"Marland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote:

This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility.
Both
Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician
we
have at the moment in all parties is just laughable.



As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources
of
TFL and Hammersmith
approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down.

Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again.

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.



It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.

--
DAS

D A Stocks wrote:
"Marland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote:

This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility.
Both
Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician
we
have at the moment in all parties is just laughable.



As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources
of
TFL and Hammersmith
approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down.

Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again.

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.



It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep
2020, Recliner remarked:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.

Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England?
--
Roland Perry

On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep
2020, Recliner remarked:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.

Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England?

Either English Heritage or Historic England?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep
2020, Recliner remarked:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.

Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England?

Either English Heritage or Historic England?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep
2020, Recliner remarked:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.

Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England?

Either English Heritage or Historic England?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:
"Marland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote:

This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility.
Both
Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician
we
have at the moment in all parties is just laughable.



As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources
of
TFL and Hammersmith
approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down.

Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again.

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.



It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.

Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:
"Marland" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote:

This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility.
Both
Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician
we
have at the moment in all parties is just laughable.



As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources
of
TFL and Hammersmith
approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down.

Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again.

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge

Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.



It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.


I wasn't thinking of also preserving the original.

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

--
DAS

D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.