Cry Me A River
We have every right to criticise the knee-jerk nimbyism that has skewered deserving projects in the Capital while giving a free pass to mediocre constructions that aren’t quite bad enough to raise a fuss. The usually perceptive NLA Chairman Peter Murray has suggested that criticism of the Nine Elms cycle bridge can be similarly attributed to elderly, change-resistant residents, and local politicians who are ideologically opposed to developer-led initiatives.
They are mistaken: this project is marketing-led. Developers build things, whether carbuncles or future classics. Marketers not so much. The money hasn’t been spent on really useful things, like proper transport integration studies1. It’s been spent on things that evaporate: PR campaigns, press releases, lovely images, great presentation. It’s a very well appointed project, but when it fades away it will leave very little behind except perhaps some cool, smooth Corian and stainless steel in a few corporate foyers.
The project has produced some genuinely interesting ideas over the years but ‘The Bridge’ has mostly been about helping to sell a lot of inappropriately configured housing stock to people who already have houses. Which is a pity because the bridge team and partners have included some very talented people whose time and effort could have benefited London so much more on something worthwhile.
Latest Nine Elms Bridge Report, April 2018
The Report2 puts the cost at about £240 million for the bridge structure alone. This £240 million is based a previous 2014 study using two generic bridge types, not the innovative design now on offer.
There is a rather alarming list of exclusions3 which have yet to be evaluated before the likely costs can be estimated. So, probably more than £300 million, as long as the design, implementation, the surrounding work and transport integration don’t prove challenging.
Will we get a third of a billion quids worth out of it?
This latest report recycles the assessment of demand from previous reports which themselves used arbitrary and improbably high estimates for the number of cyclists and pedestrians who would divert from their usual routes to use the Nine Elms crossing4.
And they were done in the days before Cycle Superhighways and the future Northern Line Tube extension could provide more viable alternatives. No evidence-based study of demand has been produced for any of the bridge locations5.
The developments in Nine Elms have targeted their property sales at wealthy foreigners, so it’s difficult to see how local traffic would make up the shortfall. This 2018 report has prudently removed the original figures but still asserts the claims they were used to justify.
The cycle bridge was supposed to be privately funded by the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (VNEB-OA). The much touted £26 million ‘already identified’ seems to have been the development’s CIL and s106 money, not necessarily bridge money. It’s been dropped from this report.
Nine Elms developers have already scaled back their affordable housing promises by pleading a viability squeeze. They’re just not going to pay a third of a billion for a cycle bridge. The report also quietly drops previous funding ideas and now poses the issue of funding as an open question.
What we have here is a huge amount of money being pledged, on behalf of developers with cash-flow problems, for the benefit of the few people wanting to travel between Pimlico and Nine Elms without using the Cycle Superhighways, existing bridges, bus or Tube.
The bridge would be a safer, healthier and more pleasant route for cyclists who made the effort to divert their journey, but surely this much dosh could buy London’s cyclists something better.
There doesn’t appear to have been any work done for a real bridge.
The 2013 TfL Feasibility Study was a proof-of-concept with made up figures to construct a case for a crossing. It’s scope and resources were severely limited.
The 2014 Report did the same from an engineering perspective using two generic bridge designs, some previous studies, and soil analysis from before the Second World War6.
Although Wandsworth and the VNEB-OA have promoted the cycle bridge as a vital transport infrastructure project, it hasn’t produced any of the transport, integration and modelling studies that would normally be essential to validate, support and guide even a small-scale project. It’s difficult to understand why the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, gave such a vague offering a place on the London Plan.
Read More: Nine Elms Pimlico Bridge articles.
Nine Elms Bridge Consultation
Following a poorly received Nine Elms to Pimlico cycle bridge consultation last December, Wandsworth Council and its developers have announced a new public exhibition, from 3-10th November, as part of their efforts to promote the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (VNEB-OA).
Four locations were suggested in 2012, a single location for the 2013 study, seven in 2014, five in 2015, and then nine in 2017. They have now whittled them down to just three, routes 2, 3 and 4C, for which we have this exhibition7.
Exhibition Dates & Locations
Sat 3 Nov, 10am–3pm: Park Court Clubroom, Battersea Park Road, Doddington Estate, SW11 4LD.
Tues 6 Nov, 3pm–8pm: Bolney Meadow Community Centre, 31 Bolney Street, SW8 1EZ.
Wed 7 Nov, 3pm–8pm: St George’s Patmore Church, 11 Patmore Street, SW8 4JD.
Fri 9 Nov, 3pm–8pm: 110 Rochester Row, SW1P 1JP.
Sat 10 Nov, 10am–3pm: Westminster Boating Base, 136 Grosvenor Rd, SW1V 3JY.
The US Embassy to St George’s Square route, upon which Wandsworth’s bridge campaign appears to have been predicated, will probably be chosen. If it becomes necessary to extend the campaign, expect a penalty shootout between option 2 and one of the others.
- This is the North side transport integration study (2013-14): “Allowance has been made for the following works at each landing point: (i) Footpath construction on one side for approximately 30m, (ii) One new crossing point with subsequent road widening / realignment.”
- You can find the NEPB April 2018 Report (35Mb PDF) on this page.
- Exclusions include: Inflation beyond August 2017; Land acquisition and associated costs; Legal & administration costs; Site investigation costs; Transport; PLA and Highway interface; Planning consent costs including legal and consultants; Utilities diversion, reinforcement and abnormal connection charges; Abnormal ground conditions, including consequential works and significant level of imported filling or removal of excavated material from site; Discovery of archaeological artefacts or other antiquities, leading to delayed start; Allowance for extensive / specialist external works; Finance charges; VAT; Compensation to adjoining owners; Landscaping outside a notional 500m2 zone to each landing; Phasing of works; Other third party costs; Ecology requirements – protected species etc; Section 106 and 278; Road closure costs; Temporary access requirements; Wind deflection; Utilities and routes across bridge for others.
- Trip diversion rate: Chelsea Bridge, pedestrians 42%, cyclists 31%. Vauxhall Bridge, pedestrians: 44%, cyclists: 40%.
- VNEB-OA Transport Strategy: Northern Line extension would bring the most benefit to the area. Bus and overground enhancements would also contribute greatly. For the cycle bridge “…it is difficult to assess the full impact of a pedestrian and cycle bridge in terms of number and distribution of trips, it could attract a significant number of pedestrian and cyclists.” (source: Nine Elms Partnership / Chapter 06: Transport strategy )
- Nine Elms Pimlico Bridge geology & soil study based on 3 borehole logs near the Dolphin Square location and one from the Thames near Vauxhall Bridge. These are from 1920-1930s. It’s unclear whether the Nine Elms Bridge will leave such a useful legacy, but it has done some useful reviews of data e.g. local arboriculture, unexploded ordinance and archaeology.
- The alignment of option 3 has changed, possibly just a map drawing error.