London Bridges.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVII, Issue 19, 8 May 1912, Page 33

London Bridges.

A.n Examination Into How Far They Meet the Demands Made On Them — and Some Suggestions for Their Improvement and Extension.

By

H. OTTEWILL, BRUCE.

THE discussion over the scheme for building a new bridge from Southwark Street across the Thames and Queen Victoria Street to St. Paul’s Churchyard naturally leads to a further discussion as to how far the existing means of communication across the Thames are sutlicient to meet the present requirements. In the whole of the county of London there are fourteen bridges crossing the ’Thames, starting at the Tower and finishing at Hammersmith. These naturally fall into two groups of seven each —those down the river from Lambeth, and those above that point, commencing with Vauxhall Bridge. The first of these two sections is. of course, by far the most important. Here we have practically the whole of the commercial ami manufacturing part or London; the area covered by these seven bridges, in fact, is the heart of London, and therefore of the Empire. The Tower Bridge was built between ISSIi ami 1894. The width of the roadway of the centre span is 32 feet, and the gradients on both bridge and approach are about 1 in 40. It is the nearest bridge for practically all the cross-

river tratlic from the docks that abound in that neighbourhood, ami there is a steady stream of traffic crossing it at all hours of the day. The approaches to the bridge from ‘Southwark side are by no means all that could be desired, and the frequent opening of the bridge to allow of the passage of slow-moving vessels is the cause of considerable vexatious delays and congestion of traffic on the roads leading to it from either side; ami. incidentally, its maintenance costs the London County Council something like £16,000 per year. The person desirous of avoiding the delay at the Tower Bridge has to make his way five furlongs further up the river through tortuous streets, mostly blocked with tratlic. before he reaches the next facility for crossing the Thames — London Bridge. There have been at least five bridges on this site, the earliest record being of a bridge built about 944 A.D. ’fhe present bridge was built between the years 1524 and IS3I to the design of Sir John Rennie. It was widened during the years 1903. and the roadway is now 35 feet wide, 'fhe steepest gradient on the bridge is 1 in 42. whilst the approaches have gradients in some places as steep as 1 in 28. London Bridge

is by far the most overworked of all London’s bridges; it has been estimated that an average of 22.000 vehicles and about 110.000 passengers cross the Thames by this one bridge every dav. In order to relieve the congestion on London Bridge, another was built a quarter of a mile further up the stream —the Southwark Bridge. It is another example of the work of Sir John Renie. ami was built between the years 1814 and 1819—a time when the use of castiron in bridge construction was extremely popular. The roadway is only 28ft. Oin. wide, and when allowances are made off this for the tramway lines, it will be seen that this bridge is of little value as a means of reducing the enormous tratlic over the older bridge. It has a gradient of 1 in 25 on the bridge and 1 in IS on the approaches. The bridge was purchased by the Corporation of London from the company by whom

it was built in 1867. and it has been a source of strife practically ever since. It is three and a half furlongs from Southwark Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge. Since it was widened in 1907-1908. this is now the widest bridge spanning the Thames. It was built to the design of Mr. Joseph Cubitt between the years 1864-1869. The width of the roadway is now 73 feet, though some allowance must be made off this for the dftmble line of tramlines that cross it from en I to end. ’Fhe* steepest gradient on the bridge is 1 in 32. and that on the approaches 1 in 30. THE UPPER BRIDGES. Another half-mile interval separates Blackfriars and Waterloo Bridges. Waterloo Bridge was built between 1813 and 1817 at a total dost of something over a million pounds. The width of the roadway, however, is onlv 27ft. 4in.,

and the steepest gradient on the approaches is 1 in 38. This is probably the finest bridge over the Thames, and is generally considered to be* the finest example of the elder Rennie's wi»rk. From a practical point of view, however, its narrowness and the terrible congestion is always to Im* found there during the busy times of the day. particularly at the Strand end. combine to make it inadequate to meet the present demands made on it. Westminster Bridge, which is a full half-mile further up the river, was built in 1853-1862 v>n the site of old Westminster Bridge. It has a roadway of 58 feet wide, and a gradient on the bridge of 1 in 56. On the aproaches the steepest gradient is I in 38. Here again allowances have to be made flor the double line of tramway that crosses it. Lambeth Bridge, three furlongs high r up. is the last and by far the ugliest and

most inadequate in this section—probably in the whole of London. It is a suspension bridge designed by the late Mr. Peter Barlow, and erected a Hint 1862. It has two other claims to distinction of a negative sort—first, the use of cables instead of chains as a means of suspension, a departure* that by no means enhances its beauty; and second, that it is the most narrow !of all London's bridges over the Thames, having a roadway only 16ft. 9in. wide. We thus see that of the seven bridges in this section- the section that probably takes at least t hree-quarters of all London's cross-river tratlic—two (the Southwark ami Lambeth Bridges respectively) are practically valueless. The remaining live are always, during the busy Hours of the day. in a state of almost hopeless congestion. The question of how this could be relieved is a difficult one. The question of improving Southwark Bridge is an urgent one. although the construction of the St. Paul's Bridge* would do much to relieve* matters, both at Southwark' and at Blackfriars: ineleed. it must be* remembereel that this seTieme was put forward as an alternative* to the* reconstruction e>f the* hornier. I he St. Paul's Bridge* scheme* provides tor the construction e>f a new bridge acioss the Thames betwe*en the* existin'* Southwark and Blackfriars Bridges. The proposal is that the* approach to the* new bridge* should commence* on the? south side*, at the* junction of Southwark Street and Southwark Bridge* Road, ami ase*end in a north-westerly direction on a gradient of ] in 45 to the bridge proper, a leught of about 500 yards. The* bridge* cemsists of these* spans, and the* roadway is horizontal from the* centre* e»f the* first te> the* centre* of the* third span, (hi tile* north side* the* approach passes, by viaduct, over Upper Thames Street and Queen Victoria Street, terminating by a junction with Cannon Stre*e*t at St. Pauls. A point to which the archtect, Mr. Bail Mott. C.E. has given special e*onsideration is the crossing by viaduct over Queen Victoria St reel a subject to which it is almost impossible to attach too much import a nee*. It ’confusion of cross traffic in this important thoroughfare* and gives a sat isfactory gradient into Cannon Street, an object only to he attaineel in this manner. A scheme* which provided for the construction of a bridge* crossing Queen Victoria Street on a level would not

only Ih* of great inconvenience to the traffic along that street, but would also, owing to the difference in level between Queen Victoria Street and Cannon Street and a short distance between them, necessitate a rising gradient of 1 in 32. The question of tramway accommodation has not been overlooked. especially as when completed this is likelv to Itecome one of the most popular thoroughfares from the north to the south of London. It is. of course, impos-ilde to have tramears passing along the street-level of the City of London, but nevertheless it is possible to give facilities for through communication by running the tramline' over this new bridge from the Southwark Bridge Road, to the north side of Queen Victoria Street.

Here the approach would be widened in order t<> allow the tramway to descend below Cannon Street, in the same manner as the L.L.C, trams now descend Southampton Row. passing under

the Strand to the Thames Embankment at Waterloo Bridge. From Cannon Street the tramway could be extended under St. Patil’s Churchyard. St. Mar-tin’s-le-Grand, and Aldersgate Street, rising to the surface in that street and forming a junction with the existing tramway at the City boundary.. The scheme would also necessitate the widening of St. Paul’s Churchyard from Cannon Street to Cheapside. The vista bridge scheme of which so much has been written would have the disadvantage of greater expense and inconvenience to traffic at the St. Paul’s end. A NEW LAMBETH BRIDGE. In contrast to the comprehensive scheme for the building of St. Paul’s Bridge must be placed the recommenda-

tions of the Improvements Committee of the L.C.C. for a new Lambeth Bridge According to the recent decision of the Council. Parliament will be asked to allow a new Lambeth Bridge to be

erected at a cost of £220.000. only 49 feet wide from parapet to parapet. This means that when sufficient space has been deducted for the footways on either side—say eight feet each—there will be barely room for vehicles to pass. In fact, the new bridge would be but little better than the present decrepit viaduct. In discussing such schemes, however, the fact must not be lost sight of that the average distance between each of the bridges in this section is approximately half a mile, whereas in the corresponding portion of Paris it is about three hundred yards. The average distance between all the bridges of Paris is something rather less than six hundred yards, whereas London, which may be presumed to have double as much traffic and population as that city, has her bridges placed an average distance of 1200 yards apart. I believe that recently a census was taken of the traffic passing over the bridges of London, and do not doubt

that the reading of such a census would give interesting results, particularly if compared with the corresponding Paris figures. 1 have not seen the announcement of the publication of this return, however, so 1 give, with reserve, an