SHANNON BRIDGE.

Shannon News, 9 November 1923, Page 3

SHANNON BRIDGE.

LOCAL BODIES DECIDE TO WAIT, AND SEE.

BEFORE REMOVING STRUCTURE Tft NEW SITE.

A meeting of the local bodies interested ih( ithej ManawaljU, Bridge at Shannon, in connection with which a conference of engineers was convened some! two months ago, was held in the Shannon Borough Chambers on Wednesday to consider the engineers' report. /Mr W. Murdoch, Mayor of Shannon, was in the chair and the following represented toe! local bodies:—Mr J. Chrystall (Mayor of Foxton) and Cr. Bryant, representing Foxton Borough; Crs. W. E. Barber, Monk and Whyte, Horowhenua County; Crs. Murdoch and Gardiner and Mr P. Edwards (engineer), Shannon Borough/ Cr. H. Barber, Manawatu

County, and Mi" J. Hannah, District Engineer for the Public Works Department. ■ < " ■ In response to an invitation from the chairman, Mr G. A. Monk, chairman of the Horowhenua County, Council, ias convenor;" explained the object'of the. meeting. At a confer-; ence held some time before, he said, v it was decided that a report on the condition of the bridge should be made. This had been submitted to the different local bodies interested and what it was necessary to do ; was to decide wheiiher one of the alternative suggestions contained in the 1 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 Ithe report land! would like to say that, whilst the suggestions miade weue sound as far as they went, they'did not entirely eliminate! the danger to the bridge. The gientlemen 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 o| 25 to 30 chains) which wa s the one recommended in -/the report, would entail an expenditure of about £IO,OOO. Jf the bridge'would then be absolutely safe .that would' be all right, but the' report carefully stated that there 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 doming down the river now, .that at one time—and this applied particularly to ,flood-time—found an outlet in the Makerua swamp. This was now confined to the bed of the river by the stop'banks which were being built sand the difficulty would not 'Be overcome until the proposed was made. He understood that the Manawatu-Oroua Drainage Board had some such scheme under consideration and it would appear that such a "cut"' would be the solution, of the difficulty. The present confer-

ence had! been called to discuss the , report and if any of the alternative plans were adopted to discuss ways and means' which meant finance. . Personally he would he quite frank , and say that if the bridge in its pre- ; sent position were not in vital dan-

ger he considered that it would be better to protect rather than shift it. In answer to Mr Barber (Manawatu) Mr Monk explained that two things threatened the present bridge. Erosion of the bank might result m

one span being washed away, or an "old man'' flood! might possibly rise so high as. to threaten the bridge as Mr R. Edwards said that the capac-., ity-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, hav-, ing only of the capacity o f the FiTzherbert bridge at Palmerston

North. ' Mi- Barber asked if it wer;e v not more, likely that the batiks would bijealc in an "olu-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, any great danger to the bridge as a structure. Mr J. Chrystall said that there was no doubt that the local bodies were

up against a big thing, .a great deal of the difficulty hieing due to the Drainage Board. It had been stated by Mr Furkert that the big mistake had been made in not keeping the stop-banks back at a sufficient distance fromi the river to permit of a large Enough spillway area. However, had to deal with conditions as they existed at present and he heartily supported what Mr Monk had said about strengthening the present, bridge, rather than going to the expense of shifting it, unless the Public Works would! come in with considerable assistance., Mr Barber, also supported this. He did not think that the water would ever rise so high as to endanger the decking, but it was quite' possible that scouring might occur so that the piles would be laid bare. This ,had happened at the Wirokino Bridge and it might be better to drive the piles deeper and also if it was the general opinion that it was necessary, to raise the decking of the bridge another few feet. It was admitted that the No. 3 scheme if adopted would still leave the bridge in danger of floods, so that it was better to try to' save it where it Was. The chairman said, that the general opinion of the (engineers who had drawn up the report was that No. 3 scheme was the best one possible. Personally, he considered No. 2, which provided for an extra span., of 100 ft to the present structure and some strengthening of the bridge, a better one. The advantage of No. 3 scheme, however, was that the bridge would be on safe ground and not likely to go as was the case at present. Local people who knew the whole of the ground were of opinion that this was the best, possible site and it was worthy of consideration, i Mr Chrystall asked if there was any immediate possibility of the i Drainage Board putting in the over- ' flow cut. Tf this was likely to event- - uate shortly ii would relieve the 11 pressure and it would not seem advisable to expend all this money for a few years' security. The chairman said tiiat even if the Board decided to go on with the over-

Horn cut it would' be five years before it could be finished. If the bridge was going to last five years it would last longer. He. warned the meeting that if the bridge were washed away it would take them a long time 1 to get another. Mr Edwards, asked as to his opinion of the danger to the bridge, stated that the biggest danger lay in the possibility of the: river cutting through on the Shannon side of'the bridge. If this happened one span would inevitably go. v Mi- Monk said that the general opinion appeared to. 'be,that they should keep to the present site and do very little. He, would ask the Shannon people who were mostly in favour of shifting the bridge where the finance was to come from? The\ Shannon Borough might, be able to ', carry a loan for the purpose but he* was certain that the. Horowhenua County would not he able to do so. ,It had been suggested that the Public Works I would assist but , this was open to [question. If. they were building a new bridge it would be a different thing. He did not desire to throw cold, water on the scheme, but they had to face the facts,of the case. Mr Biarheir said that speaking for the Manawatu County; Council,, it had been - decided at a meeting held to consider the question .. ; that if the ratepayers of the different 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 go before the ratepayers for sanction.., , Mr Murdoch suggested the formation of a contributing body such 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 a bridge such as this to be. Washed out to sea when it might be saved. Mr Monk suggested that Mr Murdoch perhaps a little ahead of the meeting.' The suggestion was that a motion should be proposed that one or other of the proposals net forth iln thel 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 should-be taken.

The chairman said that the meeting was for the purpose of deciding which of the schemes submitted would be adopted; They had asked the engineers to report on the bridge. These experts had told them that it was in danger, -and Uecommended. that. \it should be shifted. The, thing then would be to adopt the . scheme con r sidered most suitable and get right to business to decide how it should be done. .'.,'''• ; -l■"•■' Mr Monk said he was not prepared to' agree that they must necessarily adopt one scheme or another. However, Mr,Murdoch could move a resolution" to that effect and. the meeting would vote on it. '

Mr Murdoch then formally moved: "That "No. 3 scheme as recommended i by the- conference of engineers should be adopted." Mr Gardiner seconded the motion.

Mr W. E. Barber (Horowhenua County Council) an amendment that for the present no action be taken.

Speaking to tlhle amendmeritT Mr Monk said that on account of the overflow cut scheme, it would be well to defer doing anything for the present. He .was sorry that the Mana-watu-Oroua Drainage Board was not represented at the meeting, but-he understood that when the scheme was completed it was possible t|h!at all the bridges over the IVlanawatu would be under Ithe jurisdiction of' that body, and until they knew definitely what was going to be done it would be well to wait. When this was known a further conference ■ might be Called. Mr Murdoch said that' as the overflow cut could not be completed before five years even if decided on, something would 1 have to be done before that date.

Mr Monk said it would be a bad thing to do .anything at this stage, which would ihave to be altered later.

The amendment was, then put and carried.

Mr Murdoch then asked that steps be taken to get the Government to form a contributing body and allocate, the proportions of cost. This would have to be done whenever it was decided to go on with the work and they, might as well have things in train.

Mr Monk said that there was not much use going to the Government while things were in their present indefinite position. It had been suggested that temporary measures for the protection of the bridge should be taken and he would like to hear this discussed.

Asked a s to the depth of the piles 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 l not driven sufficiently far into the ground. When they were put in it was intended only that they should support the bridge on. dry land. With the scouring of the bank they now stood in the water and there 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 necessaTy.

Mr Monk said that there was no question of doubting the value of the report. At present, however, there were other considerations which had to> be taken into account, and it ,was merely resolved to wait until it could be decided what the effect of the Drainage Boardj'is action , would be. When this was settled' the matter would 'be taken up again and a definite settlement arrived at. On his suggestion hearty 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 carried by acclamation.