This was an interesting, very long, read! They say of those 25,000 daily trips, most shifted to cycling, walking and public transport, and some moved to other bridges. And then another 9,000 or so were replaced by alternatives that were just better... people tried new transport modes and often found they were better. They do say the closure has created genuine hardship for specific groups.

Article Summary: Why we can't have nice infrastructure any more. :(

Not disagreeing with the author's conclusion, but the price comparison to the original struck me as a bit odd.

Ceteris paribus, building the exact same bridge will result in the exact same failure. Some of the additional cost is precisely to avoid the present scenario repeating itself in the future.

How big that addition represents and how effective it is up for debate, but asking for a better bridge at inflation adjusted price is not a. apples to apples comparison.

A few people I know had moved to houses on one side of the bridge for easy access to schools and jobs on the other side, and were hit hard by the closure.

Their commute times skyrocketed to go to the next Thames crossing.

London car traffic is broken like there's no other city in the world.

While many sell this as an asset, most people pay the consequences in their daily lives. Going to an event? you will be late. A flight from Gatwick? missed. A job interview? book the whole morning.

Trying to cross the city by Uber? that will be 40 euros.