M20 Pedestrian bridge struck and collapses

[KeithW]

As I said distraction is also a red herring. For the avoidance of doubt my reference to a speed limit was sarcastic; speed limits are to maintain safety not cover arses.

While the CHE is very nice and intelligent I doubt she either did the TTM risk assessment or the structural assessment - it was probably someone in Area 4. Which is why I would ask for a second opinion; but then that's probably just me.

As a retired engineer I would agree that she probably delegated the risk assessment and structural assessments but then in the real world that's what you have to do and if you have to make the decision to go or not go this weekend second opinions are a luxury you don't have. You and I will have to agree to disagree but my sympathies are definitely with those who have to carry the can if it all goes wrong. I have had to stand up in court and defend decisions made when something went wrong. While no permanent harm was done it was still a memorable experience.

[Bryn666]

Would I be right in thinking a quick removal makes it harder for insurers to argue the toss about rechargeable works and contesting BoQ rates?

I can see the idea of half a bridge being a press frenzy due to 'hahahaha lol engineers are rubbish' type stories being awfully good fun so removal is a good option.

[rhyds]

Would I be right in thinking a quick removal makes it harder for insurers to argue the toss about rechargeable works and contesting BoQ rates?

I can see the idea of half a bridge being a press frenzy due to 'hahahaha lol engineers are rubbish' type stories being awfully good fun so removal is a good option.

Also, there's little point leaving half a bridge. As discussed its got to come out anyway for future works, so its probably easier to declare it as emergency work and get it done now.

[Chris5156]

Also, there's little point leaving half a bridge. As discussed its got to come out anyway for future works, so its probably easier to declare it as emergency work and get it done now.

I think this aspect has been overlooked so far: if there's scope to do the work sooner rather than later, it may as well just be done. The bridge won't be repaired in its current state so the remaining half has to be demolished at some point. It may as well be now.

[ais523]

The bulletin on the incident in question is now available, here. Strangely, not a whole lot of information this time; HE normally give more.

[Helvellyn]

Also, there's little point leaving half a bridge. As discussed its got to come out anyway for future works, so its probably easier to declare it as emergency work and get it done now.

I think this aspect has been overlooked so far: if there's scope to do the work sooner rather than later, it may as well just be done. The bridge won't be repaired in its current state so the remaining half has to be demolished at some point. It may as well be now.

"When it's convenient" would make a bit more sense. What's left is sound so there shouldn't be any rush (but no reason to delay it either). If waiting a while means that it could be done at the least disruptable possible time then do it. Of course there's no point in delaying for the sake of it, so if there aren't any good reasons to wait might as well do it now (and / or if the current loss of the right of way is causing a lot of people problems).

[Chris5156]

I was in the area yesterday so I found my way to East Street on the north side of the M20 to have a look at this.

There's not much to see in terms of the bridge - a stub on the south side and a concrete bridge footing in the embankment on the north side with some loose lumps of concrete lying about and some rebar sticking out here and there.

What was unexpected was the sign on the barrier closing the footpath (which I may or may not have gone past in order to have a look). It's the typical sheet of laminated A4 with a Kent County Council logo giving notice of the order that closes the footpath. The reason, as expected, is to do with danger to the public due to a "damaged footbridge". It then says it will be closed "for a maximum of six months".

I'm not sure what they were thinking when that was drawn up - I think any of us could have told them that six months later there would be no sign of a new bridge yet. Designing and building a new footbridge would never happen that fast. By my reckoning that gives the closure to the end of this month before it's due to be reopened! Obviously it will be extended and the footpath will remain closed, but I found the wording very surprising.

[Fenlander]

There's a damaged footpath near me on an NSL stretch of road that's been closed for a couple of years now, the council won't put in temporary lights and run the footpath on the road as according to them they can only do that for a max of 18months and it'll take them longer than that to fix the footpath. Instead you have to step off the path and walk along the road, with the 60mph traffic, on what is a blind bend. The council had put up normal A-board style 'path closed' signs but people kept moving them to use the path, so they concreted in barriers instead.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.77103 ... 312!8i6656

[Bryn666]

I found the wording very surprising.

It's another quirk of the legal system for temporary closures that anything above and beyond the statutory limit can't possibly be considered and so what I expect will happen is one of two things;

1. It lapses and everyone forgets about it because frankly it's obvious it is closed even though a scrap of paper says otherwise.

2. A rambler type gets uppity because the above has happened and tries to force their legal right to plummet onto the M20 and die use a legally if not practically open footpath. Then it will be quickly renewed in a panic and kick the problem away for another six months.

In fact I see no. 2 happening; even if the path is used by just one person a decade, trying to extinguish the right of way will prove extremely frustrating.

I can't see a replacement bridge being high up on the priority list from the HE unless the truck that hit it in the first place has very good insurance...

[Glen]

It then says it will be closed "for a maximum of six months".

I'm not sure what they were thinking when that was drawn up - I think any of us could have told them that six months later there would be no sign of a new bridge yet.

I would suspect it's the limitations of a temporary closure order for the footpath, rather than a permanent stopping-up order.

The council will just issue another order for further six months when it runs out.

[RichardA35]

It then says it will be closed "for a maximum of six months".

I'm not sure what they were thinking when that was drawn up - I think any of us could have told them that six months later there would be no sign of a new bridge yet.

I would suspect it's the limitations of a temporary closure order for the footpath, rather than a permanent stopping-up order.

The council will just issue another order for further six months when it runs out.

Having just applied for a similar order, that is correct, although the onus is on the promoter of the closure (here, HE) to apply for the extension rather than it "just being issued" by the LA. It cost c£1100 for the initial order probably due to advertising costs.

[vlad]

If it's anything like the bridge that used to be here till it was removed in 2008 after being hit by a lorry then don't expect it to be replaced any time soon.

We think the footpath is going to be reconnected after the new A556 has opened but I'm not holding my breath.

[Fluid Dynamics]

In the same general area, a footbridge strike on the A21 Tonbridge Bypass immediately north of the Medway viaduct took HE about 2 years to replace. Interestingly,in that instance they modified the piers of the existing bridge incorporating them into the structure, which is now a metal as opposed to concrete deck.

[A9NWIL]

I was in the area yesterday so I found my way to East Street on the north side of the M20 to have a look at this.

There's not much to see in terms of the bridge - a stub on the south side and a concrete bridge footing in the embankment on the north side with some loose lumps of concrete lying about and some rebar sticking out here and there.

What was unexpected was the sign on the barrier closing the footpath (which I may or may not have gone past in order to have a look). It's the typical sheet of laminated A4 with a Kent County Council logo giving notice of the order that closes the footpath. The reason, as expected, is to do with danger to the public due to a "damaged footbridge". It then says it will be closed "for a maximum of six months".

I'm not sure what they were thinking when that was drawn up - I think any of us could have told them that six months later there would be no sign of a new bridge yet. Designing and building a new footbridge would never happen that fast. By my reckoning that gives the closure to the end of this month before it's due to be reopened! Obviously it will be extended and the footpath will remain closed, but I found the wording very surprising.

Considering that they were planning to change the bridge anyway, due to a future smart motorway scheme on that section, could there already be a plan for a new bridge that was drawn up before the incident? If so the incident could just be delaying things while the insurance money is sorted out for a new bridge?

[Brenley Corner]

Latest article regarding the footbridge collapse and the drivers appearance in court: LINK

Apparently damage to the bridge has been valued at £1.5m and damage to vehicles at £150,000.

Tony

[PeterCastle]

Considering that they were planning to change the bridge anyway, due to a future smart motorway scheme on that section, could there already be a plan for a new bridge that was drawn up before the incident? If so the incident could just be delaying things while the insurance money is sorted out for a new bridge?

Was the bridge collapse an inside job?

[RichardA35]

Considering that they were planning to change the bridge anyway, due to a future smart motorway scheme on that section, could there already be a plan for a new bridge that was drawn up before the incident? If so the incident could just be delaying things while the insurance money is sorted out for a new bridge?

Was the bridge collapse an inside job?

No.

[LeedsKing]

13 April 2017: Alan Austen, of Darlington, pleaded not guilty to two counts of dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving at Maidstone Crown Court last week.

[Norfolktolancashire]

13 April 2017: Alan Austen, of Darlington, pleaded not guilty to two counts of dangerous driving and causing serious injury by dangerous driving at Maidstone Crown Court last week.

Bet it was the mysterious County rabbit that made him swerve.....

[LeedsKing]

Still seems to be a mystery why he was driving along hard shoulder.