SHANNON BRIDGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2840, 31 January 1925, Page 3

SHANNON BRIDGE.

CONFERENCE OF GOVERNING BODYDELEGATES. NEW BRIDGE FAVOURED. PUNT TO BE USED MEANWHILE A conference of local body delegates interested in the question of bridging the Manawatu river at Moutoa was held at Shannon on Thursday. A recent flood washed away the eastern span of the present structure, thus cutting off communication between Foxton and the Mon toa district with Shannon. Prior to the bridge span being carried away a conference of engineers recommended the erection of the bridge on a new site. Subsequently the 1 span was washed away and the settlers held a meeting and decided to urge the Main Highways Board, in whom the control of the bridge had been vested, to re-construct the span and erect protective groynes. In the

meantime the authorities decided to provide a punt to restore road communication. Thursday’s conference

was to decide a definite course of action and on the following- points: an estimated cost of £1,500, (2) the permanent repair of the bridge on its present works, estimated cost £9,000; (3) removal of the bridge to a new site at a higher point on the river, this estimate to cost from £IB.OOO to £20,000. Mr W. Murdoch (Shannon Boro-

ugh Council) presided. Other representatives were: Sir James Wilson and Cr. W. E. Barber (Manawatu County Council), Mr G. A. Monk (Horowhenna County Council), and Mr J. Chrystall (Foxton Borough Council). Messrs J. Hannah and G. T. Murray attended* on behalf of the Highways Board and several other interested parties were in attendance. The chairman briefly outlined the object of the conference. Mr G. T. Murray, of the Highways Board, said that after the bridge had been washed away it had been suggested to extend it by short spans, by one long span or put in a punt. Extension by one long span would not only have taken a long time, but would have cost £9,000. To put in a punt was quicker and cheaper. It had been adopted, although the punt was not working yet. A question to be considered by the meeting was whether the punt was going to be free or otherwise. Eventually of course, a new bridge would have to be built higher up the river and the estimate for this was £IO,OOO. This meant using the spans from the present bridge. That was an optimistic estimate and did not agree with the Department's view, which considered it would take at least £IB,OOO, which would include the cost of the spillway and new road. If the proposal of the Mana-watu-Oroua River Board’s scheme was put into operation it would reduce the stream to a mlere trickle, and in that case the present bridge in a repaired condition would do. That scheme apart, the Department recommended that a new bridge higher up the sti'eam be constructed. Mr W. E. Barber (Manawatu County Council) stated that the ratepayers of his district had discussed the matter and had come to the conclusion that the putting in of a punt was reverting to prehistoric times. He thought that, they should repair the existing structure. Mr Chrystall said that his borough was not greatly interested from a financial point of view, but was nevertheless interested in maintaining communications. He thought that if the engineers seriously considered the advisability of putting in a system of groynes to protect the present bridge, it would be a great deal better than to incur the huge expenditure involved in erecting a new bridge. Erosion would continue, no matter where they put. a bridge, so why not make the best of what they had 1 ? Sir James Wilson read a letter . which he had received from Mr J. Hannah, engineer of the No. 9 High- ■ ways District, setting forth the present view of the Board, which was that when the annual review of roads to be declared main highways was being made in April next, there was the possibility of the ShannonFoxton road being deleted from the list of highways in view of the fact that it was not considered to possess the same national importance of other main highways, and also in view of the fact that there was direct communication between Shannon -and Palmerston N. It was important he said, that local authorities should consider this aspect, when dealing with the question of restoration of means of communication other than the punt, which had already been built. At ' the last meeting the Board decided to contribute one third of the cost of erecting the punt and constructing the approach roads thereto. Sir James Wilson gave it as his opinion and as that of those whom he represented that it would not be wise to build a £20,000 structure at the present time, particularly in view of the proposed new drainage scheme. In any case, the river was such an uncertain quantity that it seemed hardly wise to embark upon permanent and expensive works. For years past they had watched the movements of the river, and the indications were that its thrust was slightly southwards, with the result that it would strike the bank at a point lower than at present. If this proved to be correct, then the bridge on its present site would be comparatively safe. They therefore advised that the present bridge be repaired and extended and then wait and see the results of the River Board’s works. Mr Monk (Horowhenua County

Council) said that whatever ultimate scheme was decided on, the erection of the punt was justified. Communication had to bo kept open. The type 4>f bridge to be adopted was for engineers and not laymen to decide, and on that he would therefore not argue. The people who were going to benelt were those who should pay and he would remind the others concerned when the time came to pay. He thought that Sir James Wilson’s suggestion to erect groynes was very good, but here again flic question arr.se, where was the money to come from? He did not want to discriminate, but it was evident that the Manawatu County Council was vitally interested, rind it should be prepared to pay according to its piospeet.ive benefits. One of the questions which would have to be ’discussed was the allocation of cost. The Highways’ Board actually had the power to allocate costs among the different, local bodies without deferring to the opinions of those bodies. Sir James Wilson said that lie would lie quite prepared to agree, to a, ruling as regards the cost made by !lie Highways Board. Such a ruling lie knew would be fair. Mr Murdoch moved “That this meeting is of the opinion that the present bridge lie repaired and extra spans be added and sufficient spillway made for the, flood water, and protective works be made to ensure as far as possible the safety of the hrii'ge as soon a.- practicable.”

Mr Monk re.n v-iker. that this propose! was directly agaiest the opinion of the engineers and he did not fee] justified in sanctioning the expenditure of £9,000 on a scheme which had been adversely reported on by experts. Mr Chrystall moved an amendment: “That this meeting supports (lie recommendation of the Highways Board that a temporary structure costing £1,500 be erected.” This scheme was one recommended by the Department on condition that interested local bodies contributed two-thirds of the cost and guaranteed.to replace the bridge should it be washed away. Mr Murdock agreed to withdraw bis ipot,ion in favour of the amendment.

In making clear the attitude of the Highways Board, Mr Murray said that the punt was there now, and it would have to be made selfsupporting as far as possible, and for this purpose it was suggested that cars and vehicles not belonging to the contributing local bodies should be charged a fee. In regard to the alternative proposals, he wanted to point out that if it were decided to make temporary repairs to the present bridge, tlie Department would bear one-third of the cost. If a permanent bridge was erected on the new site, it would contribute half, but it was very unlikely that the Board would contribute anything toward a permanent structure on the present site. Sir James Wilson pointed out that a permanent structure on the present site at £9,000 would still be cheaper than paying half the cost of a £20,000 bridge on a new site. If all were satisfied that the present site would be suitable, they might later be able to convince the Highways’ Board sufficiently to subsidise them, notwithstanding Mr Murray’s present pronouncement. Mr Monk stated that the Horowhenna County Council was in favour of a new bridge and could not agree to permanently repairing the present structure. Sir James Wilson said that rather than let the conference break up without coming t,o a decision, the Manawatu- County Council would agree to the erection of a new bridge costing £20,000. A member: But that will .take two years. What will we do in the meantime? Sir James: You will have the punt. Mr Pigot declared that the punt was absolutely useless and it would be impossible to get vehicles or stock on it. Mr Monk said that tlie engineers were prepared to stake their reputations that it would work, and it was going to be made to work. Mr Chrystall revised his motion to read: “That this meeting of local bodies recommends that road communication should he restored at the earliest possible moment to the districts interested by the construction of a span or spans (piles to be permanently driven) at the piesent site, with suitable works at an estimated cost not to exceed £2,000.” This motion was put to the meeting and lost, after which Sir James intimated that he was prepared to move that a permanent structure costing £IB,OOO or £20,000 be erected, according to No. 3 proposal. In speaking to the motion, Sir James said that he felt justified in what he was- doing- on behalf of the whole county. He did not think a temporary bridge wise, and he could not forget that the bridge as it stood to-day was not high enough to carry the water. Raising the bridge two feet, in his opinion, would not be enough. The motion was carried by 3 votes to 2.

The meeting then went into details concerning the bridge, Mr Monk said that under the Highways’ Act, his county had the whole of their roads and bridges taken away. They hud been handed back, but there was nothing defining a boundary bridge. The opinion of his council was that as far as the new bridge was concerned, it be handed over to the control of the Highways Board. It was decided that nothing could be done until the Highways Board had considered the matter.

Mr Chrystall moved the following: “That this meeting objects to the deletion of the Shannon-Foxton

road from tlie list of main highways.” Mr Hannah (district enngineer) said that this was a thing for the District Council to consider. Sir James Wilson remarked that I lie road was a very important one to the Manawatu County Council. If (be bridges at Whir'okino and Fitzherbert were washed away there would be no means of communication. The motion was carried. All- Monk Mien brought up the mailer of the control of the punt. The question was between the two counties concerned and the Highways Board. It was decided Hint the control and (lie matter of charges be -left with (lie Highways Board. Oil the motion of Mr Monk, the i epresentatives present of Ibe Highways Board were heartily thanked for their attendance at the meeting.