- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
The Garden Bridge as envisioned by Heatherwick StudioTaxpayer to fund £3.5m annual maintenance bill for London's Garden Bridge
The controversy over the so-called Garden Bridge in west London has deepened this week, with the news that the annual £3.5m maintenance bill will be the responsibility of the taxpayer.
Despite initial promises that the £175m bridge would be paid for by private sponsors, £60m of publc funds have been earmarked for the project and a Guardian investigation has uncovered the public liability for maintenance.
According to the paper, on Tuesday, Boris Johnson told LBC radio: “The maintenance cost will not be borne by the public sector, I’ve made that clear.”
But in the letter by one of his senior staff seen by the Guardian, another picture emerges: “The mayor has agreed in principle to provide such a guarantee … to secure the ongoing maintenance of the proposed bridge,” writes Fiona Fletch-Smith, director of development, enterprise and environment at the Greater London Authority.
This enormous public outlay comes in spite of the fact that bikes will be banned from the Garden Bridge.
As we recently reported, 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’. It will also be closed between midnight and 6am with groups of more than eight people having to apply for permission to visit.
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.”
John Biggs, Labour chair of the budget and performance committee said: “It’s outrageous to be spending this amount of the transport budget on something that is simply not a transport scheme,” said Biggs. “It’s a tourist attraction, in a place where there are already bridges ... London is crying out for crossings further east, as well as at Pimlico to Nine Elms.
"Boris’s focus has always been on glitzy vanity projects rather than what London actually needs.”
Latest Comments
- Aluminium can 4 sec ago
I'm just going to jump in here to say that Australia is comprised of the Eastern States (SA, VIC, NSW, ACT, QLD) the Northern Territory and Western...
- FatAndFurious 36 min 9 sec ago
I'm not known for my imagination. What are folk hoping to see? We have events, races, leagues, workouts, clubs, free rides, group rides, portals to...
- Geordiepeddeler 55 min 22 sec ago
60mph on a pavement? I would love to see any cyclists doing 60mph EVER!!!!!
- mark1a 1 hour 55 min ago
No problem at all old chap, its successor the CAAD13 is available in mechanical 105 11sp guise (not too shabby a groupset IMO with Shimano trickle...
- David9694 2 hours 49 min ago
Car crashing into Colchester Co-op sees two hospitalised https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24719022.car-crashing-colchester-co-...
- . . 3 hours 35 sec ago
I have two of these (I use one on the front with the red LED turned off and taped up) and think they are great, at least in daylight Plenty of...
- Prosper0 3 hours 50 min ago
No offence to Endura, but same advice as to Rapha, I actually have all the kit I need, for probably several years. You need to go and win the next...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 44 min ago
Ah - yes, they've got an American Star the wrong way round (means the child carrier needs rearranged though). Or it could be a Facile but inverted?
- lesterama 9 hours 37 min ago
What a bunch of ases
- quiff 10 hours 30 min ago
It was only your comment in the carousel that first brought me here, and yet I still managed to read most of the page before remembering this isn't...
Add new comment
20 comments
Stumps,
The problem is not whether it is private or public; the problem is that it is being called a bridge and being paid for out of the transport budget.
If it is a garden or a park then it should be paid for out of the Parks & Gardens Budget.
Don't forget also that in order to build this vanity project two other green spaces will have to be irreparably damaged or destroyed.
Its open from 6am to midnight and open to everyone so why shouldn't the councils cough up for its upkeep, they even say you can push your bike across so its not all bad news for cyclists.
If you opened your own back garden during those hours, would you expect the council to pay for a gardener to mow your grass?
And when it's public money it isn't the council that coughs up, it's us.
Its always us that pay through council tax and other taxes so i dont understand your point and my garden is private property and not open to the public like the bridge so again i'm lost with what your on about.
Also London gets allsorts year in year out whilst the vast majority of the country gets very little so you cant have it all ways can you
The bridge is private property, as is your garden.
It will have no public right of way, as is the case with your garden.
If you still don't understand, you're either a little slow or being obtuse.
I quite like the idea of a garden bridge and would be happy to see one over the Tyne and visit it. There is to much green space being taken away to build more and more concrete sh*tholes so why not put some back.
Also so what if you cant take your bike onto it, does it honestly really matter that much.
absolutely,though London does have quite alot of green spaces,but I suppose its harder to hold private cocktail parties in them what with them being open to the general public and all.
but yep I couldnt care whether I could take my bike on this new bridge or not, thats not the issue, the issue is this bridge which will essentially be private property, is not only being part built with public money, but will then be maintained by public money.
If Boris & Lumley want some private party bridge to entertain guests on, let them stump up the cash for it, let them pay the millions to stop it falling in the Thames, why should the public fund it for them.
bikebot has anyone commented from the other parties on this monstrous corrupt folly.
Yes, through the London Assembly. See comments from John Biggs at the foot of the article. Jenny Jones has also criticised the use of TfL money on a private bridge with no public right of way.
Call me snarky, but isn't this thing just a bunch of wealthy Londoners' without gardens pet project to get a garden at the taxpayers' expense? Spend all that money on a flat in London, the least the government / council can do is provide you with a nice garden... Couldn't they just move to Surrey with all the other posh people who want gardens?
Not at all, many of those who you describe are furious about it. The support seems to come from the very wealthy, the types who already do have a garden and quite likely a second home down in the New Forest, or another country.
Believe it or not, that describes a very small percentage of those living in the capital. Most people aren't wealthy, and those on good incomes are paying out almost all of it on rent and the cost of living. The use of public money on this folly is becoming quite a political issue.
And yes, assuming everyone in London is wealthy and posh is quite snarky.
Why not send it back to the drawing board for a quick amendment to fit cycle lanes underneath? That couldn't increase the costs by all that much (relatively speaking). Boom - dedicated, covered cycling crossing with a park on top. It would turn a folly built for a few into a genuinely useful piece of infrastructure for all. Everyone's happy, and Joanna Lumley and her chums get an even better, slightly elevated, cyclist-free view.
I found myself crossing this bridge (the cycling lanes are behind the massive girders, under the roof) in Bilbao last summer (on foot) and was blown away at the thought of how pleasant it would be to have that level of cycling provision.
Why hasn't Boris learned from the Dangleway? We don't need another vanity project, whether bikes are allowed on it or not.
If there is £60m of funds earmarked and then it comes under tax payer funding for maintenance. I'm cycling over the f*cker. I don't care if cycles are banned or not. If we are all paying for it, we are all using it. SIMPLE
No incentive at all for Boris's mates to raise the cash eh ?
This is pure corruption and the people of London should be livid about it
There is one chance to stop this mad vanity project (and hopefully release funds where they are needed) Please help us raise funds for the legal challenge that's been launched against the unlawful planning decision of the garden bridge: thank you. Spread the word!
everyclick.com/tcos
Although this is a ridiculous scheme, I think what you will find here is that the Mayors office is underwriting the contractual maintenance guarantee, which will then be sub let to the operator. Only because the operator won't yet be a Legal entity and it's a navigation hazard so some one has to be responsible.
It's fairly normal, but local tax payers should make sure that the council stay out of funding for it.
And at some point the operator will find a way to saddle the taxpayer with the bill for this idiotic vanity project.
And at some point the operator will find a way to saddle the taxpayer with the bill for this idiotic vanity project.
Ok at the first opportunity plant Japanese knotweed on it