The Proposed Parallel Leisure Bridge.

- Thu 7th Apr 2005

We have received several images and documents about the proposal.
They are included here for your information.

http://www.haylingisland.net/forum/images/bridge/sustrans-newsletter.jpg

http://www.haylingisland.net/forum/images/bridge/fire-engine-load.jpg
http://www.haylingisland.net/forum/images/bridge/leisure-bridge-map.jpg
http://www.haylingisland.net/forum/images/bridge/leisure-bridge-design.jpg

=================================================================

Ted Gale, MBE, 24/01/05
Manor Lodge,
Manor Road,
Hayling Island,

Re: letter, concerning Bridge.

Dear Ted,

Thank you for your wishes for 2005 and for your comments attached to the letter you had recently received about the bridge.

The letter sent to you sums up all the issues relating to the proposed cycle bridge in a way that illustrates all the misunderstandings and misinformation that exists over this matter. I will take them point by point as contained in that letter though I cannot comment on the points you had put in your earlier letter as you did not enclose a copy.

I fully agree that 'most of Hayling' would not support spending 'millions on a second bridge'. No one is suggesting they should. However HCC is spending £250K on approximately 100 metres of cycle track between New Lane in Havant and the top of the resurfaced trail starting at the old Billy level crossing there. They have also estimated £500K for the bit from the old Langstone level crossing to the Texaco garage on Hayling. The solution recommended in the Atkins report involves three crossings, one or all with lights, together with changing the entrances to the Ship Inn and the Sailing Club, neither of which would be needed in our scheme. The Atkins solution would make the road at Langstone look like an urban High Street for no purpose.

The 'hidden agendas' to which you refer, derive from a mysterious lot who seem to emerge when needed but who, if they exist at all, are merely putting forward various views but who have no political axe to grind at all, as far as I can see.

The 'do nothing' brigade is well represented in Hayling on any matter and need not concern us except in so far as they represent genuine views to keep Hayling largely as it is. One must however recognise that some people on Hayling still have to work for a living and to pay our pensions so their views, in terms of matters such as ease of getting to work are, arguably, more important than those of some of us with less demanding requirements.

The 'bridge for emergency vehicles' brigade do not live in the real world as any bridge capable of meeting those needs would be much better used fulfilling additional functions as we are suggesting.

The Langstone bypass brigade members have a very valid point from their perspective and to some extent their only problem is the cost, certainly in the 'greater than £20M' region. This is only likely to happen in circumstances rather different from those that exist in this context.

Others might include 're-instate the Wadeway', 'build a bridge to Portsmouth' etc., but they need not concern us either.

The Hayling Islander keeps referring to this matter because it is their business to do so and because HCC is requesting comments on the function and development of the Billy Trail. Getting a decent crossing to Hayling is a key factor in this. I would be very pleased if an 'engineer' from HCC could write to the Hayling Islander on the matters raised in that paragraph of the letter. The pavements do NOT meet the requirements for joint cycle and pedestrian use. The recommendation does accept that 2m is wide enough. However it also calls for a separation from the trafficked road surface of at least .5m and I doubt if even that is enough if the other side of the track is a vertical barrier (the railings) with obstructions (lifebelts). If a cyclist were forced into the road by some mishap, factors such as I have noted could well put significant liability in the hands of HCC.

The issue of bridge strength is irrelevant since no one is proposing a cantilevered extension and this shows how cursorily some people read information before they comment on it. The whole purpose of the proposed design is that ALL the weight is taken on independent piles. The dynamic load on the bridge is reduced, albeit by a negligible proportions and no extra wind load is introduced. To some extent, though again very small, the wind buffeting of vehicles on the bridge may be reduced.

For the record, we have asked that the proposed bridge be specified for a 50 year life, a seawater environment, be 3m wide and be capable of carrying individual 5 tonne vehicles. This last could easily be increased at little extra cost. Equally the bridge could be widened also at little cost. The bridge sections would be 10 metres long, easily handled, and the pile spacing would match that of the present bridge to allow boats to pass. We also recommend that one bridge section should be kept in reserve so that any maintenance can be achieved by replacement, the part being removed being repaired in a benign environment.

I talked to Councillor Eslin at a recent budget meeting and he quoted your £3-4M as the cost. When asked where this figure came from he said 'the Officers'. When I asked if any attempt had been made to determine an accurate figure he said 'no'. When asked if Atkins had been asked to determine a figure he said that 'this was not in their terms of reference' the standard way to ensure that topics you would rather not know about, are dealt with.

We HAVE had 'budgetary quotes' for the bridge superstructure and for the construction and installation of the piles, the placing of the pathways and the associated ancillary works and the costs are less than £0.5M.

I am well aware that these are by no means the total costs but together with the HCC figures already prepared by Atkins it seems distinctly possible to get from the Langstone level crossing to the Texaco garage for only a little over £1M. This would retain the more rural nature of Langstone and provide the area with a prestige project that would greatly enhance the environmental tourism image of Havant Borough.

I am a Chartered Engineer, though not in this particular discipline, and I well understand the problem of cost overruns though I handled many projects which were completed to cost.

The primary reason for cost overruns is political in the widest sense. Lack of knowledge by some of the parties concerned, etc. is a common one. When a project is properly managed and the customer has specified everything correctly, most ARE completed to cost provided the customer does not interfere and, even more importantly, does not keep demanding changes. On this project none of these reasons should apply.

The primary requirement is for HCC to carry out a proper cost study and decide whether a bridge is viable or not and, in particular, identify EXACTLY the difference in cost between the current Atkins proposal and ours. This should be done in conjunction with some credible bridge contractors. Only if this is done will this matter be resolved.

I hope this clarifies our view and that you would consider the contents. Please feel free to send the enclosed copy to your correspondent and obtain his views. No one wishes to waste money but some projects have to be done well. As people say, 'authorities never have enough money to do things properly but they always have enough to do them twice'. Let us not have this situation existing here. If you could arrange a meeting with HCC representatives I, and others, would be glad to take part.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Higham.
_______________________________________________________________________________

10 January 2005

MAB/JCM

Dear Paul

RE: PROPOSED SAFE LEISURE CROSSING FROM
LANGSTONE TO HAYLING ISLAND

Further to your recent enquiry regarding the above project we have pleasure in quoting as follows:-

1. Preliminaries, mobilisation, demobilisation, etc. 20,000.00
2. Supply and form causeway using broken concrete to enable work
at low tide adjacent to proposed bridge. 11,000.00
3. Supply and drive 0.350 x 0.350m x 10.000m long pre-cast
concrete piles. 52 No. 39,000.00
4. Supply and place 3.000 x 0.600 x 0.450 pre-cast concrete heads.
26 No. 19,500.00
5. Unload prefabricated bridge sections, position and fix. 25 No. 18,750.00
6. Take up cause way and crush material on site for future use to cycle track north and south of bridge
. 5,000.00
________

Total Nett Price £ 113,250.00

Assuring you of our best attention at all times.
Yours sincerely

Michael A Burras
_____________________________________________________________________________

26 January 2005

Mr Paul Fisher
Chairman
Hayling Island Residents Association
PO Box 30
HAYLING ISLAND
Hants PO11 9UD

Dear Mr Fisher

Further to your recent enquiry revising your requirements for the proposed safe leisure crossing from Langston to Hayling Island, I have pleasure in quoting to the following specification: 26 no. 10m long x 3m walkway width steel/timber superstructures to the following specification.
Design
Design to BS 5400 Part 2, as amended by BD 37/01 for live load intensity of 5 kN/m2 for pedestrian loading and checked for an axial wheel load of 5 tonne axle (2.5 tonne on each wheel load). All steelwork designed to BS 5400 Part 3 and timber to 5268 Part 2.
Main Beams
Main beams to be galvanised universal beam sections laterally braced with a structural steelwork bracing system, also hot dip galvanised to BS 1461. Each bridge superstructure to be of 10m overall length x 3m between the inside of the parapet posts.
Deck
Deck to be machine grooved Ekki deck planks, factory fitted with two grooves of resin/bauxite non-slip (CTS "High Grip Excel"). The deck will be fitted with a 4mm nominal gap between each deck plank.
Parapet
Parapet 1.15m height to be machined Ekki hardwood type "A" to CTS brochure. All timber to be planed all round with roundover edges on all corners. Type "A" comprises top and bottom rail with vertical infill bars between. Maximum gap spacing between vertical infills to be less than 100mm. The parapet will be designed to restrain pedestrian loads only, i.e. 1.4 kN/m run applied at 90o to the top rail. It will not be designed for vehicular restraint.
2)Based on the above specification, our price for the design and manufacture of the above 26 number 10m x 3m superstructures ex works (Huddersfield) would be £346,502 plus VAT, i.e £13,327 for each super-structure. The price for delivery to site area on a 40ft artic for each 10 x 3m section would be £20,000 plus VAT. The price for placing each superstructure on to supports by others, with access for a 50 tonne all terrain crane such that the maximum working radius for the crane would not exceed 8m and all suitable crane lift platforms to effect this would be by others, on this basis our budget price for us to install on to supports by others from the delivery vehicles would equal £8,000 plus VAT. Thus the total price for manufacture, delivery and placement on to abutments/supports by others using accesses and crane lift platforms by others would be £374,502 plus VAT.
I hope the above suits your present purposes and look forward to being of further service in the near future.

Yours sincerely

I D Preston BSc CEng MICE

By forum user, PaulFisher