On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

Sounds a bit odd: a charity benefiting the Garden Bridge.

The charity represents those behind the bridge:
https://www.gardenbridge.london/abou...n-bridge-trust

38,000,000 smackeroos on 50 tonnes of manure and a few commissioned songs from Rambling Syd Rummpo! It's just not good enough!

I saw an update in the Times on Saturday, but their articles are nonhyperlinkable, so here's a BBC update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39524979
"A project to build a bridge covered with trees and shrubs across the Thames in London should be scrapped, a review has found.
Dame Margaret Hodge's review said it would be better to ditch the Garden Bridge than risk uncertain costs.
Three months ago the Garden Bridge Trust admitted its future was in doubt after publishing accounts which showed a £70m shortfall in funding.
Initially £60m of public money was pledged on planning for the bridge.
Transport for London pledged £30m, but £20m of that was to be a loan, and the rest was from central government.
Dame Margaret says £37.4m had already been spent, and even if the bridge did not go ahead it would cost the taxpayer £46.4m."

Is even worse than wot I funk.

Offramp wrote:
I saw an update in the Times on Saturday, but their articles are
nonhyperlinkable, so here's a BBC update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39524979
"A project to build a bridge covered with trees and shrubs across the
Thames in London should be scrapped, a review has found.
Dame Margaret Hodge's review said it would be better to ditch the Garden
Bridge than risk uncertain costs.
Three months ago the Garden Bridge Trust admitted its future was in doubt
after publishing accounts which showed a £70m shortfall in funding.
Initially £60m of public money was pledged on planning for the bridge.
Transport for London pledged £30m, but £20m of that was to be a loan, and
the rest was from central government.
Dame Margaret says £37.4m had already been spent, and even if the bridge
did not go ahead it would cost the taxpayer £46.4m."

Is even worse than wot I funk.

Yes, it keeps getting worse in every report. And as discussed here
previously, it's extraordinary how much public money has apparently been
spent so early in the project, with the plans not even finalised and no
physical work done. A great deal must have been spent on architects,
consultants, lawyers, engineers, PR firms, etc.

Here's a more detailed report:

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/...s-hodge-report

Extract:

The £200m Garden Bridge project does not offer taxpayers value for money
and should be scrapped, a review by Margaret Hodge has concluded.

The report, commissioned by London mayor Sadiq Khan, published today, found
the £60m cost to taxpayers for the scheme, which is significantly
over-budget, could not be justified.

Hodge, who is the former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said she
found “too many things wrong� with the development and implementation of
the Garden Bridge Project.

“Value for money for the taxpayer has not been secured. It would be better
for the taxpayer to accept the financial loss of cancelling the project
than to risk the potential uncertain additional costs to the public purse
if the project proceeds,� she added.

“In the present climate, with continuing pressures on public spending, it
is difficult to justify further public investment in the Garden Bridge.�

She urged the mayor to not to sign any guarantees until it is confirmed
that the private capital and revenue monies have been secured by the Garden
Bridge Trust.

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

The costs of the project have escalated from an early estimate of £60m to
over £200m today.

Also, risks to the taxpayer have intensified, Hodge said, and the original
ambition to fund the Garden Bridge through private finance has been
abandoned. The Garden Bridge Trust has lost two major private donors and
can count on pledges of only £69m, with no new pledges secured since August
2016.

A public sector contribution of £60m would still leave a gap in capital
funding of at least £70m. Moreover, very little progress has been made on
raising money to fund the ongoing maintenance of a completed bridge, the
report said.

The two TfL procurement rounds for the scheme were deemed neither open nor
fair, revealing systemic failures and ineffective control systems at many
levels.

Hodge concluded that the Garden Bridge Trust’s finances are in a precarious
state and many outstanding risks remain unresolved.

Responding to the report, Sadiq Khan confirmed that he would not invest any
further public money in the proposed bridge, which would span the River
Thames from Temple station to the South Bank, and had been scheduled to
open in 2019.

In message
-septemb
er.org, at 15:44:10 on Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles

Boris bikes in charge. What could possibly go wrong!

than value for taxpayers’ money.

--
Roland Perry

On Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:47:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

I'd like to read a fuller version of that! It sounds very important.

Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:47:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

I'd like to read a fuller version of that! It sounds very important.

This timing looks like the bridge might have been intended to influence the
2015 general election and 2016 mayoral election:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gard...nning_approval

However, I don't think that was the main factor of the timing. Much more
likely, Boris wanted to get it all approved and construction underway while
he was still mayor, as he knew his successor was unlikely to share his
enthusiasm for La Lumley's grand vision. Had he followed the proper
procurement procedures the process would have taken longer. The outcome
would still have been the same --no bridge-- but it would have cost less to
get there.

On 09/04/2017 21:34, Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:47:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

I walked along the relevant bit of the south bank the other day and
found that a good many trees had small notices attached, posted by those
opposed to the bridge, pointing out that these quite attractive and
inoffensive trees would all be demolished if the garden bridge was
approved.


--
Clive Page

Clive Page wrote:
On 09/04/2017 21:34, Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:47:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

I walked along the relevant bit of the south bank the other day and
found that a good many trees had small notices attached, posted by those
opposed to the bridge, pointing out that these quite attractive and
inoffensive trees would all be demolished if the garden bridge was
approved.

Looks like it's all over bar the shouting:

Garden Bridge: London mayor Sadiq Khan withdraws support
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39734050

I suspect that Sadiq was always privately against it, but had to let it
fail on its own terms. That way, Boris gets the blame for the embarrassing
failure of the project, and waste of public funds.

Offramp wrote:
On Sunday, 9 April 2017 16:47:15 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

I'd like to read a fuller version of that! It sounds very important.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...e_review_0.pdf

Theo