sixes and Severns
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
RENUOUS attempts are to be made next week to discover just w dangerous the Severn Bridge is, writes our Parliamentary rrespondent
fransport Minister Lynda alker slapped a one lane each y restriction on the troubled dge to last from midnight on nday to 6am on Saturday.
Ehe ban lasts until Monday ek by which time the two sets consulting engineers involved the latest review will have 3n expected to have come to -ne sort of agreement on how the bridge really is.
he original consultants apinted by the Government, Flint and Neill, submitted a report in May, suggesting that the bridge could be strengthened to carry traffic without any restriction at a cost of £33m.
But last Friday the Government was shocked when Newport East Labour MP Roy Hughes revealed the contents of a second report by Mott, Hay and Anderson, who had been asked by Flint and Neill to check their own assessment.
That report revealed that in very bad weather the jam of heavy lorries, built up in as little as three minutes, could cause the bridge to collapse.
A shocked Mrs Chalker immediately demanded to see the report for herself and slapped on the ban on Monday morning.
In an attempt to ensure that no queues build up unnecessarily on the bridge, drivers travelling from Wales into England will not have to pay tolls, which are collected at the eastern end of the bridge.
The report suggests that the traffic loading proposed by Flint and Neill may be up to 20 per cent too high.
Mr Hughes said that in the light of the report the proposals to raise tolls by 150 per cent were "absurd". Instead, the Government should draw up urgent plans for a second Severn crossing.
Mrs Chalker warned Mr Hughes he was in danger of "irresponsibly misleading people" by quoting out of context. Everything he had said was already under consideration by Flint and Neill.
One of the main problems was that when the crossing had been designed in the Fifties the large increase in the volume of very heavy lorries had not been foreseen.
Mrs Chalker said the Government had to be absolutely sure about the need for a second crossing before agreeing to spend £100m, which is what it would cost. In any case, it would take 10 to 15 years before it was ready. "Whatever happens, the present crossing must be made capable of coping with traffic during the intervening period. That will require a considerable outlay."
But Mr Hughes described her reply as "deceit of the highest order". "We do not want another Aberfan in South Wales."
Despite her assurances, Mrs Chalker's response to Mott, Hay and Anderson's report, once she had seen it, suggests that the Government is deeply concerned about the state of the bridge.
The Government's moves, have been met with some concern by the industry, with the Freight Transport Association predicting long-term problems.
An FTA spokesman said that the lane restrictions would cause long delays.