Letter: There Are Better Options For New Pond Road Bridge

Published on: 16 Feb, 2018
Updated on: 16 Feb, 2018

By Bibhas Neogi

Work to replace New Pond Road Bridge is planned to start on April 23 and will finish around mid-July.

I live less than half a mile from the bridge and I have not received any notification from Network Rail (NR) or the county council yet. There was no consultation in 2014 and there has been none so far.

Network Rail has set up a public meeting to be held on Tuesday the 4-7 pm, February 20, at Shalford Village Hall.

What is the point of consultation if Network Rail is not prepared to listen? They are going to replace this very narrow bridge ‘like for like’ as Surrey County Council could not raise the funds necessary for a wider replacement that could have been used by pedestrians and cyclists.

I wrote to the council giving them an option for Network Rail to build cantilevers ready for future shared footways by pedestrians and cyclists.

A design with cantilevers would have allowed for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists when SCC build the approaches in the future. (Click to enlarge.)

The approaches to the bridge would have to be built by the Council when funds become available in the future. But Network Rail, I gather, are unwilling to take this on board even though this would only extend their duration of works by a couple of weeks at the most.

The modest cost of between £200k and £300k, I am sure, could have been found by SCC for this additional work. It would have meant that the footbridges would have been easily installed not requiring major railway track possessions.

Another option would be to retain and strengthen the brick arch. If this were done, the cost of demolition would be saved and disruptions to train service and bus replacement service could also be avoided. The bridge is weak but it has continued to carry and it is still carrying traffic now without a weight restriction.

Network Rail has said if the work does not go ahead, a weight restriction would have to be imposed. So the bridge has enough capacity to carry the weight of wet concrete saddle when the earth fill above it is removed and replaced by it.

I believe strengthening should be possible and should permit retention of the parapets and the wing walls suitably strengthened by reinforced concrete walls cast against the inside of them.

An alternative to replacement is the strengthening of the brick arch using reinforced concrete. NR has said before that if the work does not proceed, a weight and a width restriction would have to be imposed. This indicated to me that there was enough strength left to remove and replace the earth fill with concrete.

Network should explore the possibility of using a special temporary bridge that I suggested over the top of the existing bridge. This would allow one lane of day-time traffic. The special bridge would open up like a sunroof of a car and thus would allow full access below it for the construction work to go ahead during night-time closure. The closure could be 9pm to 6am giving a full eight-hour working time.

If the bridge is demolished, work would have to be done under overnight track possessions of maximum four hours only anyway. The temporary bridge allowing one lane of daytime traffic for the predominant traffic direction or a traffic light controlled shuttle traffic would be a far better option than closing the road for three months.

I realise it is a pioneering use of such a temporary bridge but technically it is possible and the opportunity could be taken as NR is set to demolish the bridge but they could save a lot and pay for its hiring costs. SCC should press NR to explore these ideas.

Retention and strengthening frees Network Rail from the 52-hour track possessions and restrictions of working only 4 hours each night.

I have sketches showing these suggestions and I can supply them to The Dragon.

Responses to Letter: There Are Better Options For New Pond Road Bridge

Jim Allen Reply

February 17, 2018 at 8:58 am

I’m sure that Network Rail, like Surrey County Council, Highways England and Guildford Borough Council, has a different dictionary than that of the general public: under “Consultation” it must read “tell the general public what we intend to do” and under “Information” it must read “display the schedule”.

Any idea of communicating with people and taking notice of their comments and suggestions, which was formerly the definition of “consult” is now missing.

Can anyone name the date the last time any submission under a legal consultation process actually made a difference? I believe in 1978 the by-pass around Burpham was re-routed and the Iron Bridge over the Wey retained – but I have not found anything since.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  February 17, 2018 at 3:52 pm
  
  Perhaps, in the past, the public was used to be told by the authorities what they were going to get. But times have changed. Let us hope Network Rail listens to the suggestions and Surrey County Council demands that Network Rail simply could not expect prolonged road closures whilst they do their work.
  
  The opposite scenario of a road bridge being built at the expense of total closure of the railway for three months would certainly not be acceptable to Network Rail.
  
  If a temporary bridge is going to relieve the traffic, this should be explored. After all, the road was there before the railway cut through it and although NR’s responsibility is for a ‘like-for-like’ replacement of the bridge, the right of way across the tracks should not be compromised for a lengthy period if other means of maintaining it, even partially, exists. Otherwise, Network Rail should pay compensation to the motorists for the delay and additional costs incurred due to long diversions.
Chris Warner Reply

February 17, 2018 at 4:01 pm

With regard to costings for the extra works and materials required to extend the width of this narrow bridge, SCC advised the general public that no funds are available for this project. Within spitting distance of the bridge is Summers Road where very shortly the whole of the pavements on both sides of the road are to be replaced. The funding for this was found although it seems to be an unnecessary requirement.

The monies put aside for the pavements would be better allocated to the bridge where over the years a number of accidents have occurred especially when two HGV vehicles pass on the brow where the width restriction exists.
David Allen Reply

February 17, 2018 at 4:54 pm

It is a pity the county council gave the necessary money to a local private art gallery that would have paid for a footpath/cycleway sometimes our councils are unable to look ahead.

Since the original bridge was constructed cars and lorries have been invented, need I say more. A bridge of similar dimensions is totally inadequate.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

March 20, 2018 at 11:03 am

Network Rail is heavily subsidised by the government as stated here in Network Rail funding report orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/…/rail-finance-statistical-release-2016-17.pdf and I quote “The majority of government support was in direct rail support which is the grant payment to Network Rail. This was £4.1 billion in 2016-17.”

Surrey County Council is also given grant to maintain and improve the road network. Please see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-allocates-12-billion-roads-funding-to-councils

So effectively funding comes from the same pot yet the division is artificial and hence such a ridiculous end decision to spend £2.5m of tax payers’ money for a ‘like for like’ bridge. I say nationalise the rail network and end this farcical pseudo privatisation!
Maurice Barham Reply

March 21, 2018 at 11:32 am

The real point is that the impending demise of this bridge was known some eight or 10 years ago.

This has given the Transport Authority plenty of time to design an improved bridge and make arrangements for the necessary funding.

Now we are all having to suffer a totally unnecessary emergency situation.