LONDON BRIDGES

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1928, Page 7

LONDON BRIDGES

£15,000,000 SCHEME. CHARING CROSS AND WATERLOO. LONDON, Aug. 10. After years of controversy, the London County Council have decided to accept, the Government scheme for the construction of a new road bridge at Charing Cross, removing Charing Cross station to the south side of the Thames and rc-conditioning Waterloo bridge. The scheme is estimated to cost £12,876,000, of which the Government will pay three-fourths and the Council the remaining quarter—£3,2l9,ooo. The Council’s'resolution giving general approval to the scheme stipulated that (heir liability should he limited to this amount. l, >

The Royal Commission, which was appointed after the outcry that followed the proposal to pull down Waterloo bridge,- recommended a double-deck steel bridge at Charing Cross, and the re-buikling of the railway station on the north bank'of the Thames. The Ministry of Transport, however, favoured the abolition of Charing Cross station, and the erection of a new terminus on the south side opposite the' main facade of Waterloo station, with a road bridge, in place of the existing railway bridge. The Southern Railway put forward several objections to these proposals, and the Ministry’s engineers then evolved .a scheme under which the station was to. be removed to the south side of the river, but further west, or|; the Lion Brewery side, This would give* it a river frontage of 500 feet, twice the frontage of the existing Charing Cross station, The new station would also be 600 yards nearer,to the Strand than under the Ministry’s earlier proposals. It was this scheme that the L.C.C has now adopted.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY’S ATTITUDE All that now remains to he done, before work is actually put in hand, is to satisfy the misgivings of the Southern Railway. Sir Percy Simmons, presenting the report to the Council, said that the real question they had to consider was oue of expenditure. The Southern Railway felt strongly, lie added, that the scheme would cause great inconvenience to the 38,000 passengers who alighted daily at Charing

Cross, and a possible loss to the shareholders. He did not think, however, that the 38,000 passengers would suffer because at present, on arriving atCharing Cross, most of them had to take other transport to reitch their destinations.

In considering the scheme, moreover, they had to consider the suggestion that it. would be a great source of pleasure and a great advantage to many on the south side of Loudon il the Embankment were made into an open space similar to the gardens on the north side of the Embankment. ■AFFRONT TO LONDON’S DIGNITY. ' “'Plie existing bridge at Charing Cross,” says the “Morning Post.” “ has been an affront to the dignity of London ever since it was built; and for the last twenty years it has been an •obstruction, by taking the room of the sort of bridge which cross-river traffic demanded. But though the possibility of removing this too, too soiid structure which so encumbered the ground, has often been contemplated, the task has always been shirked because of the difficulty and expense. At last authority has screwed its courage to the sticking-place; for which gratifying result the main credit is due to the dilapidation of Waterloo Bridge. If Rennie’s masterpiece had not threatened to collapse, and so led to proposals for its demolition, which in turn excited an agitation for the avoidance of such a stern necessity, the new Charing Cross scheme would never have been evolved. Thus, once again, from the weed of misfortune is extracted the honey of solid benefit. I’ would have been a satire, indeed, if the most beautiful bridge in London had bee'n destroyed in order that the ugliest might be allowed to remain,” The present Charing Cross Bridge, it should be remembered, is essentially a railway bridge carried high above the embankment. There is a narrow track for pedestrians on one side, but no provision for horse or motor traffic.