Sadiq Khan has said it would cost taxpayers twice as much to cancel the controversial Garden Bridge as to complete it. London’s new mayor did however also express support for a proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.
Designed by Thomas Heatherwick and championed by the actress and Lambeth resident Joanna Lumley, the Garden Bridge scheme has come in for criticism for various reasons including the public cost, the tender process and because cyclists will not be allowed to ride across it.
Sadiq Khan had previously said he would scrap the project if elected as mayor. However, speaking at his first Mayor’s Question time, he revealed that of the £60m of public money committed, £37.7m had already been spent.
Khan said that if the project were scrapped, all of this money would be lost, whereas if it were completed a £20m Transport for London loan would be repaid and the Garden Bridge Trust would also pay £22 million in VAT to the Treasury. The final public cost would therefore be £18 million.
The London Evening Standard reports Khan as saying:
“From the point at which I became Mayor, it was quite clearly in London taxpayers’ financial interest to complete the Garden Bridge project.
“It would simply cost Londoners more to cancel the project now than it would to finish building the Garden Bridge.
“So I will support the building of the Garden Bridge, but I am demanding that the project is made more accessible and open to all Londoners in return.”
Khan did however express support for the proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. Sustrans has said that a new bike bridge over the Thames in this location would take major pressure off London’s public transport network, a feasibility study published by the charity indicating that it would see 10,200 cycle journeys and 3,000 walking journeys a day.
Khan described the bridge as “a great project that points to the future of river crossings in London.”
The mayor was also pressed on whether he would extend the Santander Cycles scheme into Bermondsey and Rotherhithe and said that he would.
36 thoughts on “A tale of two bridges: Sadiq Khan says Garden Bridge would cost twice as much to abandon as complete but backs Rotherhithe cycle bridge too”
I hate politicians…
I hate politicians…
This is so thoroughly
This is so thoroughly disgusting: can we make Boris and Joanna Lumley pay for it instead?
How on earth can they spend that much without anything having actually been built, not a survey, not a spade-ful of Earth moved???
Did he stop short of blaming
Did he stop short of blaming Boris for the commitment of such a huge amount of public money to the caprices of a few shlebs?
“It would simply cost
“It would simply cost Londoners more to cancel the project now than it would to finish building the Garden Bridge.”
Hardly a good reason to go ahead with it. Seriously, what has £37.7m been spent on?
ibike wrote:
That’s what I wonder. Has it actually been spent (the official press release doesn’t say), or just tied into legally-binding (?) commitments? If so, is that proper conduct? Perhaps a judicial review is required.
ibike wrote:
Classic falling for the Sunk cost fallacy.
However, there would be no need to spend (£3M?) on maintenance every year if the folly isn’t built. Compare that to waiting 50 years for the loan repayments to be paid off. Even the demolition costs to get rid of it, if built.
I love my bike wrote:
It is concerning that a Mayor of London either completely overlooks this, or seeks to insult the not inconsiderable intelligence of Londoners by omitting it in his simplistic explanation of continuing with the bridge.
Or he’s just shrugging his shoulders and going ‘wasn’t me’. Politicians, eh.
I love my bike wrote:
True point on the sunk cost fallacy. However, what on earth are £3m maintenance costs? Are they gold-plating the damn thing?
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Security. For the oiks.
I love my bike wrote:
Surely there’s also an element of ‘moral hazard’ to going ahead?
Going ahead because you’ve been left with a situation where it would cost more to cancel it simply encourages politicians to leave their successors in such a bind repeatedly. Unless someone says ‘no’ and takes the hit at some point, this will continue to happen. Seems especially annoying given there seem to be some rather large question marks over how these contracts were arranged in the first place.
(Isn’t it the same thing that happened with the Millennium Dome, incidentally? At least I remember that being the excuse the Blair government used at one point for flip-flopping and deciding to go ahead with what started as a Conservative idea)
I would suggest it is a
I would suggest it is a perfectly good reason to go ahead with it.
However, surely if TFL and the taxpayer is paying for it then change of use should be permitted and make it a throughfare as opposed to a garden venue for Bentley drivers to sup champagne at…
alansmurphy wrote:
I agree (with this bit; I disagree that it should go ahead at all). In any case, I don’t think it would be the Bentley drivers supping champagne on it…
There is nothing about this
There is nothing about this bridge that is good. Shitty nepotism & corruption.
I hope all those involved with it are run out of town and protests stop it ever being built, if it gets to that stage.
The brief for the bridge
The brief for the bridge needs to change. Sure, make it a garden bridge – but make if functional as well. 24 hour pedestrian and cycle crossing should be part of the deal.
Clearly someone has made a lot of money doing nothing if they have already spent that much money.
Yep build it, but improve it.
Yep build it, but improve it. Make it an actual useful bridge. Only vanity and money could confuse anyone enough that they make a bridge in a heavily congested city that isn’t designed to relieve traffic.
Khan’s first test and he’s going to show himself up. He really is just another typical useless politician.
Didn’t occur to him to check
Didn’t occur to him to check he could actually cancel it before opening his mouth, then?
Good to know – bodes well for the future.
And – like others have said – where the hell has the thick end of £38m gone, FFS?! (its way too much to hope that someone has advance bulk-ordered materials to account for cost rises, this is a Public Enterprise, after all)
If £37m can have been sunk on
If £37m can have been sunk on not yet building a flowery bridge, imagine what HS2’s already accrued…
davel wrote:
True, but at least there’s a solid case for building HS2. This bloody folly, not so much.
jollygoodvelo wrote:
I’m not convinced of that, though: “Let’s spend twenty gazillion pounds so that we can get from Birmingham to London ten minutes quicker” – seriously??? Who needs that?
brooksby wrote:
Straying a bit off-topic but HS2 is much more about capacity than speed. And it’s not just about London and Birmingham. Even on London-Birmingham speed,though, the time saving is far more than 10 minutes.
Duncann wrote:
Whatever the objectives, it looks like it’s a rip-off and isn’t going to meet them… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36376837
davel wrote:
About 1 billion I believe, at least it scales…
P3t3 wrote:
Or the Milennium Bridge, which cost £18m to build.
Man voted in, partially on
Man voted in, partially on platform of scrapping a boondoggle, and… it turns out that isn’t possible. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. But I’m sure they’ll throw us a bone, and open the choice of a name for it to a public vote… until “Bridgey McBridgeface” wins and they choose something else… again.
This is, presumably, what Boris in his new role would describe as “sovereignty”: the rich and powerful wasting millions of pounds of public money, but at least they are British rich and powerful, not EU rich and powerful.
The problem with letting this
The problem with letting this bridge go ahead is that it prevents a useful bridge being put there in the future. Provide 24hr pedestrian and cycle access or cancel it.
Pub bike wrote:
There are ~9 bridges for pedestrians/cycles between London Bridge & Lambeth Bridge in the heart of London. What is the need for another (less useful) one?
The Garden Bridge ties up money better used elsewhere – another bridge or otherwise.
I wonder, should it go ahead, if the Cycle Superhighway would conviently be required to close during construction works?
We’re led to believe that our
We’re led to believe that our public servants have smoked £37 million of public funds on an idea before even breaking ground ? I am calling bullshit on this and every single contract, payment made needs to be scrutinised before any further decision is taking on this repulsive project. No anonymity is acceptable and we need to know how an “idea” has consumed so much money. As for whoever at TfL sanctioned a “loan” to an idea that is only recoverable on completion, I’d suggest that the pea brained fuckwit should be told they’d better retrieve as much of it as possible or face personal liability for negligence in the misuse of public funds.
I can not think of a better example of the grotesque contempt for the custody and use of public funds at a time of national financial challenge than this ridiculous folly and the whole bridge is rotten to the core.
As usual, the short term loss
As usual, the short term loss is not offset against the long term gain in scapping this white elephant and Londoners will end up paying 10 x more then £37 million by time it’s finished. Yet another politician who talks big but lacks the necessaryh equipement to actually deliver. Needs someone who lives in London to ask Khan why he lied to them.
Will there be security guards
Will there be security guards at either end, otherwise, who wants to be the first to put a Strava segment down over it?
Surely it wouldn’t be too
Surely it wouldn’t be too hard to just clip some cycle lanes on each side?
I’m not sure how any voter
I’m not sure how any voter could claim they were misled about Khan’s thoughts on this bridge:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-id-scrap-garden-bridge-plan-if-elected-mayor-a2954742.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/khan-i-fully-support-garden-bridge-but-procurement-process-worries-me-a3173711.html
He changed his mind well before the election.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Thanks for posting those.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
The amusing thing is, the Evening Standard (or more precisely its owner) is probably the major reason he changed his mind.
Amazing that this could get
Amazing that this could get to this stage and have cost almost £40m so far, without anything even being built.
Still, it’s London, so we can spunk taxpayers money against the wall all day long.
So I was failing to
So I was failing to understand how it could get more expensive if we stopped spending now. Turns out that they’re building it on some kind of cash-back basis, where you only get the money back if you finish the job?!
What on earth is that all about? A TfL loan? Did TfL borrow the money, or lend it? How’s it getting paid back – out of Garden Bridge profits (and if so why is it a profit -making venture!).
The whole thing’s nonsense.
It is completely absurd to
It is completely absurd to claim that the costs of non-completion are £37m.
What sort of fool signs a contract like that prior to getting planning consent and the funding? Either Boris has been foolish (or worse), and probably acted ultra vires, or someone is telling porkies (and possibly trying to fool their new boss).
And as pointed out upthread, if the monstrosity is built, then the maintenance charges have to be paid by the taxpayer for ever.
Khan should stop being supine.