The Highway Bridge Question.
Page 3
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By H. Howard Humphreys, M.I.Mech.E.
(Continued from page 25.) Dilapidated Bridges.
It will be advisable, now, to summarize the positien. Firstly, as to the repair of public dilapidated bridges. provision for which is unsatisfactory, owing to its COMbersomene,ss, expense and Relay in the case of public or quasi-public structures; secondly, as to repairs in the case of railway bridges, the machinery for bringing about which is also unsatisfactory, owing partly to a possible difficulty of getting the local house-holders or surveyor to make complaint to the justices, and also owing to the unsuitability of the tribunal; thirdly, there is the situation with regard to canal and other privately-owned bridges of a like nature, which is still worse, partly owing to the general poverty of canal companies, and partly to the fact that the legal machinery in order to bring about repair is not less cumbersome and expensive.
With reference to the restrictions of bridges under the Heavy and Light. Locomotives Acts, these require revision, particularly in the case of by-laws made by county councils under the 1896 Light Locomotives Act. Power should be given to appeal to the Local Government Board, as in the case of the Heavy Locomotives Acts, so that no bridge shall be closed on an ex-parte statement. The power \Illicit owners of private bridges have under the Locomotives Act of 1861. Section 6, should be very much modified, for, if an owner desires to affix these prescribed
notices, he should be compelled to state—and if needs be to prove—what weight the bridge was originally designed
to carry. The right to appeal against notices put up tinder
this section should, in the case of railway bridges, still be vested in the Board of Trade ; the same Department should also be the confirming authority for byslaws made by
county councils in respect of railway or other companyowned structures carrying public roads. The Board of
Trade, in the case of bridges as specified in the last pars graph, and the Local Government Board in the case eV urdinary public bridges, should have the power of settling
definitely what weights future overbridges should be de
signed to carry. As already pointed out, the Board of Trade does not seem to have any authority in this matter ;
whilst the most-careful efforts are made to see that the bridges carrying the railways are absolutely safe, no supervision, other than that of local authorities who have no agreed standard of strengths, is exercised in the case of bridges carrying highways.
Strengthening of Bridges Which Were Weak When Originally Constructed.
Powers of sorts are in existence, with regard to repair of dilapidated bridges, but Mr. J. R. Atkin, K.C. advises that there is no power of compelling owners of private bridges to increase the strength of their structures pact pass,' with the requirements of modern traffic. The only remedy is for the public authority to build a sufficientlystrong bridge at the public expense. This is surely not a satisfactory position. Railway and other private corporations have been permitted by Parliament to cut through the highways of the country and, in so doing, they have, it appears, created a number of negative obstructions to the free circulation of up-to-date traffic. On the one hand, it. would be monstrously inequitable to expect local authorities to replace weak private bridges entirely at their own expense, but it is possibly equally inequitable to expert railway companies suddenly to provide, that all their bridges shall be capable of carrying all classes of selfpropelled traffic. The self-respecting companies invariably rebuild their Itridges to carry the maximum weights allowed by Act of Parliament, but the rebuilding is. of course, only started when a bridge has worn threadbare
its factor of safety, and, therefore, the practice of rebuilding to an up-to-date standard of strength is not going to be of very great assistance for some time to come. The County Council of Lancashire felt the difficulty with regard to this matter, in 1898, and obtained a special Act in that year enabling them to contribute towards the cost of bringing canal and railway bridges up to date, for county councils have not any general power, at the pre
.sent time, to contribute towards the cost of improving private bridges, although, under the Highways and Bridges Act of 1891, the council ef any administrative county and any highway authority or authorities and the council of any adjoining county are allowed from time to time to make and carry into effect agreements with each other for or in relation to the construction, reconstruction. alteration or improvement or freeing from tolls of any main road or other highway or of any bridge wholly or partly situated within the jurisdiction of one or more of the parties to the agreement.
If a highway board think it just that any parish or parishes specially benefiting by any construction, reconstruction, etc., should bear the expense thereof, or any part of such expense, they may, with the approval of the county council and with the assent of the inhabitants of such parish or parishes in vestry assembled. charge such expense or any part thereof as they may think just exclusively on such parish or parishes. The general position, therefore, seems to be that county councils have not really the power to apply public ninnies to the improvement, repair or reconstruction of private bridges, although they have the power to contribute towards bridges erected by certain local authorities. The Departmental Committee upon Highway Authorities and Administration (1903) recommended that the disability as to county councils being unable to contribute to the alteration and improvement of private bridges should be removed. They said: '• The Highways and Bridges Act, of 1891 should be amended so as to place railway companies and other owners of bridges and roads over which the public have a right of way in the same position as highway authorities in regard to the making of agreements under that Act."
They further suggest that: " Right of appeal to the Local Government Board should be given to any highway authority in the case of an authority of an adjoining district refusing to enter into an agreement under Section 3 of the High ways and Bridges Act of 1891 . . in the event of a refusal by one authority to join another authority in altering or improving a bridge situated within the jurisdiction of part of one authority and partly of another."
The Departmental Committee, which inquired into regulations for Section 12 of the Motor Cars Act of 1903, did not do more than make certain recommendations with the object of protecting private owners of bridges ; as already mentioned, this recommendation resulted in the amending regulation dated 11th February, 1907.
The report of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars of 1906 drew attention to the fact that, under Section 1 of the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1896, by-laws could be made by a council without confirmation which would restrict the traffic or prohibit the same over specified bridges. It does not, however, appear to suggest that there should be an alteration of procedure on this point, or that the Local Government Board should be placed in the position of arbitrators between the users of self-pro
pulled traffic and the local authority when by-lawe are made. Such amendment is very desirable.
'Ibis Royal Commission made two important recentniendations, namely, that there should be an appeal to the Local Government Board by the person responsible for the repair of a private bridge against the refusal of a local authority to place a restriction upon it. It is interesting to note, too, that the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Highway Acts (1881) paid some attention to the bridge question, and that, although their recommendations generally refer to rather minor matters, they suggsst that sonic definition shall be fixed. differentiating a bridge from a culvert. They also pointed out that, in the case of a. private bridge failing, there was no power to “.mpel the owner to repair trithi n a particula r period, and that, consequently, traffic is liable to be suspended for a considerable time to the inconvenience of the public. They further state that:
" Bridges not unfrequently connect two counties, and, while the county authorities dispute, the repairs are neglected. Many of these difficulties will," it is added, " be avoided if a bridge could be declared part of the highway or of the main road."
The Private-bridge Difficulty.
These short digests from the reports of the various Highway and Motor Car Commissions and Committees have been made chiefly with the object of showing thatso far—absolutely no recommendation has been put forward with regard to the strengthening of private highway bridges. The question is, what is the fairest all-round way of dealing with this matter, and, in order to answer this, it is absolutely essential to remember that no hardand-fast rules can be laid down, because the circumstances as to traffic, needs of a district, etc., vary infinitely with almost every caee, and, whilst it may be settled as a general principle that neither the local authorities nor the private owners of bridges should be at the sole expense of strengthening, the proportion which each should bear should be determined specially in each ease. In order to do this efficiently, and in order, also, to reduce the liability to errors of fact, it seems advisable that a, Government Department should take the matter in hand and deal with it as an Official Arbitrator, making a binding award in the ordinary way, and fixing the time wherein such strengthening operations shall be carried aut. It is probable that, if this method of dealing with the matter were adopted, the maximum of efficiency would be attained at a minimum of cost. It has been suggested that the matter might be left to the Official Referees, but there are two strong objections to such a. course. In the first place, the Official Referees are not technical men, and it is essential that a question of this kind shall be decided by someone who has knowledge. of bridge work: in the second place, a reference to Official Referees is an expensive matter—there 1.5 so much less to expend upon useful, that is constructional, wurk.
Naturally enough, a proposal to charge private com panies with any part of the expenses requisite for strengthening bridges will be very strongly re.tiL7I-,61; but private companies, which have cut through highways and rendered them lees convenient, are now imposing negative obstructions to up-to-date traffic if they possess weak bridges, and they ought at any rate to bear some part, of the expenses of strengthening. In many races, such expenses can be widely spread, say, for instance, between private owners, the immediate local authorities, county authorities, and, perhaps, the Boad Board ; contributing local authorities should have poeer to borrow money for work of this kind, as it would obviously be unfair that posterity should not he called upon to bear a substantial part of the expenditure.
The Local Government Board or the Board of Trade
might well be charged with the duty of holding these inquiries, for each of the Departments has highly-trained Engineering Inspectors, not only with special knowledge of bridge work, but with impartial minds. As an alternative to this, it might he well to consider the possibility of placing the work with the new Baud Board, though, of
•
if this course, s proposal were adopted, the same accumu
lated experience as to highway bridges could not be brought to Lear upon the subject for some time.
About Procedure.
The procedure with regard to dilapidated bridges of all kinds might he upon similar lines, that is to say, complainants should be required to make out a prima-facie case, and then an inquiry should be held by one or other of the Government Departments, and an award made as to the extent of repairs required. Precedents are not wanting for procedure of this kind, and it is difficult to see that there is anything inequitable in it. Suppose, for instance, that a heel authority has not provided its district with sufficient sewers, 'maims not properly maintained existing sewers : such an authority can be reported to the Local Government Board, who may order the defaulters to ao such works as may be proved to be necessary (Public Health Act, 187-5, Section 299). Again, under Section 47 of the same Act, a person who is guilty of allowing a nuisance to exist upon his premises can be called upon to abate the same, and, in case of default, the local authority may do the work and summarily recover costs.
Commercial self-propelled traffic is upon a very different footing, to-day, to what it was even five years ago, and, unless some step is taken to reform the present condition of things, it is evident that private companies which own weak bridges will remain dictators in the matter of individual weight of highway traffic. Such a position is scarcely likely to remain nnassailed, and the sooner the whole question is dealt with the better, for the delay which has already taken place is causing the gravest inconvenience, not only to individual users of commercial vehicles, but, in many cases, county councils and smaller local authorities are feeling the intolerable inconvenience which arises from weak bridges carrying strong roads. At a conference of Road Engineers and Road Users, held at the Institution of Civil Engineers, under the presidency of Sir John Wolfe Barry, I.R.S., nearly three 'cams ago, the following resolutions were adopted : 12.—" That, in the opinion of this conference, addi tional powers should be given to county councils to enable them to call upon the owners of all bridges, other than county, district, or hundred bridges, carrying public roads to maintain the same, and the roadways upon the said bridges, and the approaches thereto, in a proper condition, or in default, to do the work themselves, recovering the cost thereof in a summary manner."
13.—" That, in the opinion of this conference, standards of loading and strength should be prescribed by the Board of Trade for all new railway canal and drainage overbridges, and that no new bridge he allowed to be erected of a less width between parapets that the total width of the approach roads."
With regard to resolution 13, a similar procedure has been adopted in Franco; the Minister of Public Works fixes the rules to be followed as to loading, etc., on all rational roads and railways.
The Military Aspect.
One aspect of the bridge case is of great importance, and that is the national side of the question. Supposing an invasion were, unhappily, to be really threatened, it would be necessary to hurry forward by every possible means of transport, munitions, etc., as well as heavy guns. What is going to be the position, say, in the County of Kent, where the South-Eastern and Chatham Co. is the pneeessor of a large number of weak bridges? Or, again, in some of the counties served by the Great-Eastern Railway Co.. is the position much MOr0 satisfactory? In ceder to bring about a reform, it appears as though any Bill which is introduced must be a Government measure, and that it should be backed by local authorities, as well as by all interested in self-propelled traffic. There seems to be absolutely no insuperable bar to obtaining reform, except that imposed by the rational tendency to muddle through things and to execute reforms a few years late.
( Conclusion .)