- 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 sole responsibility for banning cyclists from Garden Bridge
Joanna Lumley says that she is the person responsible for the decision to exclude cyclists from the proposed Garden Bridge across the Thames. She argues that their presence would prevent it from being ‘a peaceful place to walk’. The bridge, which will receive £60m of public money, will also be closed between midnight and 6am with groups of more than eight people having to apply for permission to visit.
The £175m Garden Bridge, which received planning permission from Lambeth council last week, would span the Thames between Temple and the South Bank – a site where there are already four bridges within just over a mile of each other.
Speaking at Lambeth's planning applications committee meeting, Lumley described a bucolic escape in the middle of the capital: “This will be a place where you can maybe slow down; hear birds singing; hear leaves rustling; get a little bit of calm; take the heat out of the situation.”
However, this oasis of calm will not be open to cyclists and Lumley says that she is the one responsible for that decision.
“Being a Lambeth resident and using the Tube, I walk a lot. I don’t walk in cycle lanes and that’s the reason why I – and I’m the only one you can blame for not having cycles on this bridge – I said that I believe that cyclists speeding over the bridge would stop it being a peaceful place to walk and a safe place maybe to take a wheelchair.”
Lambeth council’s recent planning report to its planning committee expands on this, explaining why cyclists would be able to push bikes over, but not ride.
“If cyclists were allowed to ride, to provide a safe pedestrian environment it would be necessary to incorporate segregated cycle lanes or wider shared paths. This would result in a much reduced planted area and erode the benefits of the bridge as a green space.”
While the plan is for the 6,000 square metre bridge to feature 270 trees, campaigners point out that more than 30 trees would be cut down and green space on the South Bank lost to house the bridge landing at Bernie Spain Gardens.
Groups of eight or more obliged to request a ‘formal visit’
On top of this, it seems large groups of people will also be unwelcome – or at best tolerated. The report reads: “All groups of eight or more visitors would be required to contact the Garden Bridge Trust to request a formal visit to the bridge.”
It is claimed that the policy would ‘assist visitor management’ and ‘discourage protest groups’.
The Garden Bridge Trust said that it had no intention to introduce ticketing for the bridge. However, in a statement it did suggest that the bridge could sometimes be closed for private functions.
"The Trust is exploring the possibility of holding a limited number of private events on the bridge each year. Every effort would be made to ensure the bridge remains open to the general public during these events, but there may be occasions where the bridge is closed."
No guaranteed right of way
The bridge will also be closed between the hours of midnight and 6am. The Independent reports how Green Party member of the London Assembly, Darren Johnson, feels this is unacceptable for a development which is set to receive £60m of public funding – half each from TfL and central government.
“I was really shocked to discover that this bridge is receiving £60m from the joint transport budgets of the Mayor and the national government, but the public have no guaranteed right of way.
"Central London is a 24-hour city, but under the current proposals there is effectively no bridge for at least a quarter of the day. Given the scale of public funding for this bridge I would have expected the Mayor to have pinned down guarantees that Londoners will be able to use this bridge to cross the river 24/7 in ten or twenty years’ time.”
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
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 15 min ago
Funnily enough, not yet but will be shortly: Decathlon bikes but AG2RLM had a contract to the end of this year for clothing with Italian kit maker...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 34 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- wtjs 5 hours 12 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 6 hours 23 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 8 hours 30 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 8 hours 17 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 23 hours 6 min ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 4 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
48 comments
1: Lovely if we had the cash...but clearly we do not.
2: We could be collectively mischievous and form a motoring coalition demanding right to drive through it at whatever speed is convenient to us citing the ever crappy 'we pay road tax' guff.
3: Why not spend £60,000,000 (count those zeros!) on acquiring small strips of land to create the UKs first cycling motorway running whichever way is best to form 60 miles of car free cycling heaven (I reckon £1,000,000 per mile would be plenty to form a tarmac strip maybe 12ft wide with centre division so that we have an option to train somewhere safe.
It would save countless lives per year, promote cycling as a sport, prevent thousands of other injuries, businesses could spring up alongside it such as cafes and shops and I for one would gladly drive three to four hours to relish the opportunity of up to 120 miles of completely safe training - I know I wouldn't be alone.
That would be an amazing use of money and one desperately overdue, if Joanna Lumley wanted to put her name to something truly life changing that certainly would be absolutely fabulous.
Heck, if we had access to something like that I wouldn't care if they named it after Jimmy Savill!
Anyone else with an ELABORATE HOAX seeking 60 million quid ?
Will it be named the " Lumley bridge " or the " Hole in the thames "`
Every yacht owner already knows about that " hole they pour money into "?
It got an absolute savaging from Observer architecture critic Rowan Moore yesterday, well worth a read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/22/thames-garden-bridg...
Frankly if Lambeth Council planning department have caved in to the wishes of a second rate actress then they should, en-mass, resign or grow a pair and tell this "national treasure" where to go.
This is the worst of Johnson's vanity projects and we have the prospect of that clown running the country some day.
Emigration looks a more appealing prospect
I only use the bicycle lane in Kensington gardens, this is what I have to go through every night...
http://youtu.be/x_AndWvjx90
Another costly folly.
It's reckoned that visitor numbers suggest that the bridge will be congested and there may be queues to get on. Never mind the damage to the local environment.
Are we talking about wheelchairs that are pushed?
Or are we talking about those 8mph mobility scooters that terrorise the High Streets of many a town?
#OneSizeFitsAll
"Ban cyclists"
"Ban groups of people"
"Ban the plebs..."
Spend lots of public money making this a reality.
what an effing joke!
If you want to see a great "green bridge" with cycle and pedestrian access that was the first in the UK and has been very successful, look at the green bridge in Mile End Park, East London, that the Environment Trust used to link the north and south sides of the park together.
http://www.mimoa.eu/images/17204_l.jpg
£60 million for this Central London vanity project!
Meanwhile elsewhere in the country local & central government funded services are being cut back to the bone, while thousands & thousands of public sector workers endure yet another year of pay freezes & pension raids.
I took my daughter to see the third Hunger Games film last night. Can anyone else see the analogy?
The bridge doesn't need to be evenly leveled all of the way, there could be a meandering segregated bike path at a slightly lower level being criss-cross by a few small bridges, Foliage could be used as a barrier to allay pedestrians cyclist fears. With complete segregation the cyclist - pedestrian issue is 100% nullified.
What a shame the creators of the bridge and Joanna Lumley have no imagination. This project should not be receiving public money.
Bikes or no bikes, is a red herring.
The real scandal here is it will be built with public money but privately managed, not always available to the public and rented to events on certain days. Groups will have to apply for permission to use it.
It is also likely public funds will be needed for its upkeep.
Boy I'm glad I don't live in London and have to cope with this sort if bollocks
if you would like me to be more precise Mike, how about money from public coffers for public infrastructure (ie TfL money) ?
I sort of agree with this, but it doesn't sit very well with the fact that it's a bridge, built with public money, and TfL money at that. The 'transport' bit suggests it should be for all Londoners, not just the ones Joanna Lumley approves of.
A little oasis of tranquility sounds great, and maybe it would be more tranquil without bikes buzzing through. But if that's what they want to build, they shouldn't take TfL money to build a bridge and then decide they want to exclude people from using it.
Public money being spent on something not wholly available for public access ? You're having a laugh. We're still running a £100bn annual tax budget deficit and there's money for this ?!
There are way more pressing issues rather than "Joanna's folly" and as for public spaces in that area, try Battersea park, St Jame's park and Green park for starters. Plenty of flora and fauna freely available there.
+1
There are many examples of public money being spent on establishments that are not wholly open to the public. Try Buckingham Palace, police stations, barracks, naval dockyards, airports, hospitals, the MI6 building, cemeteries, schools, doctors' surgeries, mortuaries, council buildings and Stonehenge visitor centre just for starters.
I haven't noticed too much protest over these.
None of those are public spaces. The bridge is, that's the point.
But those are all buildings spent using the public monies earmarked for their particular sector (and very few of them built using completely Govt money any more, most are PFI loaners).
This bridge is being built using Department for Transport money, out of the fabled "common fund" for transport infrastructure, however it will not be a public right of way, nor open 24/7, and they admit it might be closed completely for unspecified amounts of time so they can rent it off for (very expensive, very exclusive) private events.
Its not even the same as the Severn Bridges - practically permanent tolls - , or the motorway system, where cyclists are quite sensibly excluded.
Can you imagine if they built HS2, then said that a fifty mile stretch in the middle would be closed for unspecified amounts of time so that people can run private rail journeys up and down it?
This a bridge in central (-ish) London. It certainly should have some access for cyclists across it (or under it, or next to it, as others have said).
To use the stretched resources of central government's transport fund, to build a party park which will be run by a private company, is a terrible idea, and smacks (as others have said) of the creeping privatisation of public space - a second enclosure of the commons, if you like.
I think it's fine to ban people from riding bicycles from that bridge, after all there are apparently already four bridges within about a mile of each other there - I don't see why it should cause any more of a fuss for cyclists than for motorists who will also not be allowed to drive through there. A place for pedestrians, why not?
And I can definitely appreciate that people might just want a place to walk around absent-mindedly or allow their children to do so, without always having to have eyes in the back of their head to spot any oncoming cyclist.
That being said, I do hate Joanna Lumley...
Well motorists already dominate all those other bridges. If I remember rightly, Southwark bridge isn't bad, but the others are not good for cyclists. Having 'four bridges within a mile' doesn't help when those bridges are essentially for motorists (are you including Tower bridge? That's particularly horrible, given the junction at the northern end of it)
edit - oh, yeah, and Vauxhall has that rather baffling layout at the southern end.
There is already the millennium bridge which goes from the Tate modern to St. Paul's which is pedestrians only. There is not one single bridge that is exclusive to cycle traffic across the Thames.
It will just be another privatised space in London paid for by the public, that will have a shitty for policy to keep out the 'plebs'. Who can enter/use the space is already being decided by a single person while being paid for by millions.
Fuck Lumley and her shitty bridge. And I say that as a Lambeth resident.
Purpose of bridge is to cross from point A to B. I personally would not spend such a expensive bridge just for walking. If you want to go to the garden then go to your local one or other national parks with a garden in it.
I rather London build the £1 Billion cycle super highway to showcase the world we are ready for the future.
This is a really nice idea - a calm, meditative space in the middle of London's bustle.
We already have quite a few such spaces. There'd be more if only we could get rid of some of the bastard cars!
I find kew, richmond park etc suitable.
You probably should check either your geography or your definition of the word "middle".
Would you rather i said Green park, Hyde park, regents park?
London isn't a very big place,
Sure, if you find a small garden full of tourists calming. It's being built right next to all the coach parking along the embankment. If you ignore the idyllic description and just look at the plan with the critical eye that the planning officers should have, it's fairly obvious it's not going to work as proposed.
Except it'll be jam packed with tourists taking selfies - not very calm or meditative. And there are already plenty of calm, meditative spaces in the middle of London;you just have to look for them, it's not that hard.
Spending £60million on a bridge that doesn't address any transport needs is just a stupid idea.
Pages