New Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (pedestrians, cyclists) consultation

[scarlettbanks]

For those who don't know, there is a Mayor of London consultation on plans to possibly build a cycling/pedestrian bridge from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf. Current timetable is for building to begin in 2020, and finish by 2022.

This would make a huge difference to some - improve the cycling commute from East Dulwich to Canary Wharf. Would also help motorists - make road routes less busy with cyclists!

Please fill out the consultation before 8th January if you have views on this: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/rotherhithe-canarywharf/

[KidKruger]

There's a riverboat link isn't there ?

If anyone pays for it it should be the Canary Wharf banks, not govt.

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a riverboat link isn't there ?

> If anyone pays for it it should be the Canary

> Wharf banks, not govt.

The ferry crossing is an outrageous ?7.80 return.

Interesting principle that any transport improvements should be paid for by the firms whose employees benefit from them. Presumably, to be fair, you'll want that applied to all rail and road improvements, not just things which benefit cyclists and pedestrians?

[KidKruger]

'principle', 'fair', 'presumably' ?!

If you say so, please extrapolate as far as you want fella, I guess at least it bumps the thread !

Banks can afford it, would be a nice gesture.

But no, I wasn't proposing a national solution or application of principles across the UK (or Europe, or World, or Universe - before you carried away).

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'principle', 'fair', 'presumably' ?!

>

> If you say so, please extrapolate as far as you

> want fella, I guess at least it bumps the thread

> !

>

> Banks can afford it, would be a nice gesture.

> But no, I wasn't proposing a national solution or

> application of principles across the UK (or

> Europe, or World, or Universe - before you carried

> away).

I'd guess 90% of people commuting from ED to London Bridge are working in the City, why shouldn't the banks pay for improvements on that line then? If it's not a general principle, then why do you think it should apply in this instance?

[peterstorm1985]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 'principle', 'fair', 'presumably' ?!

> >

> > If you say so, please extrapolate as far as you

> > want fella, I guess at least it bumps the

> thread

> > !

> >

> > Banks can afford it, would be a nice gesture.

> > But no, I wasn't proposing a national solution

> or

> > application of principles across the UK (or

> > Europe, or World, or Universe - before you

> carried

> > away).

>

> I'd guess 90% of people commuting from ED to

> London Bridge are working in the City, why

> shouldn't the banks pay for improvements on that

> line then? If it's not a general principle, then

> why do you think it should apply in this instance?

Uh? I'm absolutely certain that the number of people commuting to LB who work in the city is nothing like 90%. Just watch the stream of people heading off in other directions. And of those who do head towards the City only a small proportion are even vaguely related to banking. The City is full of business of every sort imaginable these days.

And if the 'banks' (not sure what type of bank you're referring to) were charged for transport do you really think they wouldn't simply pass it on to their customers? So the cost would trickle back to us one way or another, and like as not to those who can least afford it. If you catch the train to LB you're probably heading off to a decently paid job, so it makes sense that the user pays; there's always a cheaper alternative: the bus.

[rendelharris]

peterstorm1985 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Uh? I'm absolutely certain that the number of

> people commuting to LB who work in the city is

> nothing like 90%. Just watch the stream of people

> heading off in other directions. And of those who

> do head towards the City only a small proportion

> are even vaguely related to banking. The City is

> full of business of every sort imaginable these

> days.

>

> And if the 'banks' (not sure what type of bank

> you're referring to) were charged for transport do

> you really think they wouldn't simply pass it on

> to their customers? So the cost would trickle back

> to us one way or another, and like as not to those

> who can least afford it. If you catch the train to

> LB you're probably heading off to a decently paid

> job, so it makes sense that the user pays; there's

> always a cheaper alternative: the bus.

Yes I agree, which was my point if you read it; I don't think employers should pay for transport improvements, either on the rail line to London Bridge or to improve the river crossing offer for cyclists and pedestrians.