The planned pedestrian bridge from Temple to the South Bank has, effectively, been scrapped by Sadiq Khan, as he has refused to write a blank cheque from the taxpayer to see the work completed. Or, in fact, started.
Should we go ahead with the bridge? Was it the right decision to scrap it? Does London - a city with 7 million inhabitants and 7 million trees - need to build a bridge, in order to plant roghly 200 more at £1m each?
Should the architect of Britain's austerity - George Osborne - have granted £30m of taxpayers' money to a project which will have £3m a year on-going costs, for ever? Have we, as Londoners, had a good deal from Boris Johnson's commitment, which has cost us £46m and, in return, we've got... well, what? Anything?
And, most importantly, will Boris, or anyone else, have to face charges for what seems to be a monumental waste of money, "chumocracy" of the worst kind, a flawed procurement process and walking away from the farce, leaving others to deal with the mess (an accusation for which Johnson has a great deal of familiarity)?
One thing is for sure: we really should expect London's evening newspaper to be all over this, holding Boris Johnson and George Osborne to account.
15
Comments
See also his bloated, uneconomic 'routemaster'
One of the other reasons this won't go ahead, is because there is a major infrastructure project on the go in the 'super sewer' currently being built to serve London and the South.
It will have a major impact around the area of the 'Garden Bridge' and will take precedence over it. A lot of preparatory work has already been completed along the river front on the north side of the Thames and will not be delayed while the faffing continues over this bridge.
I don't think it's fair to point the finger at Khan completely, the politics over this have rankled on for some time, and IMO there have been a lot of delaying tactics by some parties knowing the sewer project will not be held up.
A lot of money has been lost on this by some.
@Chizz I hadn't seen the £3m a year costs. Could that not have been offset by parking Boris's water cannons at either end to do the watering??
I mean, he held a competition amongst three firms of architects to decide which one to grant the bridge project to. Then, once the competition was complete, the contract was awarded to Thomas Heatherwick. Who's he? The man Boris chose to design the new routemaster.
trendiest designer of needless tat right nownew Leonardo Da Vinci?I think his record speaks for itself
So, what happens now? Private business to proceed without the public money? I doubt it. Litigation over who said what, who signed what? And Boris Johnson. Again. Fares up throughout his time as Mayor. And the commitment of public money to something that the public was not properly consulted about.
Better, say I, that the money went into the upkeep of local parks and gardens. Another modern-day farce.
Thames Central Open Spaces [website of opposition to the bridge. Requires updating as of 28 April] https://tcos.org.uk/
abridgetoofar.co.uk/take-action/
Johnson's achilles heel is that he is not a details man. The devil, however, is in the detail.
I believe we (Londoners) can take him down.
I asked her why and she said it would cost a huge amount to tax payers for something that was not needed and then would be closed most evening to the public as they would hire it out to business for events. I thought it sounded like an infrastructure project that would employ people, add something different, and, over time, show a return from money made from all the evil business people renting it in the evening. I didn't sign the petition!