What does it say about London as a city that we can’t even afford to put permanent barriers to block terrorists on most of our bridges, years after a spate of attacks rocked the city?
And why should Westminster Bridge get permanent, unintrusive bollards, while London Bridge and Tower Bridge are left with ugly concrete blocks that clog up the bus lane in the former and cause flooding in the latter?
The situation is complicated because Transport for London only owns some of the bridges, and manages some of the roads on top, and the City of London effectively owns most of the others. TfL says it can’t afford to put in permanent barriers this year and the City’s Bridge House Trust won’t comment.
TfL abandons permanent terrorism defence barriers on bridges
It’s obviously not the most pressing issue, given skyrocketing inflation and energy bills, but just another sign of the slow decline of London’s ability to manage its infrastructure.