Bridge over the Thames

[juliet]

http://galleries.thelondonpaper.com/thames-eco-bridge/1

images of a proposed bridge from Rotherhithe across to Canary Wharf. This would be ace, but it'll take 6 years from when they get funding (which they currently don't have), so I am not holding my breath. It *is* starting to look likely that it'll happen, though.

Comments

[half-of-monty.livejournal.com]

Shiny! In what way is it eco-friendly, do you know?

[juliet]

Not sure - it might just be because it's for bikes/pedestrians.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1203429234876 has links to the new survey/study whatsit.

Edit: the summary thingy indicates that it's eco only in the sense that it encourages sustainable transport etc etc.

[alexmc.livejournal.com]

It looks a bit big for a pedestrian bridge. In fact it looks ugly all round. Is this really needed?

I couldnt find a map of where the bridge is. Do you know?

[juliet]

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1203429234876 has more information - it'll go from Durands Wharf in Rotherhithe across to Westferry Road.

I rather like it, myself - remember that it's a cyclists + pedestrian bridge, so they want it a bit bigger than (e.g.) the Millenium Bridge, which doesn't allow cycling. And you need a way of getting up & down. (And, again unlike the M.Br, it has to allow boats under it.)

It is very definitely needed. Currently the only way of getting from Rotherhithe/Bermondsey to Canary Wharf on foot or by bike is to go all the way around via Tower Bridge - adding several miles to the journey. The tube goes underneath; cars have the Rotherhithe Tunnel; this would be a really, really good thing to promote cycling & walking.

(Bikes are in fact allowed in the Rotherhithe Tunnel, as are pedestrians. I've done it by bike & wouldn't recommend it - I certainly wouldn't do it as e.g. a daily commute. I went through around 11pm, and it was empty enough that I was happy on the road, but the pollution is *horrendous*. I had a smokers-hangover the next day. At rush hour I expect you'd have to use the pavement, but it would be even worse for pollution. It's a 5-min cycle so prob about 15min on foot - unpleasant and dangerous.)

Edit: I forgot: there's also the Greenwich foot tunnel and the Woolwich ferry crossing & foot tunnel. The foot tunnel is fine for pedestrians but a long way from Bermondsey/Rotherhithe; it's not great for bikes because a) the lifts are frequently out (& shut after 7pm) so you have to cart your bike up/down the stairs. Not fun. Also you can't ride through it (have to walk). Same applies to the Woolwich tunnel except it's even further east; the ferry takes bikes for free but again, massively out of the way (and slow. Though fun.).

[alexmc.livejournal.com]

Doh! I didnt realise it would be a cycling bridge.

Cheers.

[kake]

Can't you take bikes on the Hilton ferry?

[juliet]

Yes, but it's not free, is it? (And, again, slow.) However, you are correct that that is another river crossing that I missed out.

[kake]

No, it's not free. A bridge would definitely be a Good Thing.

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

So why are they describing it as eco-friendly?

[webcowgirl.livejournal.com]

Never mind, read your other comment ...

[juliet]

See above: promoting cycling/walking. (Bear in mind that this is thelondonpaper who are not exactly right up there in terms of Top Journalistic Accuracy. Sustrans just talk about a "walking and cycling bridge".)