Thames cable car costs rise again to £60m

 
A Transport for London map showing the Thames cable car route A Transport for London (TfL) map shows the Thames cable car route

Related Stories

I've learnt the cost of the mayor's flagship cable car project has gone up - again.

Initially, Transport for London (TfL) estimated the cost at £25m and said it would use only private finance to pay for it.

Then the estimate increased to £45m, with TfL admitting it would use its own budget.

Now, we find out that figure did not take into account "technical and legal advice, project management and assurance, land acquisition and procurement costs".

TfL says the total cost will now be £60m and it is actually paying for it out of the rail budget.

So far, so confusing.

This is what TfL sent to me: "TfL is forecasting to spend approximately £60m on the build cost for the cable car.

London 2012 - Begin your journey here

London view
  • Sport, news and more 2012 information

"This includes the £45.1m for Mace [the construction company] build, £9.3m for other build costs.

"In addition an allowance of £5.2m has been set aside as, with any project of this scope and scale, funding for a contingency (set at 15% of the contract value) is required to cover unforeseen costs, although this may not be used.

"TfL is seeking to recoup the build cost through a combination of sources including a commercial sponsorship, third party funding (via an application to the European Regional Development Fund) and fare revenue."

TfL is in discussions with a potential sponsor and hopes to make an announcement soon.

Once finished, the cable cars will run 50m (164ft) above the Thames, carrying up to 2,500 people an hour between two Olympic venues: the O2 arena in North Greenwich and the Excel exhibition centre at the Royal Victoria Dock.

 
Tom Edwards Article written by Tom Edwards Tom Edwards Transport correspondent, London

Family of killed cyclist Janina Gehlau speaks out

The husband and mother of a cyclist who died after a collision with a HGV in London speak out for the first time.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 22.

    Most of London Underground (& London Overground) is not true public transport, because such a significant section of the public (disabled people, parents with buggies, etc) are denied equal access to the existing system. Boris cancelled TfL's scheme - to make more stations accessible across the whole of London - to finance this madcap, short-term white elephant? Nah, he's having a larf!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 21.

    #20 - it could rise like Tower Bridge (or move sideways for that matter).The actual blueprint had shown the middle of the bridge lifting. Large ships only go through a couple of times per day so it would not be a big deal. Google the sustrans blueprint if you are interested. Ironically it would cost £60m which was then seen as difficult to justify, and here we are...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    #19 - that would have to be a pretty tall bridge as otherrwise it would stop a huge range of ships going further up the river to central London.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 19.

    There was a study for a 5 metre wide bridge for pedestrians and cyclists between Hilton Docklands and Canary Wharf Pier, replacing the overpriced ferry service. This would enable thousands of people to walk, run and cycle to Canary Wharf, reduce the overcrowding on the Jubilee line and pressure on the Rotherhithe tunnel. The mayor choose not to do it, and opted for this folly instead. Sad.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    @ 13 and who cancelled that bridge - the Thames Gateway Bridge ? yes it was Boris !

    If the cable car was never part of the Olympic Transport plan then why is time and money and staff time being spent on it when the Olympic plans are complex enough to manage.

    and as for finding a private sponsor - which private company would want their name sullied by being linked to this boodoggle?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 17.

    £60 million? For a cable car? Cancel it and spend the money on something that is actually needed.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    Boys and their toys!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    Nice to see money desperately needed for the tramlink extension to Tooting and Sutton is being diverted to such a worthy and useful cause!

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 14.

    Money wasted - stop it now! - £1,200,000 a metre...[sharp in take of breath]..gonna cost ya mate..Oh by the way did I let you know that you need to buy land to put the thing on!!! Please..

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    Greenwich does not need another pedestrian crossing. There is a perfectly adequate foot tunnel already.

    We need another vehicle crossing between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Tunnel. There were plans to build one at Thamesmead. Surely the money would have been better spent on that.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 12.

    There is so much interest in this project, that after 5 hours, only 12 responces have been posted. Therefore how many would be upset if the project were to be scrapped.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 11.

    I never knew there was so much demand for foot passenger travel from the Excel to the O2! Maybe the tube station 'North Greenwich' should be renamed 'White Elephant'.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 10.

    Another stupid idea from a mayor who cant even manage his own hair. Why do we need this? what we need is the The Thames gateway bridge that this idiot put a block on because it was too expensive. Amazing!!!!

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 9.

    TfL is already saying that completion is due in summer 2012 but the cable car is not part of the Olympics travel plan. So most likely it won't link two Olympic venues at all, just two sites which were once Olympic venues and, given the ticketing arrangements, nobody needed to go straight from one to the other anyway.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 8.

    What plank signed off this folly? How can £25m turn into £60m (+ a cheeky extra) and still be taken seriously? Once the olympics have passed they will be lucky to get 2,500 people a day on it. What is wrong with the Jubilee line to cross that part of town? Or will that still be unreliable? So many questions.. so few answers

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 7.

    'Now, we find out that figure did not take into account "technical and legal advice, project management and assurance, land acquisition and procurement costs". '

    Did they not know they would need legal advice, to manage the project and to buy some land, etc?

    How difficult is it to tender for a project and get a price for the job?

    This is a disgrace and the Mayor should be held accountable.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 6.

    "...that figure did not take into account "technical and legal advice, project management and assurance, land acquisition and procurement costs..."
    Which indicates complete project management incompetence on someone's part !!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 5.

    A substantial no doubt vital ? addtion our mass transport needs, a few miles over the Thames for £60m. If HS2 is regarded as a waste of money then goodness knows what this contribution to public transport is.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 4.

    Another useless idea from a useless mayor.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 3.

    Whatever TfL may say publically, they know the project will be an unmitigated disaster if its not ready for the Olympics. I'm sure that's why they've held off on anouncing a sponsor. They want more certainty that it will be ready and provide the most high profile billboard of the games.

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.