In message , at 18:07:31 on Tue, 15 Dec
2020, michael adams remarked:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:52:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, told Hammersmith & Fulham council,
which is run by Labour, that the money would be needed to open the bridge,
suggesting that it could be raised through a council tax increase or by
raiding its reserves.

People living in Barnes are inconvenienced far more by the closure
than are people living in Hammersmith. That side of the river is in
the London Borough of Richmond which is controlled by the Lib Dems.


But that borough doesn't own the bridge, nor have to share the cost of the
repairs (why not?).

Because -

quote

The Local Government Act 1985 dealt with the abolition of the GLC, and
transferred non-trunk road bridges in their entirety to one of the two London
boroughs that each bridge lay within
[...]
The choice of borough to be decided between the two councils, or
failing agreement,
by the Secretary of State for Transport
[...]
For Hammersmith Bridge, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham took
responsibility.

/quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersmith_Bridge

The reasoning behind both decisions isn't immediately obvious. If two boroughs
shared responsibility for the Bridge they could still agree to be subject to
decisions made by an independent mutually acceptable body - rather than
necessarily arguing ad-infinitum. And possibly H&F accepted this
particular poisoned chalice in the expectation that the SoS would find
against them in any case.

Having seen the arguments in Reading in the 90's regarding the proposed
third river crossing, it's the kind of project they seem systemically
unable to agree upon. So making one or the other 100% responsible is
probably the only solution.
--
Roland Perry