Yes I know, a little bit out of my area but I confess a professional interest in this project as well as my local interest. The government has decided to reopen the public inquiry, thereby postponing a decision on whether or not to build this major bridge. They say that they want to further investigate information that has come to light since the inquiry closed last year, but it's just a fudge. The inspector recommended that the bridge should not be built. He said that the case for building it - that it would stimulate regeneration in the Thames Gateway - had not been sufficiently proven to outweigh the disadvantages.
The report says: "In my view, the key to this is the economic regeneration benefits claimed for the scheme. If they had been robustly shown, they might have been sufficient to tip the balance. But I do not consider the evidence to be strong enough or reliable enough to outweigh substantially the disbenefits of the scheme in terms of increased traffic, reduced safety, increased air pollution, and a shift against walking, cycling and public transport, in favour of the private car."
The environmentalists have got a very strong point on this; there is no way that Ken can promote this scheme while claiming to be trying to reduce pollution etc through congestion charging in central London. It can only serve to generate additional traffic and increase pollution in what is already one of the worst polluted boroughs in - is it the UK?
Just so you know - I DO support the congestion charge, I DO use public transport almost every day, I also cycle and walk regularly, and I also own a car!