500 Sir Frederick Bramivell [Feb. 22, 



say it would not be. Having regard to tbe avoidance of interference 

 witli existing interests, to tlie cost, and to the diminished length of 

 the approaches, it does appear that the tunnel is preferable to a 

 high-level bridge. I told you a little time back that I would for 

 the moment dismiss the question of ferries, and I ought then to have 

 given a few particulars connected with the trafific, to show that some- 

 thing more was needed for the princij)al means of communication. 

 Let me supply that omission now. In the year 1882 careful obser- 

 vations were taken, and it was found on a Monday in the month 

 of August, that in twenty-four hours there passed over London 

 Bridge 22,795 vehicles and 117,451 foot passengers. It need hardly 

 be said that these did not traverse the bridge at a uniform rate, 

 throughout the twenty-four hours. The table on the wall* shows 

 the allocation of the traffic to the various hours, giving a minimum 

 of 7 vehicles and of 130 foot passengers per hour between two and 

 four in the morning, and a maximum of 1846 vehicles per hour 

 between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon, and a maximum of 13,037 foot 

 passengers between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., while the average 

 per hour between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. is as much as 1578 

 vehicles and 7644 foot passengers. Assuming that the new mode of 

 communication were only to get a fraction of this traffic, and that 

 the total traffic was not increased, even then it would not be well to 

 attempt to pass it by ferry boats traversing a crowded river, but 

 there can bo no question that the existence of a new communication 

 will largely develop traffic. Notwithstanding these 22,795 vehicles 

 over London Bridge, 3554 were found to pass over Southwark, only 

 500 yards above London Brid^^e, and with its very bad gradient on 

 the Middlesex side, while 13,288 were found to pass over Blackfriars, 

 only 1288 yards above London Bridge. Moreover, the freeing of the 

 toll bridges may be cited in support of this development of traffic by 

 increased accommodation. Before the toll was removed, there passed 

 over Waterloo, Charing Cross, Lambeth, Vauxhall, Chelsea, the 

 Albert, Battersea, and Putney Bridges, during 24 hours, 46,960 foot 

 passengers and 8077 vehicles. Four to five years after the toll was 

 removed, there passed over the former toll bridges I have enumerated 

 114,760 foot passengers per day, and 22,621 vehicles, being practically 

 two and a half times the number of foot passengers, and two and 

 three-quarter times the number of vehicles. Part of this increase 

 was no doubt due to the natural growth of London in the five 

 years, but that part must have been but a very small proportion of 

 the whole. 



With respect, however, to this increase in the population, the 

 table t on the wall shows you (to go back for fifty years) that in 1831 

 there were within that which is now the Metropolitan area a total 

 population of 1,655,200, divided into — north-west of London Bridge, 



* See Table A and Diagram A' in Appendix, 

 t See Table B in Appendix. 



