- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
The Garden Bridge as envisioned by Heatherwick StudioJoanna Lumley claims there is a transport case for the Garden Bridge
Responding to concerns over the use of public funds, Joanna Lumley has said that there is “a real need” for the controversial Garden Bridge. Lumley, one of the trustees of the Garden Bridge Trust, argues in a letter to The Telegraph that the project, which would exclude cyclists, would help to “encourage people to make short trips in central London by foot”.
The Garden Bridge is to undergo a full judicial review next month after a judge ruled that Lambeth council may have ignored potential funding gaps and omitted other information in granting planning permission. The Guardian has reported that the public will be liable for the bridge’s annual £3.5m maintenance bill as well as contributing an initial £60m towards construction costs.
The legal challenge was brought by Michael Ball, who says that some of the best views over the Thames will be compromised by the proposed £175m project. However, Lumley makes a case in favour of the bridge as “a suitable tribute to a much-loved river”. Lumley apparently sees others’ resistance as being little more than the fear of something new, adding “even St Paul’s was criticised by citizens when it was rebuilt.”
She then makes her case that the bridge would be a key piece of pedestrian infrastructure.
“There is a strong transport and infrastructure case for the project. The population of London is growing at its fastest rate since the Thirties. By 2030, London will be a city of 10 million people; this population growth means many more trips will be made on the transport network. We need to encourage people to make short trips in central London by foot.
“To cross the Thames in the quiet, away from the hustle and bustle of London life, will be a pleasure. The garden will be a place of peace and beauty, open to all, changing with the seasons, enchanting everyone who uses it, while also relieving congestion on our road and public transport networks and contributing to a healthier and greener city.
“The bridge will display the best of British design, engineering and landscaping talent. There won’t be anywhere else like it in the world.”
Rosie Downes, campaigns manager at London Cycling Campaign, takes a rather different view.
"Joanna Lumley rightly highlights the increasing pressures on London's transport network as a result of our city's growing population, but expensive plans with no provision for cycling are clearly not the answer. London's congestion (and pollution) issues could be tackled in a more effective and economical way by transforming the city's existing river crossings into spaces which are safer and more inviting for cycling – for example by reducing motor traffic volumes on nearby Waterloo Bridge."
Another new bridge across the Thames has also been proposed a little way downstream linking Nine Elms and Pimlico. A study by Transport for London found that there was a strong transport case for providing a new crossing in this area and so the bridge will be designed with cyclists in mind.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 4 sec ago
A plebiscite? Is that like when you start a petition calling for a new general election because you don't like the result of the last one?
- Flintshire Boy 24 min 24 sec ago
[Sorry - wrote mine before saw yours! You make the point much better than I.] .
- grOg 3 hours 5 min ago
Where does it state in the article that Ashley purchased the stock? it does state that Ashley bought the brand and intellectual property, not the...
- rogerwb 5 hours 45 min ago
Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.
- momove 6 hours 48 min ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 7 hours 35 min ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- Daddy Feebs 8 hours 38 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 9 hours 14 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 9 hours 29 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
Add new comment
34 comments
@FluffyKittenofT
definitely go have a look at the green bridge in Mile End Park when you have some spare time - its brilliantly realized, and was partly responsible for Mile End Park receiving a share of the the Millenium SRB (single regeneration budget) because it allowed the team behind Mile End Park to link the north and south elements of the park together using a dedicated transport route for pedestrians and cyclists.
I know this because I was part of the team responsible for regenerating this area - my specific responsibility was to raise the funding (£980,000) for a canopy-covered skatepark with internet cafe at the southern tip of the park, next to what is now the electric go-kart track and an outdoor concrete skatepark (another story with alleged political corruption, for another time..)
Installing infrastructure like the green bridge in Mile End Park can transform the way that people on foot, and on bicycles, can move across a city by removing the barriers of major roads or rivers like the Thames
Imagine the new bridge for the Thames with proper pedestrian and cycling infrastructure as well as pleasant gardens, and you can see the real potential.
London Bridge in 1682 with houses and retail shops, instead of gardens
Can you imagine how much those houses would be worth now...?
Corporatism is one element of fascism. But fascism also has lots of other elements, and using that inflammatory* word just unnecessarily distracts from the valid point, that its a bad thing to use public money for private projects.
I mean, one could get into a long argument about what fascism really is, whether its the natural development of capitalism, whether its a kind of socialism or at least has socialist elements, or whether its something else all of its own, blah, blah, blah, but does that really help with arguing about cycling and this bridge?
I don't think people have to agree on an analysis of political philosophy to think the bridge is a bad idea.
I didn't know that East London park bridge existed. I'll have to cycle over there and have a look at some point.
* [inflamm-a-tory - to set fire to a member of the Conservative party]
The Mile End green bridge is absolutely brilliant. Waste an hour with google maps following the major A roads and railway links out of London, and often they're literally a wall dividing suburbs into two halfs. Dozens of projects like this could be built for the same money, and would be of much greater benefit.
My last flog of this dead horse.
Crikey, your quotes don't contradict my definition of fascism. It's just a PR gloss that doesn't address who owns the corporations and the corporate state. The fact that it's written in the past tense is another distraction. Every economy that is based on a fiat currency issued by banks in the form of an interest-bearing loan to taxpayers (e.g. UK, US, Euro zone, etc.) is fascist today.
FluffyKittenofT..., Mussolini called "the merger of state and corporate interests" corporatism. We call it fascism because Mussolini's party was the Fascist Party. Corporatism is fascism.
for evidence of how a "green" bridge could work for everyone's benefit, look at the Green Bridge in Mile End Park, East London. This links the north and south sides of the park allowing pedestrians and cyclists to ignore the horrible traffic of Mile End Road which runs underneath.
Another bridge in Central London with no cycle access is completely insane
This isn't fascism. But it is annoying. (And maybe its a very small example of corporatism?)
The other issue is, saying the only way to create a bit of 'tranquillity' is to build over the river completely ignores the fact that you could create plenty such 'tranquil escapes' all over the city, if you stopped insisting on allowing cars to go everywhere..
Also - I never trust 'artists visualisations' of planned developments. I note the one with this article appears to show the view from someone floating 100 feet in the air - who is actually going to see the bridge from that angle?
And, finally, encouraging people to make 'short trips by walking' could surely be far better accomplished by giving pedestrians a higher priority than cars (and especially taxis) in central London? A single over-crowded tourist-attraction isn't going to have any noticable effect.
Rubbish.
"Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit"
"Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state."
I thought Nine Elms and Pimlico were upstream of Temple.
They are, the funny thing is that I also instinctively referred to that as "down in Nine Elms", just because its South London.
If some private sponsors did want to put up the extra money to build a garden bridge down there, rather than just a bridge as currently planned, that's fine with me.
However, it would still need to meet the original planning requirements, which means proper cycling provision with a cycle track, plus public right of way. Any private parties will just have to stand to one side and let the public ride and walk past!
£60m up front ... paid for by ... oh yeah us, again !
£3.5m a year maintenance ... paid for by ... oh yeah us, again !
Integrating it with cycling infrastructure would make a huge difference to former gurkha soldiers riding round town. It seems really short sighted to exclude them from this bridge.
bikebot, nope i dont know london, but that was not my point.
The point being was why, when someone suggest we build something or alter something, does it always have to come back to "is it suitable for x,y,z transport"
Why cant we build something purely for foot ?.
I'm in no way commenting on the cost or the arguement over who is paying for it etc which is obviously excessive going by some of the figures being spouted about and the public money, however much that is, could quite easily be spent on something else.
There are two key reasons why it has become an issue.
First, both of the last two bridge built across the Thames are already pedestrian only. The Jubilee Bridges (plural as it's both sides of Hungerford Bridge) opened in 2002 and the Millennium Bridge in 2000. Neither gave any consideration to a cycle track, and all cycling is prohibited.
To do the same thing again, would mean that all three of the newest bridges across the Thames are pedestrian only with no allowance for cycling. What you're suggesting "something purely for foot" is actually becoming the norm, rather than something new, and it's now starkly at odds with TfL's policies (who are providing £30m from the transport budget).
Second, the original vision for the Bridge as proposed to the Mayor was that it would have a cycle track. Read the letter - https://twitter.com/aseasyasriding/status/563683582938742784
We have, a few hundred yards away;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Bridge_and_Golden_Jubilee_Bridges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London
Sorry, that's the wrong question - when cycling has doubled in the last 10 years, is expected to double again in the next 10, and 25% of journeys in central London are already by bicycle, why aren't you asking:
Why are you not building a bridge that's suitable for cycling?
So far, there's been no reasonable answer to this
Standard rich bastard behaviour from Lumley and friends. Get the oiks to pay for your stuff, but keep them off it. If it's that wonderful why can't she pay for it?
Interesting that this story, in which Joanna Lumley once again spouts her anti-cycling rhetoric, is right next to a story about Mountain Bikers getting aid to people in Nepal, who she seeks aid for, surely if bikes are good enough to get aid to the Nepalese there are good enough to cross "her" bridge or is this just another case of anti-bike nimbyism. Another British icon with feet of clay methinks.
i hear you stumps but yes, normally bridges are for the movement of people and stuff from one side of a gap to another and parks and natural spaces are for pleasant walks etc. would make more sense to make the banks of the river all lovely to walk along.
'What is wrong with a bridge that is pleasant to walk over, have your lunch on or just sit and chill ?' There's nothing wrong with what you're describing, but it sounds suspiciously like a very expensive park bench
Just putting this out there to get peoples thoughts -
What is wrong with a bridge that is pleasant to walk over, have your lunch on or just sit and chill ? Why does it always come back to "is it any good for cyclists, cars, lorries or whatever" why cant it NOT be about transport.
A private trust backed by public funds it seems for a limited use when all we have heard is 'austerity' ?
A bridge for the wealthy and privileged paid for by everyone else.
It's a lot of money for a park. There's no need for the pleasant place to eat your sandwiches to be on a bridge. It's just another expensive white elephant for London.
London actually has quite a lot of parks. There are several close by, Green Park and Battersea park to name but two. What London needs is bridges that people can use. The footbridge connecting the Tate Modern with St Paul's for instance is well used by tourists, but also by commuters. The problem with the Garden Bridge is that the limitations on its use, with groups of no more than 8, mean it serves no real purpose.
As for the trees along its length, it'd be a lot cheaper to plant a few more in the existing parks. And that would be a lot more environmentally friendly too.
Do you know London?
London's tourist attractions are unbelievably busy noisy places, literally "like Piccadilly Circus". You can't create a bridge right in the middle of tourist central, and propose with a straight face that it will be a peaceful tranquil place to stroll or have your lunch.
It's going to be a victim of its own success about 0.0001 seconds after it opens. It's actual surface area compared to a park is tiny, there just isn't the space for people to sit about chilling and eating their lunch. Worse, it will damage some of the few lovely spots and views that already exist in that area.
Put your sandwiches away people. Picnicking on the bridge is going to be prohibited.
parks are for that at a fraction of the cost
The problem is that taking taxpayers' money to build and maintain private property owned by a private corporation that will operate the bridge for profit is fascism. That's what people should be up in arms about.
Instead they watch a big parade celebrating 70 years since "we" defeated fascism. While the government of United Kingdom Ltd. borrows all its spending money from private banks at interest and then taxes us to pay its debts, instead of issuing debt-free currency as a sovereign state would do. That's the basis of our fascist society.
This bridge is just one tiny example of the endless patchwork of tax-funded, fascist enterprises that make up UK Ltd., but it's a blatant one nonetheless.
You should have saved yourself the following two paragraphs because you've made yourself look a nutter right there.
What has fascism and profit got to do with this?
Potentially it could be a tourist draw, but it does seem like a shot in the dark when a perfectly good cycling bridge would be well used. But, the Millenium bridge is a pedestrian bridge and that is very well subscribed so you cannot say another Bridge wouldn't work. It may even lead to better infrastructure on the other Bridges by widening the road and reducing the pedestrian area.....who knows. Walking in London is as tedious as any other form of transport.
Fascism is an economic system in which the role of the state is to transfer wealth from individuals to the owners of corporations, i.e. banks. It's not about wearing black shirts and gassing gypsies.
Using taxpayer's money to build and maintain a for-profit enterprise owned by a corporation is the essence of fascism.
The fact that you think that knowing what fascism is makes me a nutter is perfectly normal. We're not supposed to realise how our society works.
Pages