FYI - Consultation to discuss the development of Otley Bridge

munki · Post by **munki** » Thu 17 Apr, 2008 12:22 pm

Proposals to widen, & extend the working life of Otley Bridge at this link...http://www.leeds.gov.uk/page.aspx?pageI ... 57485EAlso, they've put it on the front page of the website for today, at least, at...www.leeds.gov.uk

Post by **cnosni** » Thu 17 Apr, 2008 1:22 pm

munki wrote: Proposals to widen, & extend the working life of Otley Bridge at this link...http://www.leeds.gov.uk/page.aspx?pageI ... 57485EAlso, they've put it on the front page of the website for today, at least, at...www.leeds.gov.uk Certainly all for maintaining and extending its life,though im not sure widening it is all that necessary.I dont recall beinf stuck there in traffic,only at the main crossroads in the town,where its a real pain,even on a quiet day.Not being a resident,only a very regular visitor and passer through perhaps i may be wrong about the bridge,but i really cant remember ever being stuck there in traffic

Si · Post by Si » Thu 17 Apr, 2008 1:56 pm

No, there are never any traffic jams caused by the bridge itself. Before the cantilevered footpath was added on the downstream side, obviously the roadway was narrower because of the path being on the bridge itself. I believe there were traffic lights on it in the 50s. Is the widening something to do with a EU directive?

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Sat 19 Apr, 2008 11:43 am

There were indeed traffic lights and here is a picture of one of Samuel Ledgard's buses crossing on the "Newall Flyer" which ran from the Golf House in Bradford Road via Manor Square and the Crossways to Farnley Lane (bottom of Chippendale Rise/Athelstan Lane)It is nothing short of astonishing to read in the present publicity that the bridge is as old as it is..

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 20 Apr, 2008 8:53 pm

It is truly amazing to consider that the bridge is that old.I too cannot recall there ever being traffic hold ups as a result of the bridge - the traffic lights in the middle of Otley perhaps, but never down by the bridge...Call me a luddite, but why the sudden need to widen / improve it? If it is that historiuc and is clearly doing what it was intended to, why beggar about with it?

Si · Post by Si » Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:27 am

Dunno, it does seem daft. I'm sure I read somewhere it's got summat to do with the EU. I wonder why they built it with a load capacity of several tons when all that crossed it in those days were pedestrians and the odd horse and cart!

Si · Post by Si » Mon 21 Apr, 2008 4:37 pm

PS I haven't seen the detailed plans yet, but it seems they are going to widen the bridge by either building a replica up-stream or down-stream (or both) side, or moving the existing stonework and filling-in the new roadway. This would make it wide enough for a widened roadway and two footpaths so the cantilevered existing footpath can be removed. At the same time they can carry out any other water-proofing and repairs. Apart from any necessary repairs, it seems an awful lot of inconvenience and expense so people don't have to cross the road! The existing footpath is safe as there is a wall between it and the traffic, and there is a traffic-light pedestrian crossing on the north side anyway. I just don't percieve Otley Bridge as being inherently dangerous.

Rich87 · Post by **Rich87** » Tue 22 Apr, 2008 3:59 am

i used to live in otley an cross this bridge all the time, theres no need to start tampering with it. why cant people just leave things as they are for gods sake! history is interesting, but theres not gonna be any history left for our future kids to see as everything is gonna be modified! go to greece for example, you dont see old bridges etc modified for safety, because they are safe anyway! h&s is just totally blown out of proportion. good riddance to the lot of em

Si · Post by Si » Tue 22 Apr, 2008 11:15 am

Blimey! Let 'em 'ave it, Rich!!!

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Thu 24 Apr, 2008 9:58 pm

On a (slightly) related note, I remember reading an artcile a couple of years ago on the weight limits applied to old bridges.Often the bridge was built way back when with little thought other than to get from one side of the river to the other without getting your feet wet, but as time goes by, legislation comes along and in this case, weight limits have to apply.A bridge (I think in Oxfordshire) was thought to date back at least 300 years and possibly more. The local council had placed a 10 ton weight limit on it, based largely on it's age and type of construction. Anyway, said bridge had become redundant due to a new one being built nearby and was due for demotion, so a decision was made to see just how much weight the bridge could cope with before it gave way in an experiment.Academic types were brought in from a nearby university along with various civil engineers and the like and a sries of weights were placed upon the bridge, using a crane.The bridge took the nominal 10 ton limit without any trouble. More weights were added until eventually cracks started to appear - although this was at well over 100 tonnes. Eventually the bridge gave way and collapsed but adly I can't remember the exact weight.Now as anyone with O level physics will tell you a static weight is different to a moving one, but it makes you think doesn't it?