Bridgework alert
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Sally Nash • "A major time-bomb waiting to explode" is how Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody describes the so-called bridge strengthening programme, due to be completed by 1 January 1999.
Is this simply scaremongering or could the consequences of failing to meet the target date really be catastrophic? They certainly could be for the Government, if the European Commission carries out its threat of bringing legal action against it if the bridge strengthening programme finally proves to be a major non-event.
Of more immediate concern to UK hauliers was last week's admission by the new Government that the bridge strengthening programme was way behind schedule.
Brussels gave the Conservative administration a 14year extension to assess and upgrade the UK's bridges. But despite assurances from the previous Government that the programme was running to schedule, Labour Transport Minister Baroness Hayman admits that only bridges on the priority route network will meet the deadline for the introduction of 40-tonne trucks.
Richard Diment, director of the British Road Federation, describes the situation as "a shambles". He says: "In spite of the previous Government saying 'don't panic, everything is all in hand', as the date gets closer it has become clear that they can't paper over the cracks."
A House of Commons select committee report last year on bridge strengthening and road maintenance revealed that many local authorities do not expect to finish the assessment and upgrading scheme for another eight or nine years.
Part of the problem seems to be that of responsibility— the Government made it clear in the 1980s that it would take care of bridges on trunk roads while local authorities would handle the rest of the system.
Another problem regarding responsibility is over bridges owned by Railtrack.
A debate is raging in Lanarkshire which could have widespread ramifications for other Scottish local authorities. After seeking legal advice. South Lanarkshire Council has found that it is not responsible for bridge strengthening work. At least four other Scottish local authorities are known to be watching this case with interest.
The responsibility issue is inevitably linked with cash: local authorities' bids for strengthening work are simply not being met. For example, Wiltshire County Council says that last year it received only a quarter of its I:2m bid to strengthen the 35 bridges in the county. "We got all the money we needed for assessing our bridges' standards, but not for their strengthening," says a council spokesman.
Hayman made it clear in the House of Commons last week that local authorities might have to consider lorry bans and other measures if bridges are not strong enough to cope with 40-tonne vehicles due in 1999. Trucks over 25 tonnes have just been banned from using a bridge in Carshalton, Surrey: this scenario could be widely replicated after 1999.
In fact, the Institute of Civil Engineers suggests that the failure of the bridge-strengthening programme could be used by the Government as a back-door method of bringing in weight restrictions and lorry bans. The green lobby might well welcome such a move.
With the deadline for 40tonne operation fast approaching, questions are still hanging over the whole programme.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) is so far unable to provide the following information: • How many bridges in total need to be strengthened?
• How many have been strengthened?
• How much money has been spent so far?
Diment believes that priorities need to be set as a matter of urgency—and for that, leadership is needed.
But if the previous Government failed to confront the issues, will the new one succeed? New Labour...new bridges?