I REFER to your article "Closed bridge creates a great divide" (September 1) and subsequent correspondence.

Firstly the "them and us" situation. Contrary to the general drift of the article, many people in Regent Road and others on the north side of the railway want the bridge to be re-opened.

Some points raised by J Pearson (July 12) are valid and require careful consideration, but, overall, for the benefit of the wider community, the bridge should be re-opened.

I have advocated for some time the measures outlined by Dr Collier (July 5) but additionally traffic calming measures along Glengarth Drive must be introduced. Indeed these measures are a condition for the development of the Warehouse at Lostock Station passed in November 2001.

Traffic calming measures have been designed along Chew Moor Road to St John's Church, the plans of which I saw in February this year, but those for Glengarth Drive were not then available.

When all these suggestions are implemented, the bridge should be re-opened. There is no room for a "them and us" mentality in this small community.

Secondly, the closure of the bridge, arguably, need never have happened in the first place. I understand that, from initial investigations, it was deemed to be unsafe for 40 tonne vehicles as required by EC regulations.

However, it was assessed by Railtrack PLC to be capable of taking up to 17 tonnes. BMBC did not agree and, based on current DoT regulations, the load carrying capacity was very low.

Surely Railtrack would not have risked recommending a capacity of 17 tonnes for the bridge (which easily encompasses cars and vans) without good reason? They could not afford a collapse on to their tracks. A strict enforcement of restriction for HGV would have been necessary, but this would not have been insurmountable

The dispute is now being resolved by appointing another team of consultants who will use more sophisticated methods than those previously used to determine its capacity.

The bridge was closed in June last year. Surely this is an inordinately long time for the decision to be made and it is not likely to be resolved until August/September.

Had the bridge remained open while these investigations were made it would have had two results:

The urgency to make a decision (while the bridge was open) would have meant a

quicker decision

None of the divisive problems in Lostock would have arisen.

It appears to me that the bridge was closed in haste and without due consideration and caused a great deal of unnecessary disruptions.

J R Walmsley

Regent Road

Lostock

Bolton