The Charing Cross Bridge
JULY 30th will be one of the most important dates in the history of London, for 'then the decision must be taken whether the great Scheme for transferring Charing Cross station to the south side of the river, and building a new road bridge across the river, is to be accepted or not. On that day not only will the agreement between the London County Council and the Southern Railway Company come before the Council for ratification, but the shareholders of the Company will also be asked to sanction it.
No project of our day could have more effect upon the appearance and the amenities of London in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross. The possibilities are enormous. The congestion of street traffic will be relieved ; a very ugly bridge will be replaced (we may assume) by one not only dignified but appi-opriate to the exacting requirements of London traffic ; and the huddled buildings on the south side of the river will yield (we may assume again) to an impressive new railway station, and to an embankment which will match the Victoria Embankment on the north side. Ever since it was suggested, many years ago, by Captain George Swinton, that Charing Cross station should be removed to the other side of the river, and that the railway bridge should be rePlaced by a road bridge, this solution of one of the most knotty of London's problems has seemed to be the ideal. The difficulties, however, were immense. The solution was generally thought of as one of those things that are too good to be true. But at last the dream seems likely to become a reality. We await July 30th with some anxiety, though we can hardly believe that either the London County Council or the shareholders of the Southern Railway' Company will reject a plan which seems as nearly as is humanly possible to satisfy not only Londoners' conceptions of what ought to be, but the legitimate interests of shareholders and rate- payers.
We contemplate with pleasure the disappearance of the present Charing Cross railway and foot bridge. We know all that is said with a certain defiant bravado by those who do not care to cherish any but an uncommon opinion, about the bridge having an austere beauty of utility, and having taught many lessons to Waterloo Bridge in the easing of navigation. We trust, however, that Mr. Bernard Shaw and a few others will be allowed to protest in vain. In his case at least that must be an experience to which he is comfortably inured.
Three years ago, when the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic was appointed, under the chairman- ship of Lord Lee of Fareham, the terms of reference emphasized the urgency of the matter. The Commission reported with unusual speed, but since then Londoners have had to exercise unusual patience. Still, if the removal of Charing Cross railway station—which was not, of course, proposed by the Lee Commission—is to be the reward of delay, we can say unreservedly that it has been worth while to wait. The Lee Commission wrote their Report on the assumption, valid at that time, that the railway company would not give up its site on the north bank. In the circumstances they undoubtedly made the best possible proposal, which was for a double-deck road and railway bridge in place of the present single deck railway and foot bridge. Shortly after the publication of the Report, however, a Committee of Engineers was appointed to report on the Report. The engineers convinced the Minister of Transport that the needs of London would not really be met unless Charing Cross railway station was removed and the new bridge was constructed, not for trains, but for street traffic.
The acceptance of this opinion disposed of all necessity for the double-deck bridge. The Minister agreed with the engineers that nothing would give London the necessary freedom for the future unless Charing Cross station was banished to the other side. A single deck bridge was seen to be more desirable than a double- decker, and it would also cost less. All this was promis- ing enough, but the Board of the Southern Railway Company refused to accept the site that was offered to them for a new station near Waterloo Junction. A year ago the Minister of Transport suggested another site, between the railway viaduct and Waterloo Road, and this has been approved by the Board and recommended to the shareholders.
Naturally the Board laid down a large number of con- ditions, as any responsible Board of Directors arc bound to do, in the interests of their shareholders. The spirit in which the L.C.C., which will promote the necessary Bill in Parliament, has met the Board, and, we must add, the spirit in which the Board have consented to every reasonable adaptation of their demands on the ground that the removal of the railway station is essential to the life of London, has done great credit to both parties. It has been arranged that the Company shall be fully compensated and indemnified. The L.C.C. will buy the freehold of the new site, and convey it to the Company cleared of all buildings, and ready for the building of the new station. The Company, for its part, promises, immediately on taking possession, to begin building.
A very wise stipulation insisted on by the Council h that the new buildings must be in keeping with the architecture of the approach to the bridge. The Company also undertakes to erect no buildings between the northern end of the new station and the bridge, but to use that space as an embankment or promenade. While the new bridge is being built the Council will have to maintain a temporary bridge for road communication between Charing Cross and the new station. When the new station is finished the Company will hand over to the Council the greater part of the freehold of the present Charing Cross site. This site must be of very great value, and it should help the Council to set off some of its large expen- diture.
Previous page
