- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Add new comment
7 comments
Question for LAA/Tom:
The bridge, as proposed, still needs extensive ramps- the idea is that high tide "air draft" with the bridge in the "closed" position matches that of bridges upstream, maybe a bit more, allowing most vessels to pass unhindered, only opening for sailing vessels and the occasional outsive power vessel.
Your proposal sees a bridge that meets a riverside path (built out from the existing riverbank?) at current river bank level. It also seems to meet Pepys Park at ground level. Do you appreciate that what you propose would be a significant navigation restriction on what is a busy waterway?
To put a bridge here realistically part of the Convoys Wharf developement would need to be requsitioned (thus sparing Pepys Park) and the Vanguard self store & helipad site on the Isle of Dogs would need to be cleared
other alternatives more realistic than yours- the boat yard at Greenland Dock to the Millwall Splipway
How about closing the Rotherhithe Tunnel to motorised traffic and use that exclusively for cycles.
Given the phenomenon of traffic evaporation as demonstrated in Paris when they closed the Voie Georges Pompidou, the effect on traffic should be negligible - anyone going through shouldn't be long distance traffic so would be perfect for modal shift to cycling or walking.
Cost: less than the biscuit budget at City Hall
The Garden Bridge Trust give this information:
Although taxpayers will also be liable in the future for maintenance costs as well.
Thank you for your comments.
Re Duncann (1) I agree that the Strava dataset is fairly small - I have read that it is about 10%, and I don't use the app myself (2) but my observations of route use-intensity in SE London is that the Strava data is pretty good and that it is a better reflection of reality than the DT sponsored PCT (Potential To Cycle) representation (3) as you say, Strava cannot show useage of a bridge which has not been built (4) Strava does show that the heaviest cycle flows are from the east into London. These cyclists will find the indirect journey through the Surrey Docks very off-putting (5) wrecking two riverside open spaces to build a bridge is not good.
Re SuperPython59, I agree that £65m could be better spent on other cycle infrastructure. Also I am sceptical about the money being raised - Khan is not offering to pay for it.
Re pockstone, it does seem odd that the bridge is being promoted by consultants but it has to be admitted that they sometimes come up with better ideas than bureaucrats.
Thanks for your reply, LAA.
When you say...
... do you mean from the South East into central London?
If so, such (understandably heavy radial) flows would seem irrelevant to a potential bridge going in the opposite direction. At the moment, I'm guessing many of those cycling from the SE to Canary Wharf would use the Greenwich foot tunnel. Can Strava (noting its limitations) provide you with more relevant origin/destination data (for a fee)?
The 'market' for a bridge is mostly people who chose not to accept the inconveniences of current crossings, of course. You might also pursue Jubilee line data for those heading to Canary Wharf - some of those are potential bridge users. TfL can establish how many Canary Wharf passengers started from places which might become attractive for cycle commuters were there a bridge. The numbers swarming off the Overground at Canada Water for the one stop, cross-river trip to Canary Wharf are worth investigating, for example. DLR patronage too.
The LAA might be right but their arguments undermine their case. Not least suggesting that Strava data for that area is a guide to anything useful (it's a small subset of atypical cyclists not going across the river - exactly what a bridge is not about!). The example of Hyde Park/Park Lane is also nonsense in this context. And wouldn't all three bridge alignments connect with the proposed CS4?