Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:07:57 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

Cancel it, kill it, get rid of it, don't give Heatherwick one penny of
public money for his disastrous design.

I'm not against the design, but London doesn't need a new footbridge so
close to Waterloo bridge, and it doesn't need a small, new, hideously
expensive g arden in the middle of the river. And there's no reason why so
much, or indeed any, of the funding should come out of London's public
transport budget. If it was felt that Temple Tube station really needed a
new footbridge link to the South Bank, it would cost a small fraction of
what Boris committed TfL to spend on this redundant bridge. But I've not
heard any clamour for such a link.

There are many other places on the Thames that could use new bridges, and
no doubt there are plenty of bits of derelict land that could be turned
into new public parks. But this project is an over-priced solution to a
non-existent problem.