City of Westminster
Item No.
CMfT&I/19/2003
Decision-maker
Date
Title of Report
CABINET MEMBER FOR
TRANSPORT &
INFRASTRUCTURE
31 March
2003
Maintenance Management of Bridges
and Other Highway Structures
Classification
Report of
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
Director of Planning & Transportation
Wards Involved
All
Policy Context
To maintain and improve the quality of the City’s
Streets and buildings through a planned
maintenance and improvement programme.
Financial Summary
The costs of capital works recommended in this
report total £485,000 for which financial approval is
sought.
Provision exists in the approved capital programme
for this expenditure.
1.
Summary
This report provides:

A review of the strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges
and Other Highway Structures.

An update of the Assessment and Strengthening Programme, particularly in
respect of Bridges and Structures owned by Railtrack plc and London
Underground Limited where delays to programme have resulted in rephasing of expenditure.
And seeks approval to: 
Implement the 2002/03 programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance to
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by the City Council.

Continue with the Administration of the London Package for Bridges and
Other Highway Structures.
1
2.
Recommendations
2.1
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £400,000 in 2003/04 in
respect of Planned Preventative Maintenance of the City Council’s Bridges
and other Highway Structures as detailed in Appendix 4.
2.2
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £85,000 for the Administration
of the London Package for Bridges and Other Highway Structures.
3.
Background Information
3.1
Bridges form a key part of the highway system by nature of their strategic
location and because of the consequences when they fail or when their
capacity is impaired. Inspection is an essential part of bridge maintenance
and must be conducted systematically and not just confined to those
occasions when there is a breakdown or failure. The emphasis of all bridge
inspection in Westminster is on public safety and prolonging the economic life
of the structure.
A report to the former Traffic Sub-Committee in March 1996 outlined the
Management Strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges and
other Highway Structures.
(A “highway structure” is a structure either over, under or adjacent to a public
highway which may at any time be expected to withstand the effects of
vehicular or pedestrian loading.)
3.2
A substantial part of this overall strategy is to carry out an assessment and
strengthening programme to cater for the EC requirements to allow 40 tonne
vehicles on UK roads by 1 January 1999.
3.3
Up to the 2nd July 2000 the City Council owned and maintained a total of 165
highway structures. The ownership of a number of these transferred to the
GLA on 3rd July 2000. A list of the structures owned and maintained by the
City Council together with a list of those transferred is given in Appendix 1 and
2 of this report.
The structures fall into 5 main categories:





Bridges, including Thames Crossings
Underpasses
Pedestrian Subways
Pipe Subways
Retaining Walls
3.4
From the 3rd July 2000 until 31st March 2002 the City Council continued to
maintain those structures transferred on behalf of Transport for London (TfL)
under an ‘Agency Agreement’.
3.5
From 1st April 2002 the City Council ceased to maintain TfL Bridges &
Structures following their decision to tender for those services. The City
2
Council has however, continued with on-going Planned Maintenance works to
Westminster Bridge.
4.
Inspection
4.1
To ensure that these structures are maintained to the highest standards it is
essential that their condition is reviewed and monitored on a regular basis.
The City Council has adopted the standards set by the Department of
Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and carries out regular
inspections and reporting of structures with the following frequency:
Principal Inspections
General Inspection
Superficial Inspections
Special Inspections
- 6 yearly
- 2 yearly
– Yearly
– Ad-hoc
Appendix 3 explains the inspection regime in more detail.
4.2
The regular inspection process gathers information on any highway structure
in respect of defects and can record deterioration over time (defects are
recorded in terms of extent, severity and priority).
4.3
It is vital that the right information is collected, stored and used in the correct
way. To this end the City Council introduced a computerised Bridge
Management System in 1992 which enables prioritised programmes of work to
be produced. This ensures that the best use of financial resources is
achieved. The current database was upgraded during 2002/03 to provide
additional facilities for the effective management of the City Council’s Bridges
and Structures.
4.4
The Maintenance of Bridges and other Highway Structures is carried out
under the following headings:



Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
Planned Preventative Maintenance Other Structural Maintenance & Improvements –
Revenue expenditure
Capital expenditure
Capital Expenditure
5.
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
5.1
Routine Maintenance comprises those items of work, such as cleaning of
drains and expansion joints to Bridges, walls and ceilings to Subways and
Underpasses, and the maintenance of services, lighting etc.
5.2
Ad-hoc maintenance comprises ‘reactive’ maintenance work following damage
caused by vandalism and vehicle damage. Also included is the removal of
graffiti and urgent repairs to ensure that public safety is maintained.
5.3
The opening of the two Hungerford Footbridges to the public in 2002 has
resulted in these structures being added to the City Council’s Routine and Ad3
hoc Maintenance programme as well as being subject to future inspections
under the regime described in Section 4.
5.4
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance are both funded from Revenue.
6.
Planned Preventative Maintenance
6.1
All structures deteriorate over time and any work aimed at maintaining the
durability of the bridge or other highway structure is classed as Planned
Preventative Maintenance. Such work can be divided into two broad headings:
Structural -
This is essential to ensure the integrity and load carrying
capacity of the Bridge/Structure is maintained.
Non-Structural - Such work includes:
 Renewal of Mechanical and Electrical equipment
 Renewal of Lighting
 Major Repainting / Corrosion Protection
 Renewal / Replacement of drainage systems etc.
6.2
The programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance for 2002/03 is detailed
in Appendix 4 for which financial approval is sought.
Westminster Bridge
6.3
As stated above the City Council has continued to implement on-going
Planned Maintenance to Westminster Bridge on behalf of TfL and that they
wish for this to continue with other Planned Maintenance Work during
2003/04.
6.4
The programmed works to Westminster Bridge in 2003/04 are as follows:




Scour Protection to Piers
Lamp Refurbishment
Fascia Girder Repairs/Replacement – Trials
Maintenance Painting – Testing & Trials
6.5
The total cost for the design and implementation of these works together with
City Council staff costs is estimated at £3,719,000 for which financial approval
has already been granted. This work is fully funded by TfL.
7.0
Assessment & Strengthening Programme - Update
7.1
In 1987 the Department of Transport introduced a 15-year rehabilitation
programme, to improve the quality of maintenance and to upgrade substandard features. The Assessment and Strengthening programme to cater
for the European Community (EC) requirement to allow 40 tonne vehicles on
UK roads on 1 January 1999, forms a substantial part of this programme.
4
7.2
The City Council commenced a programme of Bridge Assessment Studies in
April 1991 for those Bridges and other Highway Structures that they own and
maintain. This was completed in March 1996.
7.3
The necessary structural assessments were carried out in association with the
regular 6-yearly Principal Inspections. This ensured that maintenance needs
and any sub-standard features, in line with the Department of Transport 15year rehabilitation programme, are identified. This also enables the service life
of the structure to be assessed, before determining the extent of any
necessary strengthening and repair.
7.4
The final strengthening scheme in the City Council’s bridge strengthening
programme was the “Strengthening and Structural Repairs to the Elevated
Harrow Road”. This contract commenced in September 2001 and was
completed in October 2002, on time and within budget.
7.5
The aim throughout the strengthening programme has been to carry out all the
necessary work, where possible, to a structure in one visit, thereby keeping
traffic disruption to a minimum.
7.6
All Westminster owned and maintained structures have been subject to a
detailed structural assessment. Those structures found not to meet the
requirements of the new loading standards have been strengthened and all
structures have been returned to the routine inspection and maintenance
programme.
7.7
Although all structures owned and maintained by the City Council have been
assessed and strengthened, there are a number of structures owned by the
transport undertakers, and others, which have yet to be dealt with. Paragraphs
8 to 11 below provide an update in respect of these structures within the City.
8.
Interim Measures
8.1
Interim Measures are an essential and integral part of the assessment and
strengthening programme. Any structure that is found to be sub-standard
needs to be kept in a safe condition pending permanent strengthening or
replacement. It is however not possible to predict in advance of an
assessment the need for such measures. A contingency allowance is
therefore made in the capital programme to allow for such measures.
9.
Structures Owned by the Transport Undertakers
9.1
Previous reports to both Planning and Transportation Committee and the
former Traffic & Works Sub-Committee advised members of the limitations of
responsibility of the Transport Undertakers (British Rail/Railtrack, London
Underground Limited and British Waterways Board) for maintaining the loadbearing capacity of their bridges.
5
9.2
The responsibility for assessing and upgrading bridges owned by them, to the
new standard, falls to the City Council.
Structures owned by Railtrack
9.3
There are Sixteen (16) Bridges owned by Railtrack, which support the public
highway, within Westminster. These are listed in Appendix 5. A further two
structures, Ecclestone Bridge and St.John’s Wood Bridge transferred to TfL on
3 July 2000.
9.4
A legal agreement has been entered into with Railtrack to enable the structural
assessment of these Bridges to be undertaken.
9.5
The agreement sets out the working arrangements between Railtrack and the
City Council and the basis of payment for the structural assessments and
provides for the City Council to closely monitor the management and control of
the work which is being undertaken by consultants procured by Railtrack.
9.6
The assessments are being carried out in four phases:
 Phase 1 –
Inspection and Simple Assessment
 Phase 2 –
Detailed Assessment including materials testing
 Phase 3 –
Risk analysis and Feasibility Study for Interim Measures
 Phase 4 Feasibility Study for Strengthening and other Measures
9.7
Railtrack commenced the assessment work in November 1998 and it was
anticipated that their work would be completed by August 2000. However,
operational difficulties and delays in obtaining possession of the railway
tracks, for access to carry out structural inspections, resulted in major slippage
to their programme.
9.8
The current situation is that Phase 1 and Phase 2 are substantially complete.
Of the sixteen structures listed in Appendix 5, five tunnels have been removed
from the assessment programme as the amount of cover above these
structures excludes them from requiring analysis under current practice.
Bishopsbridge Road Bridge in Paddington has been removed from the
programme as this structure has been subject to separate assessment as part
of proposals to replace the bridge under LTVA.
9.9
The next phases in the assessment programme are Phase 3 (Risk analysis
and Feasibility Study for Interim Measures), and Phase 4 (Feasibility Study for
Strengthening and other Measures). The City Council intend to seek
Railtrack’s approval to approach the consultants employed for Phases 1 and 2
to carry out the work required under Phases 3 and 4. This will provide
continuity to the assessment process and value for money.
9.10 Separate reports will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Transportation
and Infrastructure when the final results of the Phase 3 assessments are
known and whether there is a need to implement Interim Measures.
6
9.11 The results of the Phase 4 works (Feasibility Study for Strengthening and
other Measures) will determine the extent of necessary strengthening and
other works that may be required to bring the structure up to current loading
requirements. This information will be used to bid for grant support from TfL
within the Borough Spending Plan for future years. The programming of any
such work will be subject to availability of “Track possessions” from Railtrack.
London Underground Limited (LUL)
9.12
London Underground Limited (LUL) had previously advised that they had
completed the necessary assessments to bridges and other highway
structures owned by them that support the public highway in Westminster.
9.13 LUL further advised that they had examined 21 additional structures
supporting station concourses within the City. Of these 20 have failed to meet
the new loading standards.
9.14 LUL’s approach has been to carry out a Phase 1 assessment followed by an
Assessment to determine their legal liability as defined in the Transport Act
1968.
9.15 Consultants have been appointed to review the work carried out by LUL, and
to undertake Phase 2,3 and 4 Assessments as necessary to determine the
City Council’s liability. However, LUL have agreed to carry out Phase 2
assessments at their own expense although there has been very little progress
on this.
9.16 It was anticipated that the assessment work would have been completed by
now. However, LUL have been undergoing significant organisational changes
recently with the creation of the following Infraco’s (Infrastructure Companies)
which has significantly affected their programme: 


JNP (Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly)
BCV (Bakerloo, Central, Victoria)
SSL (Sub-Surface Lines)
9.17 Recent meetings between LUL have advised that at present there is no need
to install any Interim Protection Measures to any of their structures. LUL have
been endeavouring to minimise the need to carry out strengthening works by
further rigorous analysis and testing.
9.18 Progress has been made this year with the JNP Infraco. City of Westminster
officers had identified three structures as being understrength, however
subsequent to a review, they may not require strengthening.
7
Cost for Assessment of Railtrack and LUL Bridges
9.19 Progress delays in the assessment programmes have not resulted in any
increases in expenditure. However there is a need to reschedule the
expenditure profile.
9.20 Expenditure for the Assessment of both Railtrack is met by 100% Grant from
TfL.
9.21 The required re-phasing of expenditure for this work is shown in section 14 of
this report.
10.
Structures Owned by Statutory Undertakers
10.1
The responsibility for the assessment and strengthening of structures owned
by the Statutory Undertakers is considered to rest solely with the undertakers
themselves. However, the Statutory Undertakers are seeking legal opinion on
this issue.
11.
Privately Owned Structures
11.1
There are a substantial number of privately owned structures, which support
the public highway within Westminster. The responsibility for the assessment
and upgrading such structures, to meet the new loading standards, has yet to
be determined by the Department of Transport Local Government and the
Regions (DTLR).
12.
Package Approach for London
12.1 A report to the former Traffic Sub-Committee in March 1997 set out the
‘Package Approach’ for the Assessment, Strengthening and Other Structural
Maintenance of Bridges and Other Highway Structures which was introduced
in London from the 1997/98 financial year. This was set up to provide a more
co-ordinated and prioritised approach to Assessment and Strengthening to
ensure maximum use of available Government funding.
12.2 Since April 2001, the Annual Transport Capital Expenditure Settlement for
Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and other Structural Maintenance in
London, has been provided from Transport for London (TfL) in the form of
direct Grant.
12.3 Allocations of funding between the Boroughs is based upon an agreed
Prioritisation Strategy which provides a fair basis for the allocation and
ensures that those structures most at risk and on the most important routes
are dealt with first.
12.4 Throughout the year actual expenditure against allocation is monitored and
under-spends can be re-allocated to those Boroughs with over-spends and
new schemes that can be progressed.
8
12.5 The City Council has taken a leading role in the setting up of the London
Package for Bridges and Structures and acts as lead advisor to ‘Transport for
London – Borough Partnerships’ on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs.
12.6 For 2002/2003 the City Council received grant in respect of the following:



12.7
£ 80,000
£ 100,000
£2,708,000
For 2003/2004 the initial grant allocation to the City Council is as follows:



13.
Administration of the London Package
Assessment of Railtrack LUL/Structures
Elevated Harrow Road – Structural Repairs
Administration of the London Package
Assessment of Railtrack/LUL Structures
Elevated Harrow Road – Retention Release
£ 85,000
£229,000
£ 40,000
National Initiatives – Update
13.1 The DTLR has set up a National Roads Liaison Group (RLG) together with a
number of National Boards to provide an overall co-ordinated approach to the
identification and implementation of National Policy. There are three ‘Boards’
covering Highways, Lighting and Bridges.
13.2 The National Bridges Board has identified a number of key areas for
development where the industry is lacking in clear policy and standards.
These are:
 Code of Practice for the Inspection & Maintenance Management of
Bridges & Other Highway Structures
 Bridge Management Systems
 Best Value Performance Indicators and other Performance Monitoring
Tools
13.3 The City Council is represented on the National Bridges Board and is taking
the lead in the development of both the Code of Practice and the Best Value
Key Performance Indicators.
13.4 Development of the BV KPI’s are underway. A ‘Bridge Condition Indicator’ has
been produced for use from 2003/04 and further indicators will be available in
September 2002 ready for use from 2003/04.
13.5 The Code of Practice will not be ready until late 2003 at the earliest. The City
Council’s Policies and Standards will be reviewed when the Code of Practice
is available.
13.6 In respect of the BV KPI’s these will be applied when they will be applied.
However, data collection for production of the Bridge Condition Indicator will
commence during 2002/03.
9
14.
Financial Implications
Inspection and Maintenance Management
14.1
Approval is sought to the following expenditure in 2003/04 in respect of
Planned Preventative Maintenance of the City Council’s Bridges and other
Highway Structures (as detailed in Appendix 4):



Structural
Non-Structural
Other
-
£304,300
£ 80,700
£ 15,000
TOTAL
£400,000
14.2 The proposed expenditure will be met from the provision of £400,000 that
exists in the approved capital programme for 2003/04 in respect of Structural
Repairs & Refurbishment of Bridges and Highway Structures, funded from the
Parking Places Reserve Account. Some of this expenditure may be entitled to
direct grant from TfL and officers will continue to press for funding from this
source.
14.3 The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £400,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years, over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
57,500
55,750
54,000
52,250
Administration of the London Package
14.4 Approval is sought to expenditure of £85,000 in 2003/04 for the Administration
of the London Package for which provision of exists within the approved
capital programme. This expenditure will be met by way of direct grant from
TfL.
14.5 The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £85,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
12,219
11,847
11,475
11,103
Bridge Assessment Studies to Railtrack and LUL Bridges
14.6 As stated above, in paragraphs 9.9, the delayed Bridge Assessment Studies to
Railtrack and LUL Structures within the City has resulted in the need to revise
the current expenditure profile.
10
The revised expenditure Profile is as follows:
£000’s Previous 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 TOTAL
Years
Capital Programme
Provision
430
96
50
289
865
Revised
Expenditure Profile
430
96
100
229
865
14.7 Up to and including 2000/01 this expenditure was met from the General and
received grant support in the form of SCA. From 2001/02 onwards this is fully
funded by Transport Grant from TfL.
Westminster Bridge – Planned Maintenance (on behalf of TfL)
14.8 The total cost for the design and implementation of the Planned Maintenance
works to Westminster Bridge is estimated at £3,719,000 for which financial
approval has already been given. However this work is fully funded by TfL
Street Management. This is a GLA asset, Westminster does not receive any
capital charges for depreciation and cost of capital.
15.
Legal Implications.
15.1
There are no legal implications arising from this report.
16.
Staffing Implications
16.1
There are no staffing implications arising from this report.
17.
Outstanding Issues
17.1
There are no outstanding issues.
18.
Performance Plan Implications
18.1
There is no specific reference contained within the Performance Plan
11
19.
Consultation
19.1
This report relates to all wards and therefore ward member consultation was not
required.
20.
Crime and Disorder Act
20.1
There are no Crime and Disorder Act implications arising from this report.
21.
Health and Safety Issues
21.1
All works undertaken will be closely monitored and carried out to the
requirements of the Health & Safety at Work Act and the Construction Design
and Management Regulations.
22.
Co-operation with Health Authorities
22.1
There are no implications arising from this report requiring co-operation or coordination with the Health Authorities.
23.
Human Rights Act 1998
23.1
There are no Human Rights Act implications arising from this report.
24
Conclusion
24.1
To ensure that the City Council’s Bridges & Structures are maintained to the
highest standards it is essential that their condition is reviewed and monitored
on a regular basis.
24.2 The City Council has adopted the standards set by the DfT and carries out
regular inspections and reporting of structures.
24.3 The Maintenance of Bridges and other Highway Structures is carried out
under the following headings:



24.4
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
Planned Preventative Maintenance Other Structural Maintenance & Improvements –
Revenue expenditure
Capital expenditure
Capital Expenditure
This report provides:


A review of the strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges
and Other Highway Structures.
An update of the Assessment and Strengthening Programme, particularly in
respect of Bridges and Structures owned by Railtrack plc and London
12
Underground Limited where delays to programme have resulted in rephasing of expenditure.
24.5
Financial approval is sought to:


Implement the 2003/04 programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance to
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by the City Council.
Continue with the Administration of the London Package for Bridges and
Other Highway Structures.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO
INSPECT ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS, PLEASE CONTACT
Andrew S Foster on 020 7641 2541;
EMAIL ADDRESS: afoster1@westminster.gov.uk;
FAX NUMBER: 020 7641 2658
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Report to Traffic & Works Sub-Committee March 1996
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1997
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1998
Report to P&T Operational Sub-Committee March 1999
Report to T&H Operational Sub-Committee March 2001
13
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME:

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME:
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Maintenance Management of Bridges and Other Highway Structures and reject
any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for ……………………………….
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
14
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Chief Financial Officer and, if there are
staffing implications, the Head of Personnel (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
15
APPENDIX 1
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by Westminster
Structure Name
Ward
THAMES BRIDGES
Waterloo Bridge
Hungerford Footbridges
St.James’s
St.James’s
OTHER BRIDGES
Elevated Harrow Road (Westbound)
Lancaster Place Vaults
Bishops Bridge Road Vault
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Harrow Road Giratory
Warwick Avenue
Carlton Bridge
Wedlake Street Footbridge
Formosa Street Footbridge
Hyde Park/ Westbourne/Bayswater
St.James’s
Hyde Park
Little Venice
Little Venice
Little Venice
Westbourne
Westbourne
Westbourne
ROAD UNDERPASSES
Piccadilly/Hyde Park Corner
Strand/Kingsway
Harrow Road (Westbound)
West End
St.James’s
Little Venice/Hyde Park/Westbourne
PEDESTRIAN SUBWAYS
Charing Cross/Strand Complex
Harrow Road/Porteus Road
Lord Hills
Trafalgar Square/Cockspur Street
Parliament Street
St.James’s
Hyde Park/Little Venice
Westbourne
St.James’s
St.James’s
Bridge Street
Bessborough Street (Pimlico Station)
Waterloo Bridge Link Subway
Tachbrook
St.James’s
PIPE SUBWAYS
Strand/Aldwich Complex
Kingsway
Charing Cross Road
Shaftsbury Avenue
Northumberland Avenue
Piccadilly Circus
Cranbourne Street
Marble Arch
Marylebone
St.James’s
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Bryanston and Dorset Square
Victoria Embankment
Garrick Street
St.James’s
St.James’s
RETAINING WALLS
Various
Various
16
APPENDIX 2
Bridges and Structures on the GLA road network transferred
To Transport for London (TfL) on 3 July 2000
Structure Name
Category
Ward
Pedestrian Subway
Bridge/Retaining Wall
West End/Knightsbridge and Belgravia
West End/Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Pedestrian Subway
Pedestrian Subway
Pedestrian Subway
Bridge/Retaining Wall
West End/Knightsbridge and Belgravia
West End/Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
West End/Knightsbridge and Belgravia
(7 No. Structures)
(7 No. Structures)
Pedestrian Subway
Bridge/Retaining Wall
Bridge/Retaining Wall
West End
West End
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
(2 No. Structures)
Pedestrian Subway
Pedestrian Subway
Bridge/Retaining Wall
Bridge/Retaining Wall
St James's
Warwick
Churchill/Tachbrook
Churchill/Tachbrook
Pedestrian Subway
Pedestrian Subway
Hyde Park/Bryanston and Dorset Square
Bryanston and Dorset Square
Pedestrian Subway
Bridge/Retaining Wall
Bridge/Retaining Wall
Bridge/Retaining Wall
Bridge/Retaining Wall
St James's
St James's/Victoria
St James's
St James's
Victoria
Marble Arch Subway Complex
Marble Arch Subway Complex
Marble Arch Subway Complex
(8 No. Structures)
(4 No. Structures)
Park Lane Structures
Aldford Street Subway
Curzon Gate Subway
Park Lane Roundabout Subway
Park Lane Retaining Wall
Hyde Park Corner Subway Complex
Hyde Park Corner Subway Complex
Hyde Park Corner Subway Complex
Knightsbridge Retaining Wall
Victoria and Embankment
Bressenden Place Subways
Neathouse Place Subway
Grosvenor Road Dock Bridges
Grosvenor Road River Walls
(5 No. Structures)
(2 No. Structures)
Harrow Road/Marylebone Road (Paddington)
Edgware Road Subway
Old Marylebone Road Subway
Thames Bridges and Embankment
Victoria Embankment Pedestrian Subway
Westminster Bridge
Embankment River Walls
(4 No. Structures)
Embankment Retaining Walls
(3 No. Structures)
17
APPENDIX 3
Maintenance Management of Bridges and other Highway Structures
Routine Inspection Programme
Principal Inspections - 6 yearly
This level of inspection requires a close examination (within touching distance) of all
inspectable parts of the structure, including access equipment and both destructible and
non-destructible testing.
General Inspection - 2 yearly
This consists of a visual inspection of all external parts of the structure. Access equipment
may be required in some cases.
Superficial Inspection - 1 yearly
This type of inspection consists of a cursory check for obvious deficiencies, which might lead
to traffic accidents or high maintenance costs.
Special Inspections
A special inspection may be required for the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
To investigate a specific problem that has been found;
Structures that are either weight restricted, cast iron or have been subject to
impact or fire damage;
Before and after the passage of abnormally heavy loads on a structure that
has been proved sub-standard by calculation.
18
APPENDIX 4
Maintenance Management of Bridges and other Highway
Structures
Planned Preventative Maintenance – 2003/2004
Westminster City Council owned Structures
1.
Structural
Works

Strand Underpass:
Rewaterproofing
- Refurbishment of expansion joints
Consultants Fees
Client Costs (@ 40%)
52,000
20,800
Sub-Total
2.
195,000
36,500
231,500
£304,300
Non - Structural
Works



Strand Underpass – SOS Telephone Upgrade
Lock Bridge – Corrosion Protection
M & E Replacement Equipment
Consultants Fees
Client Costs (@ 40%)
13,000
5,200
Sub-Total
3.
20,000
20,000
22,500
62,500
£80,700
Other
Bridge Management

Database Development
15,000
Sub-Total
£15,000
Grand Total
£400,000
19
APPENDIX 5
Bridges owned by Railtrack which support roads within Westminster
Paddington





Bishopsbridge Road Bridge
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Ranelagh Bridge
Lord Hills
Westbourne Park Bridge (Great Western Road)
Victoria



Eccleston Bridge (Transferred to TfL)
Elizabeth Bridge
Ebury Bridge
Marylebone










Carlton Hill
Finchley Place Tunnel
Marlborough Hill Tunnel
Marlborough Place Tunnel
Grove Road Tunnel
Circus Road Tunnel
Lords Tunnel (Wellington Place)
St John's Wood Road Tunnel (Transferred to TfL)
Lodge Road Bridge
Rossmore Road Bridge
20