That the early construction of the Marlow - Bisham by-pass should be pressed for as vigorously as possible. At meetings in January and March , the County Councils in effect accepted these 5 propositions with the important exception that they continued to insist on a limit of 15 tons.
On 19 August the Bucks County Surveyor wrote to me to say that the consulting engineers hoped to go out to tender on the strengthening of the Bridge by October and that he had made a formal application to the Ministry for the appropriate money grant. However, he added that he had been asked by the Ministry to supply details of the cost of a new bridge "and I assume that they wish to make a comparison between the cost of strengthening a single-lane bridge, with traffic lights, and a new bridge on the same site carrying two-way traffic.
It was clear that the movement in Bucks CC to strengthen the bridge to 15 tons was by no means defeated. In October , the local press carried a headline "Marlow Bridge may have to go", reporting that the Minister was not persuaded that the bridge should be preserved.
Meanwhile the 2-ton limit continued to concern the people and traders in the town. Throughout much of , the Ministry stalled. John Hall MP was told that before a decision was made there would have to be "an up to-date assessment of traffic in the area. So once again the Preservation Committee reminded the Ministry of the 5 agreed propositions from the Conference of December with which the 2 County Councils agreed except for the 15 ton limitation.
The newly formed Marlow Society now joined the combatants, working with members of the Preservation Committee. Typical of the many letters from the Ministry at this time, was that of 13 February addressed to the Marlow Chamber of Trade. This stated that the Minister was in full sympathy with the Chamber's concern; was doing what he could to reach an equitable solution as quickly as possible; but had undertaken not to reach a decision until there had been the fullest consultation with the local authorities and other bodies whose interests were involved.
Nothing new there. One signatory of ministerial letters on several occasions was 'A. Ridout' who said things like "The problem of the future of the bridge is a complex one which must necessarily take some time to resolve. I can assure you however, that it is under active consideration and that the representations of the many interests involved are receiving careful attention".
But suddenly we were told that Mr Ridout "does not deal with Marlow Bridge matters" as if we didn't know. On 17 August , the Minister wrote to the two County Councils setting out his "preliminary conclusions" in response to the grant application made by them for the reconstruction of the existing bridge to carry a load of 15 tons.
The Minister saw "considerable difficulty" in the proposal. The width of the carriageway would continue to be restricted, with a single line of traffic. The Minister, however, accepted that special attention had to be given to amenity and planning considerations. For this reason he would be prepared to consider an application for grant towards the construction of the proposed by-pass earlier than would be justified on traffic grounds alone. This would be a Class 1 road and would incorporate a Class 1 spur road leading into Marlow.
Grant would be available for such a scheme between and This would necessitate reconsideration of the classification of the existing A across the Bridge and through Marlow, depending on how much traffic was diverted onto the by-pass, with a possible loss of grant on that account to the County Councils. The Highways Committee of Bucks C. There would also be strenuous opposition from many quarters, including the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on amenity and planning grounds.
On the other hand, said the Highways Committee, replacing the Bridge with a modern structure could certainly result in a design which would harmonize with the surroundings. But the consequential costs of either scheme were difficult to estimate. Local Marlow opinion continued to emphasise the need to limit traffic congestion in the town and other traffic problems in the whole area, and to provide unrestricted crossing of the river.
All these advantages could be supplied only by a by-pass. In the light of all these considerations, the Highways Committee decided that Bucks CC should accept the Minister's offer to bring forward the date of the construction of the by-pass, rather than press either for strengthening the present Bridge to take 15 tons, or for the construction of a new bridge on the present site.
The Highways Committee thought that "it would be unwise to express any views at this stage as to the loading which should be contemplated for the existing bridge. Contents 1 War of 2… … Wikipedia. Marlow Bridge. Bridge heights on the River Thames. Retrieved 11 December The River Thames Book. Imray Laurie Norie and Wilson.
Grace's Guide is the leading source of historical information on industry and manufacturing in Britain. This web publication contains , pages of information and , images on early companies, their products and the people who designed and built them.
Marlow Bridge is a road traffic and foot bridge over the River Thames between the town of Marlow, Buckinghamshire and the village of Bisham in Berkshire. There has been a bridge on the site since the reign of King Edward III which was stated in around to have been of timber.
In this bridge was partly destroyed by the parliamentary army. In a new timber bridge was built by public subscription with a contribution from the Thames Navigation Commission to increase the headroom underneath. The original suspension bridge design, by John Millington , had two pairs of cast iron towers on stone pedestals.
One source states that the chain links were to be wrought iron rods 10 ft long and 2" diameter. Millington laid the first stone on 22nd September , but his work came in for criticism, and he relinquished his position. William Tierney Clark was appointed to complete the bridge. He made significant design changes including all-masonry piers instead of cast iron and masonry.
Navigation menu Personal tools Create account Log in. Namespaces Page Discussion. Views Read View source View history. This page was last modified on 21 October , at Privacy policy About Wikishire Disclaimers.
0コメント