Do you want a mayor who will bring about a revolution in London?

If they mean 'open door to the bunch of sociopathic fuckers working in the Square Mile', they'd be right.

Doubt it's that, though

"Fignon" sounds about as English as... I dunno, "Vanneau"?

If it wasn't for the generally welcoming nature of the UK in the 20th, 19th, and 16th centuries I wouldn't exist now. Nor would many of the current population I suspect.

What has changed London overwhelmingly since 1997 is the erosion of social housing and rampant property speculation. Swathes of it are no longer part of an affordable or livable city. People complaining about 'open doors' is a laughable distraction.

Speaking of which, if any mayoral candidate had the guts to confront the housing issue, I might vote for them.

I wouldn't exist now

Me too!
Hurray for immigration.

(And quite without getting into reasoned discussions, I have a complete aversion to the phrase "open door policy" because it is nearly always used to gloss plain hatefulness)

I say again:
Welcome to London!

I think Tower Bridge should be made "car free", and turned into a pedestrain, cycle and the occasional bus crossing. Send all the car drivers and their vehicles over London Bridge and make them pay the congestion charge, or east to either the Rotherhithe or Blackwall tunnels.

I would guess (my reading of it anyway) is open door to money, i.e. the rules seem to stop applying if your proposal has enough money behind it (c.f. the garden bridge)

Stuff like the Garden Bridge tends to play on the (substantial) vanity of local politicians. These clowns all want their name on a plinth, in my experience.

By contrast the 'Cllr Whatsisface Memorial Bollards and One-Way System' lacks a bit of glamour.

I think he's suggesting a walk/cycling bridge from Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf, which would be great, currently the only way of crossing is Tower bridge or Greenwich foot tunnel. Which is a fair distance on bike. They've been saying they'll do it for years, but no-one wants to pay for it cause obviously it won't make any $$$$

There's the RB4 ferry, Rotherhithe-Canary Wharf. It would be cheaper to fund additional bike space on that than to build another bridge that far down.

Well technically you can use the Rotherhithe tunnel...

There's the Hilton ferry, I've never tried taking a bike on it though. Does it still exist?

I do think the cable car could have been more usefully positioned (but don't know much about why it is where it is, I guess space at either end is an issue) - imagine arriving into the isle of dogs at height amongst all the shiny stuff!

Edit: beaten to it...

Yeah but that costs £3 a pop. And isn't that frequent. Or open at night.

RE Rotherhithe tunnel. Done it twice. Never again. I like my lungs.

The RB4! I must thank you. You have just saved me attempting to cycle through the Rotherhithe tunnel. My lungs are beyond grateful.

It's every ten minutes - quicker than going miles out of your way (unless you're Hippy).

As for the £3 - well, I can't imagine something spanning the river at that point, which would have to be either very high or openable or both, would be financially feasible without some kind of toll.

Sadly that's it - financially feasible - is the problem. It should be built because it would improve transport linksand connect up Rotherhithe, which is a bit of a dead area, but it won't. And no-one is going to pay to use a pedestrian bridge.

Another suggestion: bike carriages on the DLR

Or this

My mayoral application is in the post

Erm, is the Thames appreciably any wider there than at Tower Bridge? A quick look at the OS level of streetmap.co.uk suggests that it isn't significantly wider at the cusp of the curve. As for openable, if you're only planning on loading non-motorised traffic, your engineering for that becomes infinitely more variable and easier.

That brings you to the notion of a "toll". Even in fairweather scenarios, you'll get more people walking and/or cycling to work which will have an onward benefit in terms of health costs, business efficiency savings, reduced traffic impacts etc. It has all of the hallmarks of a spend to save project. If you could get the businesses in Canary Wharf to buy into the idea you have the potential to level the type of project investment that would be very favourable for the city. You could even exploit options for an ultralight rail system to be built in and a handy " when is the bridge going to open" app for android phones.

connect up Rotherhithe

It's possible that Rotherhithe would not appreciate this... It's one of the "peninsulas" and while it's been a while since I did any work there, they certainly used to have quite a vociferous residents' group and didn't seem terribly keen on outsiders.

Edit: So maybe that's exactly what it needs!

Ha! That explains it I guess, fair amount of money in those riverside properties. However go inland a bit....

Oh, not that kind of residents group.. Bit more old school.

Possibly back to one interpretation of "open door policy" vs another.

The idea was already floated in the late 2000s - Sustrans were involved, I think. It was a lifting design that time.

As the plug was pulled then I suspect that the projected costings were a bit much for the Mayor and TFL to stomach. My own preference is for small scale projects first to demonstrate demand (I was serious about the ferry).

@Vanneau for mayor!

I have just looked up TfL's 2009 report on 'East London River Crossings'. It mentions the Sustrans bridge.

It says that although the bridge would be an 'iconic scheme', it would have a 'high cost' and would present 'difficult navigable issues'. It does however suggest that there was scope for improving promotion of the ferry, as I was thinking. Not many people know about it and it could be run more regularly.

The thing is that to back a big infrastructure project you'd need some bauble to get the outside money in - 'regeneration' and consequent increase in land values is a usual one.

My past would probably come back to haunt me very quickly

Costings and economics change over time, it's worth revisiting again. The ferry still falls down if it isn't a 24hr service.

Small scale isn't always a good indicator of demand for a large scale project. You can't decide whether to build a bridge based on the number of people trying to swim across a river. Increasing capacity on ferries isn't going to bring in a key demographic. Imagine a minimum wage, two job cleaner living on Rotherhithe. If they work in Canary Wharf, they're still taking cycle/bus/tube/train the long way round because an extra £750 a year wouldn't be an afforable expense, even if the boats are bigger and carry more bikes. If you increase the boat capacity, you'll just increase capacity on the current demographic. If that's already at peak, then what you perceive as demonstrated demand through increased capacity won't actually reflect the potential demand for an accessible to all facility. Seriously, head down to Southwark Bridge and ask cyclists/walkers there. I reckon I can guess the number of people who would say that it would be much better if the got to spaff £6 a day on a boat, had to wait to cross and couldn't make it home after a stressful day of working very late cleaning up someone elses shit.