SHANNON BRIDGE.

Otaki Mail, 12 November 1923, Page 3

SHANNON BRIDGE.

—, — + LOCAL BODIES DECIDE TO WAIT I AND SEE. j BEFORE REMOVING STRUCTURE | TO NEW SITE. i A meeting of the local bodies interi e-rfted in tlia Manawatu Bridge at Shannon, in connection with which a | conference of engineers was convened j some two months ago, was held in the Shannon Borough Chambers on I Wednesday to consider the engineers' i report. Mr W. Murdoch, Mayor of Shannon, was in the chair and the following represented- ii-ie' local bodlies :Mr J. Qiry'stall (Mayor of Foxiton; and Cr. Bryant., representing ' Fox ton Borough; Crs. YV. E. Barber, | Monk and Why to, Horowhenua Coun- ' ty: Crs. Murdoch and Gardiner and |Mr R. Edwards (engineer;. Shannon Borough: Cr. H. Barber, Mauawatu County, «.nd Mr 3. Hannah, District Engineer for the Public Works Department. In response to an invitation from the chairman, Mr G. A. .Monk, chair-

man of the Horowhenua County Council, as convenor, explained the object of the meeting. At a conference held some time before, he said, it was decided that a report on ihe condition oi the bridge should be

I made. This had been submitted to | the different local bodies hue rested and what it was necessary to do was to decide whether one of the live suggestions contained in the report should be adopted. If the proposal were adopted it would then be necessary to discuss ways and means. He had gone very carefully through tthe report and would like to say that, whilst the suggestions made weue sound tis ter as they went, they did not entirely eliminate Uie danger to the bridge. The giCntlemen who had drawn up the report were careful to admit this fact. The adoption of No. 3 scheme (to move the bridge down stream a distance of 25 to 30 chains) which wa s the one re--1 commended in the report, would entail an expenditure of about £IO,OOO. If the bridge would then be absolutely safe that would be all right, but I trie report Carefully staled that there i would still be danger from floods in the new position, even if not to the same- extent. The whole position was that there was a lot of extra water coming down the liver now, that, at one time—and. this applied particularly to .flood-time —round an outlet in the MaUerua swamp. This was now confined to the bed 01 the river bv the stop banks which were being built ami the difficulty would' not hi' overcome until, the proposed ;

cut was iiiiu.ie. ire uuuereiuuu uhili lie Manawatu-Oroua Drainage Board ' livrt some such scheme under considration and h- would appear thai luch n "cut" would Ik- the solution d the difficulty. The present confer-n-ee had been called to discuss the eporl and if any of the alternative dans were adopted to discuss ways iiitl means, which meant finance. >ersonaily he would be quite frank | ml say that if the bridge, in its preent. position were not in vital dan•er lie considered that it would be njUer to protect rather than shift i f . In answer to Mr Barber (Mana-,-atu) Mr Monk explained that, two hings threatened the present bridge. :ro*ion of the bank might result, in ne span being washed away, or tin old man" flood might possibly rise ~ hiyh as to ihreaXen the bridge as structure.

Mr It. Edwards said that the capacity of the present bridge was not sufficient to take the volume of water which was now confined to the bed of the river by the stop banks, having onlv one-third of the capacity of the Fif/herbert bridge at Pahnerston North. Mr Bnrber asked if it were not more- 'likelv thai Hie banks would biienk in an "olTl-man" flood than that the bridge would be endangered. The bank at, the bridge would be three feet lower than the decking so that he did not consider there was anv great danger to. the bridge as a

structure. I Mi .1 Chrvsiall said that there was hio doubt that the local bodies were up against a big thing, a great deal of the' difficulty- being due to Hie Drainage Board, it had been stated I bv Mr Furkert that the bia. mistake , had been made in not keeping the stop-banks back at a sufficient drsi vaii.-e from the river to permit of a i large enough spillway area. Howlevcr thev had to deal with conrhi (ions' as they existed at present and lie heortilv supported what Mr Monk I had said "about strengthening the I preterit bridge, rather than going to the. expense of shifting it. unless the ! Public Works would come In with ■ considerable assistance.-' I Mr Barber also supported this. 1 -j I did not think that the water would ever rise so high as to endanger the I decking, but it was quite possible trial j scouring might, occur so that .lie cites would be laid bare. This had happened at the Wirokino Bridge arid it "misrht be better to drive the piles deeper and also if it was the general I opinion that it was necessary. --> raise the decking of the bridge another 'few feet. It was admitted that tba No 3 scheme if adopted would still leave the bridge in danger of floods, so that it was better to try to save n where it was. . The chairman said that the general opinion of the engineers who had drawn up the report was thai no. .1 scheme was the best one possible. I personally, he considered No. 2, w i]"£ provided ' for an extra span oi tow ■; I to the present structure ana some sn-ensrtheninc of the bridge a b«£r one The advantage of Xo. 3. scheme,! however, was that the brioge wouicl, be on safe ground and nor likely to | a~ a- was the ■~-\*k a-present.. Local people who'knew the whole Of the' ground were of opinion that this was the best possible she and it was woi-. tbv of consideration. . Mr Chrystall asked if there was anv immediate posv.ibi.uy oi uut Drainage Board putting m the overflow cut! If this was event. Late shortly it would relieve Tfte. I pressure and it wonla not sfiejtt. mj ivisable to expend all tnis money for •» few vear=' -se£uri.ty, "• -PUP chairman said that even if >ne ' Board deeded to eo o n with the overflow cut it would be five years oe'lore it could "be finished. If the bridge was Koing to last Ave years it would 'last longer. He warned the meeting I that if the bridge were washed awfiy 1 it would take them a lp&£ *#PO «**. ' get another. 1 Mr Edwards, asked as to hit opm- ' ion of the danger to the bridge, stati ed that the biggest danger lay in the possibiUtv of the river cutting through on the Shannon side Oi toe. ! bridge. If this happened, ojns sj>a£, 1 would inevitably g.o. Mr W-nk iaid that the CBuerai ypfiSwv.'O appeared 7 -o be tfea,-| '&&--" "' i-.-'rO to the nvtsijii <•'** should little H 5 !£*■"-"" .i and'do very ..id ask the Shannon 1 who were mostly in favour of shifting the bridge e^ j^~^ ' was to come from? The Shannon Borough might be able to carry e '. loan for the purpose but he was cer--,tatn that the Horowhenua Couj"* • l SSSwA d p4ic Wor^ 'iwbW.d assist but .this was .open ,■ UueVuon. If they-were bunding new brfdee ft would be a difTeren: thing. He did not desire to ««« • cold water on. the sehem«, bat tnej . harl to face. «ie facts of the case. - Barber said that speaking to.

the Manawatu County Council, it had been decided at a "meeting held to consider ihe question that it the ratepayers of the difterent, local bodies considered that action was necessary his County would come in with a fourth share of the. cost, on whatever scheme was adopted. [Applause). As Mr Monk had said this would' have to g'o before the ratepayers for sanction.

■ Mr Murdoch suggested the formation of a contributing body sueh as the Manawatu Gorge Board to carry out the alterations necessary. The work should be done and they would be failing in their duty to the people they represented if they allowed n bridge such as this to be washed out , to sea what it might be saved. ' Mr Monk suggested that Mr Mur- ; cloch was perhaps a little ahead of i the meeting. The suggestion was I that a motion should be proposed that one. or other of the proposals sot- forth iin the) report should be adopted. If it was agreed to adopt one they could then ' consider the question of apportionment of cost. The Horowhenua County Council was willing to .do its share if a scheme was adopted, but there appeared to be a fairly definite opinion that no drastic action sjiould be taken. The chairman said that the meeting was for the purpose oi deciding which of the schemes submitted would be adopted. They had asked the engineer* to report on the- bridge. These experts had told-them that it was in danger, and liecommended. that it should be sinned. The thing then would be to adopt the scheme considered, most suitable and get right to business to decide how it should be done.

Mr Monk said he was not prepared Ito agree that they muss necessarily I adopt, one scheme Or another. However, Mr Murdoch could mov« a resolution to that effect and the meeting would vote on it. Mr Murdoch then formally moved: "That No. 3 scheme as recommended by the conference oi engineers should be adopted." Mr Gardiner seconded the morion. Mr W. E. Barber (Horowhenua County Council) moved an amendment that for the present no action be taken. j speaking io tire amendment Mr Monk said that on account of the overflow cut scheme, it would be well to defer doing anything 1 for the present. He was sorry that the Mana-watii-Oroua Drainage Board was not represented at the meeting, but lie understood that when the scheme was completed it was possible that all the bridges over the Mauawatu would be under rt-he jurisdiction of that body, and until they knew definitely what was going to be done, it would be well io wait. When this was known a further conference might b>p called. Mr Murdoch said that as the overflow cut could not be completed before five years even if decided on, j something! would have to be done be- j fore that date. ; Mr Monk said it, would be a bad ' thing to do anything at this stage, j which would have to be altered later, j

The amendment was then put and carried. Mr Murdoch then asked that steps be taken to gel the Government to form a contributing body and allocate the proportions of cost. This would have to be done whenever it wa? decided to go on with the work and they might as well have things in train. Mr Monk said that there was not much usQ going to the Government while things wero in their present, indefinite position. It had hewn suggested that temporary measures for the protection of the' bridge should bo taken and he would like to hear this discussed. Asked «.s to the depth of the files in the ground Mr Hannah stated that the total length of the piles was 45 feet of which rather more than half was in the ground. Mr Edwards stated that the piles supporting the span on the eastern end of the bridge were not driven sufficiently far into the ground. When they were put in it was intended onlv that they should support the bridge on dry land. With the scouring of the bank they now stood in the water and thare was a great danger of the span being washed away. The conference of engineers had advised the shifting of the bridge and it was not likely they would do this if they did not- consider that it was necessary. Mr Monk said that there w&s no question of doubting the value of the report. At present, however, therewere other considerations which hud to be taken into account and it wn« mereiv resolved to wait unri! it could be decided wba.t the effect of the Drainage Board's action would be. When this was settled the matter. would bo taken nr> again and a definite settlement arrived .it. On his suggestion heartv votes of thanks to the engineers -who drew up the report, to Mr Hannah as representative of the Public. Works Department, and to the chair ff"? carried by acclamation.