Questions and Answers
Q Is there
is a significant difference between the planned layout and the actual layout of
the existing safe route over the bridge?
A No, the alignment of
the route was checked twice by an engineer from the design team. Since then the
alignment has been inspected again and the position relative to the beams
checked. On all occasions the route (including the barriers) has been found to
be correctly aligned. The survey work was undertaken by two separate teams each
adopting a different methodology for the survey in order to eliminate, as far
as possible, the potential for systematic errors.
The
original preliminary design has been adjusted and takes account of the actual
size of the barriers. However the angles to the corners cannot be made less
acute or the barriers moved apart because of the need to prevent additional
loading of the weaker beams below the carriageway. The route alignment remains
suitable for a 3.5 tonne van though the weight
restriction is 3 tonnes.
Q All railway bridges are controlled by government legislation under The
Railway Act and there are deposited plans for every bridge in the country
which guarantee & protect the integrity of bridges’ load-bearing, carriage
width & other factors as & when said bridges require repair or
replacement as in Colwall. Please can you explain how the proposed plan for a
one-lane bridge instead of the deposited plan for a two-lane bridge can
possibly be reconciled with existing legislation?
A In this instance the legislation and documents referred to give an
overall width as not less than the adjoining highway (the current
bridge and proposed bridge is approximately 30 foot). The load
carrying capacity is set by the Transport Act 1968 and associated
legislation. The division between carriageway for motor vehicles and
pedestrians is entirely in the remit of the Highway Authority.
Put simply Network Rail are complying with their obligations for
providing a route over the railway and the council is exercising its right to
determine the width of the highway.
Q Please give us the reasons why the present scheme for the new bridge is
being proposed. Why is it deemed sensible to have a single lane, the
existing bridge has two, so why change it?
A For two way traffic the new bridge would need to be widened as the
current width of the eastern footpath on the existing bridge is too narrow
(for both safe and practical use) and does not comply with current
standards. The council would not be fulfilling its legal duty of care if the
footpath was not widened, particularly with the close proximity of two schools.
If we widen the bridge to take two way traffic with
reasonable width footways there is significantly more design work (for
example the existing abutments supporting the bridge deck would need
widening) plus there would be other preparatory work. It is
understood that an early opening of the bridge is important to Colwall. To
achieve this early opening there is a need to minimise design and
construction processes. It is the
minimisation of design and construction processes to meet the primary needs of
Colwall that dictates the single way traffic.
Q Could there be two 1.5m wide footways and a 6.2m wide carriageway with
guardrails to protect pedestrians all within the existing highway width?
A No, the guardrails need to be set back from the edge of the kerb by
around half a metre. Therefore the footways would only be one metre wide if
this approach was adopted.
Q If the bridge was widened would additional land be required?
A Yes
if we widened the bridge we would need to gain access rights over land and this
would probably require compulsory purchase order procedures. It is also
expected that planning permission would be required. This work would
significantly extend the time to complete the new bridge deck.
30th April 2008