The Garden Bridge will do little to help infrastructure

I REMAIN as unconvinced about the Garden Bridge as I was before reading Lord Rogers’s breathless encomium for the project [“The Garden Bridge can help this city retain its global status”, Comment, July 22].

Undoubtedly, London needs more bridges across the River Thames to relieve the critical congestion on those that already exist. The Garden Bridge will do nothing to help that, beyond possibly diverting bicycles away from the new cycle superhighway on Blackfriars Bridge and the roads leading to and from it.

The fact that absurd amounts of public money have been committed to this project is no justification for earmarking even more funds, particularly if, as Lord Rogers himself observes, the bridge will sometimes be closed for private events.

Surely it would be more worthwhile to demolish the ugly and inadequate Battersea Bridge and replace it with one that is actually fit for purpose? I am almost a lifelong fan of Joanna Lumley. With the Garden Bridge, however, she has got it entirely wrong.

THE Garden Bridge is a great idea that needs to be got on with. As a former director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England London, I am aware of the importance of open green spaces in the capital.

London is fortunate to have so many parks and gardens but the construction of the Garden Bridge over the Thames would add a new dimension and elegance to the city. It would be an enhancement, and a consortium of banks could easily underwrite its construction.

The Mayor may have come under pressure from opponents but it is only a minor setback; many large and innovative projects have opponents but eventually come through. The trustees of this fine enterprise need to find a new source of fortitude as well as a new source of finance.

IN HIS article supporting the Garden Bridge, Lord Rogers makes references to the importance of green spaces but none to those already on the South Bank.

The iconic avenue of London plane trees along Queen’s Walk was planted in the Sixties as a memorial for civilian victims of aerial bombardment during the Second World War. It now faces destruction in order to build the 11th Thames footbridge in a two-mile stretch.

There are parts of London that need “oases of calm and greenery” and “new landmarks to enjoy” far more than the South Bank. If the Garden Bridge Trust really wants to benefit the capital, why can’t it focus resources on areas that actually need them instead of another tourist attraction?