Blackfriars Bridge

[bolognium]

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on the subject. A Blackfriars website was designed showing options that are being considered, and also offers the ability to submit a comment regarding your preference.

Options being considered.

The option to rehabilitate the bridge as a pedestrian link seems the most cost-effective/practical, but most importantly it preserves this iconic bridge. I rarely drive over the bridge, so I don't know how this affects people's commutes and trips. However, I have heard from friends in the neighbourhood that it's been more pleasant without the downtown car traffic.

I'm definitely open to the option to rehabilitate for vehicles, but only if this bridge is an important vehicular link in the greater scheme of things. To me it seems like the majority of motorists can easily choose between Oxford and Riverside bridges without it affecting their daily lives too severely. I am completely against the two options depicting new structures and road realignments, though. These options are catering to the automobile above all else. Oxford and Riverside are both very high capacity modern routes. Building a new bridge here is basically committing to creating a new high capacity modern route, and changing the character of that neighbourhood permanently. Is this absolutely required? Are Riverside and Oxford not capable of permanently accepting Blackfriars auto traffic?

In the end, I feel like resigning the bridge to pedestrian/cycling traffic is the most logical option. It preserves the bridge, and is likely the cheapest as well. Rehabilitating for vehicles can be considered as a happy medium between the extremes of new structure/pedestrian only, but doesn't seem truly required in my opinion.

[jaradthescot]

I agree with basically everything you said, with an added emphasis on the bridge's history. I was a history major, so I may have a historical bias, but I always point out and make an effort to go to that bridge every time I'm near. It truly is iconic, and should be marked as a historical landmark. So many times this city has dropped the ball on infrastructure when the displacement of a few residents, or the cries of the local NIMBYs gets too loud. It'd be a real shame for them to now destroy such a landmark as a cheap, short-sighted alternative

[bolognium]

I guess by my use of words like "iconic" and "preserve" I figured I was covering the historical aspect. But you're totally right, I really should have emphasized its historical importance. I'm just having an impossible time imagining a new structure replacing Blackfriars. To the point where I literally don't see replacement as an option.

I'd like to know if Blackfriars is truly important as a vehicular link, and not more of a convenience. The bridge is indispensable for pedestrians/cyclists, but I feel like motorists can adjust easily. Now that it's been closed for a while, has traffic flow corrected itself? Oxford and Riverside are currently accepting the volume, do they have the capacity to continue?

[Pimpmasterdac]

The current Blackfriars bridge clearly cannot deal with modern vehicle traffic. It breaks down more often than it's in service. While the Central-Blackfriars would be the best for traffic flow, I doubt local residents would accept it given the expropriation required, and the new & increased traffic flow. Rehabbing it for vehicle traffic will lead to the same shit happening again; Vehicle using it, down for a few months, short term fix. My bet is that the historical preservation and local neighbourhood associations band together, keep the current bridge but as non-vehicular.

Once thing that should be considered, whatever solution to Blackfriars bridge, is that London needs better east-west Thames crossings. Oxford is a gongshow though RT would require a widening but entirely for transit, Queens/Dundas gets backed up rush hour due to Riverside going down to 2 lanes and no plans for it to be widened either. There's missing links Huron-Sarnia and Gainsborough-Windemere that contribute to the downtown routes being over capacity.

[haljackey]

The Oxford bridge is overcapacity and a new crossing here could help alleviate that.

However, the Riverside/Queen/Dundas bridge complex seems to handle volumes decently. A proposed bridge connection directly to King Street will make this crossing more efficient as well.

I'd make Blackfriars off limits to traffic. If a new crossing is warranted, I wouldn't build it near this bridge as it would ruin the aesthetic appeal of it.

Just my two nickles (pennys are phased out).

[bolognium]

You were one of the people I was especially eager to hear from, Haljackey. You mentioned Oxford bridge being over capacity. Would Blackfriars rehabilitated (not a new structure) make a dent in that volume, or would it be insignificant? The Blackfriars website noted that prior to closing, the bridge handled up to 5000 vehicles per day. I'd imagine that's somewhat small potatoes compared to what Oxford and Riverside handle.

I feel like engineering a new structural crossing for Blackfriars would be kind of a waste. Wouldn't all of that money and energy be better spent creating a new crossing on one of the northern east to west corridors as Pimp suggested? Obviously those routes have unique hurdles of their own, namely nearby residents and Medway ESA.

@Pimp: The plan makes a note that rehabilitating the bridge for vehicular traffic would not be a stopgap solution, it would be a long-term fix. We wouldn't be seeing the bridge out of commission six months after completion. We'd probably be seeing something with a steel deck as well, doubt we'd see the wood decking stick around.

Edit: One thing I completely forgot to mention was my problem with the interaction of the Thames Valley Parkway with both proposed new bridges. In the drawings, neither bridge has a connection to the TVP trail, making those new bridges much less useful as a pedestrian/cycling link across the river. Reinforcing the "catering to the automobile" part I mentioned earlier.

[manny_santos]

My views are in line with everyone else so far in this thread. It is an iconic part of London's history, and if I'm not mistaken, it was the first bridge that linked London with the north side of the Thames River, linking London to Sarnia and Goderich.

Functionally, it shouldn't be used by motor vehicles anymore, but should be preserved. Traffic should use Oxford or Riverside/Queens, and I do believe Oxford should be six lanes.

[Simpseatles]

Designating the bridge as pedestrian and bike only seems like a no-brainer to me, and I'm sort of surprised this wasn't done years ago. Blackfriars Bridge is certainly a hidden gem of London. So hidden that I honestly don't think in all the years I've been living here I've ever actually gone over it or even seen it in person. I can't imagine that much traffic would be effected by its closure.

[Blitz]

I'd like it to be a vehicle crossing. When it was open I used it to commute every day and now my commute has been lengthened since I have to sit in traffic on Oxford.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by bolognium

You were one of the people I was especially eager to hear from, Haljackey. You mentioned Oxford bridge being over capacity. Would Blackfriars rehabilitated (not a new structure) make a dent in that volume, or would it be insignificant? The Blackfriars website noted that prior to closing, the bridge handled up to 5000 vehicles per day. I'd imagine that's somewhat small potatoes compared to what Oxford and Riverside handle.

I feel like engineering a new structural crossing for Blackfriars would be kind of a waste. Wouldn't all of that money and energy be better spent creating a new crossing on one of the northern east to west corridors as Pimp suggested? Obviously those routes have unique hurdles of their own, namely nearby residents and Medway ESA.

Originally Posted by Blitz

I'd like it to be a vehicle crossing. When it was open I used it to commute every day and now my commute has been lengthened since I have to sit in traffic on Oxford.

Taking 5,000 cars off the Oxford/Riverside crossings will cause a dent in congestion along these routes, especially during the morning and evening rush hours when it would be more heavily utilized as an alternative crossing.

That's what I see this bridge as: an alternative. It's a 'nice to have' crossing for vehicular traffic. If the span was just wide enough for two lanes, I'd say keep it open to cars. However this not the case.

There's a part of me that wants it to be used to its fullest potential (cars), but my conscience says it just isn't the right thing to do in this case.

Cities grow and change. That's healthy. Change is usually a good thing, especially when it comes to infrastructure upgrades but there are exceptions here and there. The Blackfriars Bridge is such an exception.

I'm torn, as most Londoners are when they think of this issue.

[ssiguy]

They shouldn't do anything to the iconic Blackfriars.

They shouldn't change it one little bit, not even for pedestrians of bikes if it in anyway changes the bridge. the bridge is just small local one and should never be viewed as a route that could relieve the pressure off Oxford.

The only thing they could change is if they took off all cars on the route and it was to become a bike/pedestrian route. Even then they should not involve any form of change in the bridge even for separating the two components. To me Blackfriar's is as important a piece of the city's history as is the Old Court House and there should not be one change to the bridge unless absolutely necessary for structural integrity.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by haljackey

There's a part of me that wants it to be used to its fullest potential (cars), but my conscience says it just isn't the right thing to do in this case.

I have to take exception with the notion that a piece of land or infrastructure's "fullest potential" is necessarily to carry cars.

Maybe, in this case, the bridge’s fullest potential is as a living historical monument, as others have suggested. I would agree that it should be turned into a foot/bike bridge. Ssiguy makes an interesting point about it becoming a bike/pedestrian route. Maybe Central-Blackfriars-Paul would be a good candidate for an east-west greenway.

I used to be in a carpool in which one of the drivers routinely took Blackfriars, and I never understood it over Riverside. It arguably shaved a couple of minutes off the trip (our destination was on Dufferin), but that is not a street that should be carrying any amount of commuter vehicle traffic, and I felt a bit sorry that the people who lived there had to deal with us. I really doubt that a bridge that narrow could alleviate the burden on Oxford or Riverside, without creating a nuisance for the residents there.

On the topic of Oxford, I believe the traffic volume is about 30,000 there (someone may have accurate, up-to-date numbers). Four lanes is appropriate for that volume. Yes, it gets busy in the morning and afternoon rush, but you can’t design infrastructure (especially a very expensive piece of infrastructure like a bridge) for the two hours a day when volume is much higher than normal.

[haljackey]

Sorry by 'fullest potential' I meant maximizing its capacity as much as possible. This would involve car traffic.

I agree with you that it's 'fullest potential' is as a living historical monument. Guess I was thinking too much from an engineering perspective instead of considering other perspectives.

[tyeman200]

I think it should just be used as a pedestrian/bike crossing. It's way less stress on that old bridge. The only way that bridge could be used as a vehicle roadway is if they tear it down and rebuild it. Because sure, they could just keep fixing it, but that's just a huge hassle. Plus, you never know when one day, the bridge could just collapse from all the traffic.

[MrSlippery519]

I think it should be maintained as a bike/pedestrian only bridge. Granted having cars able to cross would be nice, I just do not think it makes sense and would require a lot of extra work.