| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | |
| Posted by: | Ivonne Holliday | |
| Date/Time: | 20/04/25 12:05:00 |
| No, Richard, I am not confusing anything at all. Making the bridge safe was a non-negotiable requirement. However, the reinforcement of the bridge was always required for vehicular traffic and that is what they were working towards. No, £48m worth of reinforcement for cyclists and pedestrians traffic is a scandal and robbery. Is it not odd how the successive Governments have always parroted that Hammersmith Bridge is owned by H&FB. On the other hand, Albert Bridge required reinforcement and work done in 2010-11 and, surprise surprise, the RBKC (who by then owned the bridge) paid 25% of the expenditure and the remaining 75% was paid for TfL. Hmmmmmmmmmmm |
| Topic | Date Posted | Posted By |
| Hammersmith Bridge | 18/04/25 09:10:00 | Barbara Stevens |
| Re:Hammersmith Bridge | 18/04/25 09:19:00 | Richard Carter |
| Re:Re:Hammersmith Bridge | 18/04/25 09:37:00 | Ivonne Holliday |
| Re:Re:Re:Hammersmith Bridge | 18/04/25 13:44:00 | Richard Carter |
| Re:Hammersmith Bridge | 18/04/25 09:35:00 | Andy Pike |
| Reply | 18/04/25 15:10:00 | Richard Carter |
| Reply | 19/04/25 13:27:00 | Ivonne Holliday |
| Re:Reply | 19/04/25 14:52:00 | Philippa Bond |
| Re:Re:Reply | 19/04/25 16:54:00 | Ed Robinson |
| Re:Reply | 19/04/25 21:34:00 | Richard Carter |
| Re:Re:Reply | 19/04/25 21:48:00 | Ivonne Holliday |
| Re:Re:Re:Reply | 20/04/25 08:39:00 | Richard Carter |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 20/04/25 10:41:00 | Ed Robinson |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 20/04/25 12:05:00 | Ivonne Holliday |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 20/04/25 13:13:00 | Richard Carter |
| Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply | 20/04/25 14:46:00 | Ivonne Holliday |