Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


Garden Bridge faces four separate inquiries


There is an irony that people complaining about procurement are really complaining about the idea of the project as a project. If the procurement had been perfect, whatever that might mean, they would still be moaning about the proposal. Given the level of professional services sought, there was no need to have a competition in the first place under OJEU rules, but TFL was bending over backwards to do right by the Bean-counter Gazette brigade, some of whom, embarrassingly, are architects. There is an easy way to fund this project, and its maintenance, which would be to make access and egress subject to the Oyster Card process, part and parcel of TfL. The Miserabilist Tendency would moan about having to pay to go on a London bridge, but then according to many of them it isn't really a bridge but a destination. If so, this means that visitors and tourists would be contributing towards the creation and upkeep of a new part of the urban spectacle that is the London Thames. Miserablists could continue to use Waterloo or Blackfriars Bridges in their cheery way.

Posted date

1 July, 2016

Posted time

2:36 pm