. Never again....
Keep reacting to him please!
recommend watching them in order though
The League of Gentlemen is a bucket list must to watch. very funny and excellent acting
He taped his nose up when saying "local bridge, for local people" as there's some characters in comedy show The League of Gentleman who have that nose and say they run "a local shop, for local people". Deep cut.
@ 7:22 when you asked what was with his nose and if in reference to something, yes!
The somewhat surreal and dark comedy progranne of the late 90's early 00's "The League of Gentlemen" [AKA "the League of Gents"] written by a team of 4 men, 3 of whom play all the characters in the show. It is worth checking out, I recommend you do watch them in order though because there is a loose throughline that connects everything so it makes (slightly) more sense.
in particular the nose relates to Edward and Tubbs who run the local shop.
It is a good show, but it is a local show for local people...there's nothing for you here!
I have walked under the Thames from Greenwich to the Isle of Dogs. Quite an experience !!
7:45
It's a well known fact in urban design. "One more lane, bro!" is a meme for urban transport geeks, because we all know that adding an extra lane to a highway makes traffic worse, not better. The principle is known as "induced demand". Similarly, making cycling infrastructure better encourages people to cycle, and thereby takes cars off the road, reducing traffic and also making things better for the people who do have to drive for whatever reason.
The nose thing is a reference to characters in a BBC comedy series called the League of Gentlemen and the upturned nosed characters catch phrase was.. "a local shop for local people."
Tower Bridge raises, allowing masted ships to pass underneath it. Any bridge down stream would necessarily have to do the same but be bigger because the river is wider there.
There’s a few issues with removing the river, wildlife is one, but also a number of other rivers outside London come from the Thames, it’d have really far reaching consequences and would straight ruin a number of businesses which would damage the economy
I'm subbed and watched all of Jay's vids, but I also really enjoyed watching your reaction to it. I live not far from the river and as a young 17yo 30 years ago worked the pleasure boats taking American tourist from Westminster Pier to Hampton Court and back, fun trips but Richmond on the way is the best spot.
until the mid 20th century London was one of busiest ports in the world. so ships sailed up the Thames and were offloaded by huge cranes that have since been removed. ppl may remember the cranes lowering in salute as the barge carrying Winston Churchill to his resting place passed by in 1965.
Full of See You Next Tuesdays is what he said, not literally of course.
I'm a new comer to you, and your reactions are pretty soothing
Shipping - East London is a port - if you want ships to get to it you can’t have convention bridges because the ships can’t get past. If you really must have a bridge it has to be high (like the Sydney Harbour Bridge), lift (like Tower Bridge) or turn - all of which are complex and expensive, especially as the span increases. Tower Bridge was expensive, if you needed to build something similar to the east it would need to be wider so even more complex and expensive.
I know all too well how bad it is in East London. I live north of the Thames and live directly opposite an industrial site 😅.
I would be happy for more bridges connecting the north to the south, although I would worry about more people trying to come over to my area more often, increasing crime rates. I like how my part feels like its own village.
I honestly don't know if you're ready for The League of Gentlemen.
I loved it, but even then I knew it was freaky. Papa Lazarou still gives me shivers.
I’ve lived in both East London and Southeast London, most people just use public transport instead of driving, especially if we need to cross the river, it’s much quicker!
The guys channel,has some informative and funny videos.
The Millienium bridge is now perfectly safe and still but the nickname 'The Wobbly Bridge' stuck for years after it was fixed.
JJLA, the beeped word at 5:36 was c*nts. 😂
cun*s
And he was right.
Otherwise known as w@ankers also known as Bankers
And never a truer word spoken.
You absolutely have to watch comedy series League of Gentlemen to get the local bridge for local people reference 😄
The logic is the same for motor bridges and pedestrian bridges.
If you build more ways to cross by using X means of transport, that means of transport will become more popular.
You build more tunnels for cars? You encourage people to drive more cars.
You build more bridges for bikes? You encourage more people to drive bikes.
The demand for transport isn't entirely static, but assuming it were, then people will choose their mode of transportation based on what is easy, fast, and cheap. So if you make it faster and easier to take the car than go by bike, that's what people tend to do.
London's most famous bridge, Tower Bridge, is to the east of London Bridge. I think it's the most easterly. Is why it opens for boats.
Fantastic!
your own work is not bad in comparison with them.
thanks for being here!
That traffic increases when you build more roads is a well-known phenomenon related to induced demand. There are various videos on here explaining how and when it happens.
More Jay Foreman
2.31 most ships back then we're still under sail and could not fit under bridges. Masts over 100' tall were not uncommon.
His nose is a reference to a TV program called Little Britan where one of the characters (either for real or because of make-up) has a nose like that....the phrase he uses [local for local people] is used in the program.
The reason his nose changed, was because of an oldish comedy sketch show called "The League of Gentlemen". Your going to have to watch the show to get the reference, but i was laughing at it. So it is worth a look.
JJ you _meant_ to say, "...no bridges East of Tower Bridge" 🤔?! _Not_ "East of London Bridge", as _Tower_Bridge_ _is_ East of London Bridge. 😊❤🖖
The Silvertown tunnel is well underway. Just a pity it will cost a fortune in tolls to use.
His nose is a reference to amazing dark comedy show The League of Gentlemen!
A local bridge for local people is a reference to league of gentlemen, a dark comedy series
when London was the biggest port in the world the ships where sailing ships travelling from London the the sea meant going east the river being wider meant it was impossible to build a bridge long enough to span the river and high enough for the sailing ships to pass under the only option was to build more bridges like tower bridge and because of the span that would have been far too expensive the cheap option was to build no bridges to the east also remember at this time people traveled by horse and cart and as most trade took place in London there was little need to consider local traffic
The dock walls were built very high, so that light-fingered Dockers couldn't throw contraband over them to their mates in the street.
the idea of more infrastructure dedicated to cars making more car journeys and thus prioritising other public transport or pedestrian solutions is actually very well documented, unfortunately the UK is far far behind the rest of Europe with this idea who have already seen massive effect from adopting such policies.
as for the US it simply flat out refuses to consider the idea despite it being suggested many many times from both internal and international sources, the US design has always focused around the use of cars and its lack of any decent mass transit systems means to even start to benefit from such a policy it would need to redesign most of its transport infrastructure.
The fact the millenium bridge never collapsed is pretty outstanding. Go look up some videos of the bridge swaying when it first opened. Terrifying.
No, you got it the wrong way round! To the east, it's wider and marshy as you head towards the North Sea and sunny Southend on Sea.
Its been proven that the amount of traffic increases whenever new roads are built rather than easing pressure elsewhere.
Often, unless you can get an excessive amount of capacity for cars, building more infrastructure just means more people shift to driving, but increase their travel times.
For example, 3 years after the Katy Freeway expansion to 26 lanes, travel times had increased by 30-60 % during rush hour, because it caused so much additional traffic.
A new car tunnel will cause more traffic in the neighboring areas, which will make walking and cycling slower, less pleasant and more dangerous, and will make public transport slower. So people will shift to cars.
If you could build enough capacity, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue, then it would only cost in terms of healthcare, quality of life and environment, not travel times. But that would be impossible in London.
Am a new subsciber, I really enjoy your lack of "YO, WHAD UP UA-cam" and nice passive tone.
Height! The ocean going tall-ships would need a very high bridge, the ports were all east of the bridges. Only London Bridge has a centre rising section.
A couple of shopkeepers in the black comedy League of Gentlemen had noses like this and were always saying the shop was local for local people 😂
He said a local bridge for local people is a quoute from the tv series The League of Gentlemen hence the nose rhing
Can you imagine the amount of archaeological discoveries that we'd find if we drained the Thames?!
You should see some of his music and comedy. Try “slightly imperfect girl” for starters :).
I approve of the Garden Bridge idea over all of them but ships?
You are right to be sceptical of a view of civil engineering based upon a potential change in the way people travel. The only reason "the tide is shifting" in London, is because transport in London is absolute hell. I would expect ULEZ and Congestion Charging are the real culprits of people not using cars. That, and how shitty it is to drive a car in London.
If they actually built these tunnels and bridges rather than spending millions just talking and researching them, it wouldn't funnel all the traffic across a limited number of bridges.
If you consider that now, if you want to get across to the other bank in the East, you have to drive across London, go across a bridge/tunnel, and then drive across London again... or go out of London, to the M25 and go all around London and then back in, a bridge or tunnel in the East makes perfect sense. And if he's correct, and "green" transport takes over, then just convert that car bridge to a pedestrian one later. It's not like the costs are hugely different.
Yep you should definitely look up league of gentleman.
There is only one to the esat. Tower bridge which opens tolet shipsthough. London was a port so in the age of sailing ships yiu would have to make any bridges high!
Draining the river would impact any fish that spawn in rivers and grow up at sea like salmon and sharks and ?
And what happens upstream?
One of the reasons that all the industry was in the East rather than the West, was that the prevailing winds were from the West and therefore the stink of the poor and the industrial processes was carried out to the sea.
They have proved that, if you build a road people use it, but it does not improve the traffic flow of the area you are trying to help. You just have to look at our national car park, commonly known as the M25.
The M25 is a road to nowhere, basicly it's the biggest 2 way round about in the world. All it does is go around London. The idea of it was to relieve the traffic problem in London, which it did not. The M25 started off as a mix of 2 and 3 lane segments, it got so bad they had to upgrade the 2 lane segments to 3 lane, now there is/was talk of increasing it to 4 lanes each way, as it is so congested.
Much of the M25 has been an eight-lane "smart" car park, I mean, motorway, for years.
At which point it will surely continue to be the giant circular car park that it's always been. The M25 is to be avoided unless you've no other option.
I grew up in east london, never wanted to go south of the river and when I had to we walked through the Greenwich foot tunnel
Do we need the River Thames? As it is the whole point of Lkndon's existence, yes we do. We don't need cars, though.
Canary Wharf is (mostly) full of *redacted* but occasionally my partner as his office is there. Still a pain in the arse to navigate though, especially when meeting up with said person.
Use the Bridge you can see it in the video
My recommendation yay
The "nose " is aping "The League of Gentlemen".
There is very little wildlife in the Thames, the water is almost as toxic as a 4 chan thread. Almost.
The briges would have been in the way of ships east of Tower Bridge.
2 tunnels soon to be 3 and a HUGE bridge and the woolwich ferry all east of tower bridge EDIT actually soon to be 4 tunnels forgot about the woolwich walking tunnel
2:28 there were too many big ships in the ports so they would have to build big bridges able to fit these ships
Draining the river wouldn't work lol😂 cause the river stretches long past London, and provides water to English canels that are popular with our amazing long boats
could you imagine the smell of a thames if it were to be drained?
I know some life is returning to it as its gotten cleaner but im pretty sure it has had long amounts of time where next to nothing could live in it safely from all the sewerage and pollution.
If you were to drain it the smell and amount of rubbish found at the bottom would be awful haha.
I can tell you for a fact the beep at 5:31 was ''c**ts''
Little Britain Characters with selotaped noises.
League of Gentlemen, not Little Britain.
He covets the precious things
I personally don't want the river to be drained. The Thames is an iconic part of London and it would be a shame to lose it
The Thames basin covers a large part of southern England you couldn't drain it
It cost £53mill to cancel the garden bridge. A string of consultancies and architects needed paying.
The idea of removing road access to cars to reduce traffic is not a good one if you are doing so before alternative transport os in place. Car access is also useful to business where public transport is not suitable.
So to make bridges in East London but not allow cars to cross it will not benefit the prosperity of the region, even with cycle connections, light rail and public footpaths.
To close a two lane road for cycle use only in order to discourage cars is having minimal impact on the air quality and simply making life more difficult if your not sporty or at least spy and time rich enough for public transport.
Why not drain Venice and make some room?
Consider each journey taken within a city and decide if it is profitable or not for the individual and therefore tax revenue of the borough.
A commute over the bridge would have to be more efficient and comfortable for the traveller to be attractive and be valuable.
If the underground is not as good then foot and cycle traffic could increase in that area.
This might encourage food and retail on the street level for passing traffic
But when you need to deliver a large high value item to a household and you can’t drive to collect it yourself, you would have to order a delivery and reduced the purpose of a physical retail location.
So the ultimate effect of punishing drivers is to reduce economic activity in the area and increase demand for warehouses in industrial parks.
What this means is that large areas become similar to the kind of environment you see in the pre-industrial age of barren working areas with only transient residents living in in bedsits for as little as a night.
So you city centre is nice and pretty and quiet. But it’s not a working place and has become gentrified.
What this means is that the residents are not contributing tax in the same quantities that a mix of commerce, business and light industry would be contributing and the more remote, working locations become relative to the area.
To remove car traffic is to limit movement. The solution to congestion is not punishing drivers but improving public transport.
Without offering a better option it simply harms economic activity.
@@iwanttocomplain Yes, the reason you have problems with car traffic in the first place is the concentration of workplaces in particular locations. If you reduce connectivity then this concentration will increase in the long-run as businesses are forced to relocate nearer to the remaining major connections. This strains these remaining connections even more than before. The solution is maximising transport connectivity and transport options as well as the facilitation of work-from-home to enable businesses and workplaces to efficiently spread out across the land as much as possible.
@EvsEntps I’m not sure what you’re proposing. An urban sprawl? If you replace office space with residential in urban areas, you will reduce economic activity. There’s no reason to do this on environmental grounds. Working from home is facilitated by providing office space and free child care for every employee. As isolation affects mental health, a move like this will trigger additional stress and possibly reduce productivity. If all this is on the name of reducing greenhouse emissions then I’m not sure it’s helpful.
6:20 I can see my house.
the beeped word starts with a c and ends with t.