THAMES BRIDGES AND MODERN TRAFFIC.
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The L.C.C. has come to the conclusion that Putney Bridge should be widened before Wandsworth Bridge. The County Council came to consider the matter of Thames bridges because the three Borough C.00ncila of Battersea, Wandsworth, and Fulham urged the reconstruction of Wandsworth Bridge. The reasons advaneed were that a large number q extensive factories had been estableahed . in the districts concerned during recent years involving a. considerable increase in the•amount of heavy motor traffic, which had to be diverted over Putney Bridg owing to the fact that it had been necese eery to limit to 5 tons the weight of vehicles crossing Wandsworth Bridge, that the bridge was quite inadequate to meet the traffic requirements, and that there was no cross-river communication from Fulham now that this omnibus traffic amass the bridge had been stopped.
'The Battersea Council also expressed the view that the widening of Wandsworth Bridge would relieve the congestion of traffic on Battersea Bridge, which would probably need to be rebuilt in the near future.
. The question of the reconstruction, of Wandsworth Bridge, which has been before the County Council on several occasions in recent years, has always been considered in relation to the closely connected question of the Widening of Putney Bridge.
Wandsworth Bridge, which i of the continuous lattice-girder type, was opened in 1873, the cost of erection, including approaches, amounting to about 2150,000. It was acquired by the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1880 for 253.311. The width of the bridge is 30 it. (18-ft.-carriageway and two 6-it. footways). The limit for loads passing over the structure is 5 tens and the passage of 'locomotives and steam rollers is prohibited. Thee chief engineer reported in June, 1920, that the bridge was sufficiently strong to carry the limited loads allowed; but that the girders were not of a good-type aria that any recopseruetion or widening would invola-e'the removal of the '1;vhele of the superstructure.
Putney Bridge, which was builein 1886, at a cost of about 2400,000, is a.granite, arched structure, having a. total width between the parapets of 44 ft. and a, carriageway of 25 ft. and two footways each 9 ft. 6 ins. in width. The Chief engineer reported in Sone, 1920, that, structurally the bridge was adequate to carry any traffic that could be ant•ice paled for many years to come, but that in width of roadway it fell short of what was required.
Statistics of the vehicular traffic (excluding barrows and cycles) over the two bridges were obtained in 1914, between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and are shown in the subjoined statement Wandsworth la 1,360 76 Putney .-25 8,033 320 A census of traffic takers on October 22nd, 1922, on Wandseverth Bridge shows that little variation has occurred in the total amount of traffic using the bridge in the past eight years, although the change from horsed to motor traffic is here, as elsewhere, very masked. It may be assumed, we think, that the amount of traffic using Wandsworth Bridge is less than one-half of that on Battersea Bridge, less than • one-sixth of that on Putney Bridge, and less than one-third of . that on Hammersmith Bridge. It is less than that on any of the bridges_ between Tower Bridge and Hammersmith Bridge, except that of Albert Bridge. The comparative densities of traffic on the two bridges, as shown by the traffic statistics of 1914, represent with sufficient accuracy the position at present. For these reasons theeeeonst.ruction of Wandsworth Bridge would not obviate the necessity for widening Putney Bridge.