MANAWATU-SHANNON BRIDGE.

Shannon News, 17 June 1927, Page 3

MANAWATU-SHANNON BRIDGE.

THE APPROACH ROAD.

HOROWHENUA COUNCIL FAVOURS NORTH ROUTE. ( The question of the approach road to J the proposed Manawatu river budge ] at Shannon was discussed at the meet t ing of the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday, when the consensus ot t opinion was in favour of No. (from the Palmerston Road and Railway! on the north side of I The alternative routes are: No - c From Sheehan Street, m Shannon. No. 3—From the corner of Johnston Btieet t and the present Foxton Road, at tne p south end of the borough. ... \ . At a previous meeting ot the Council information was received from the -Uis- t trict Engineer that the estimate xoi g the Horowhenua County road approach was £5400; and he desired to have an assurance from the Council that a con- t tribution on a £ for £ basis would be t made on the approach road. The p route upon which the estimate of £o4oo a was based was understood to be No. 3. t A letter was received from the .Lbstrict Engineer of the Public Works De- i partment on Saturday stating that the i; resolution passed at the last meeting o 0 the Council was not satisfactory, (the resolution wsjs that the Department t be asked to review the whole position in regard to the approach road to the proposed bridge.) It was assumed by j the Department that the Council was ]? prepared Jo agree to the allocation ot the cost of the erection of the bridge. The District Engineer requested the Council to pass a resolution m definite terms and forward a copy of it as Q early as possible. There were certain formalities to be completed, and unless c they were done ‘without delay there was a risk of a deadlock rising. . p The County Clerk (Mr. Hudson) said he replied stating that the Council had taken steps in regard to the new bridge and in November, 1925, initiated a Q movement to get the local bodies concerned to agree to their allocations, a , copy of which he forwarded to the Department. The estimate at that time e< was £24,000. It was now £23,822. w The. Department, owing to the altera- p: tion in the cost and, estimates, wanted ei another resolution passed, re-affirming a] what the Council did before, but specifically stating the figures agreed on. With regard to the new road to the tc bridge, they Avanted the Council to pass lo a resolution agreeing, if not to the C route, then to the principle of contrib- m Uting £ for £ to the cost of it. sj The Chairman (Cr. Monk) said that tl the Council decided two years ago that tl they agree to the allocation; and there t( would be no difficulty in that respect m ci raising the money, because the Govern- tl ment proposed to give them the necess- a: ary authority by warrant. The dim- tl eulty that had arisen to-day was m connection with the approach load, ei They would have to throw the onus on tl the'Department to provide them with g the means of raising their share by tl loan without having to take a poll, k The ratepayers would turn it down— g the Council could not expect them to.do tl anvthing else. Unless the Government t v could give the Council some authority fi to raise that money without the necess- a ity of taking a poll, then, so far as lie c could see, the liability was going to h fall on the Main Highways Board. Once they could decide on the route, t! they could ask the Board to ‘treat it c as a major deviation and give a great- c er subsidy. " They could not agree to 0 the principle of the £ for £ contribution s —because how were they going to raise t the monev ? They could not raise a loan without authority; and that had (. to be got either by the ratepayers’ con- j sent or by a special warrant. ih° ' r Council could not issue a Avarrant; tins t to be done by the Public Works r Department. > , , ~ *' Cr. Catley asked AA T hat the cost ot the approach road AVould be. _ 2 The Chairman stated that this would i depend on the route. The estimate was close on £IO,OOO. ‘ Cr. Barber:' If avc ask them for tins r money, don’t we lose our status as to t having a say in the route? / . t The Chairman: No; because it is not declared a main liiglnvay. They will t not declare till we agree. They Avant ). us, before the route is declared, to agiee e to that, but Ave cannot. We can agree to the bridge. . . . , The following "resolution, required uy i the Department, Avas then passed on the motion of Cr. Barber, seconded by A Cr. Whyte:—“That this Council agree ( to the apportionment of the cost of the , cost of erecting the new ManaAvatu riv- , er bridge on the basis of the allocation j contained in a letter from the 1 übl c Works Department dated April 4th, j 1927, provided the share to be fom <- i by the Horowhenua County i does not exceed £4280, and that the same will be proportionately reduced , in the event of the total cost of the bridge and the left and right bank approaches being less than £23,8-2. The chairman suggested treating the road to the bridge as a bridge approach. He said the Department saw an objection to this because, under the Act the 'Department’s contributions increased as the bridge increased in cost ■ The Department’s objection to going beyond the actual approach was that it would be paying more than £ for £. He hoped that the Department would see the matter as the Council saw it, and treat the roads leading to the approaches as approaches to the bridge, even though they extended foi a mile. This Avould save the Council any trouble as far as raising the money , was concerned. In the meantime they ; could agree to the £ for £ contribution , until they could get the means to raise ; the money. They could agree to the 1 bridge and approaches, but not to tie road, on this occasion, unless the Government was treating tin* road as an _ approach. e Id answer to a question by Cr. Kils- - by, the chairman stated that the Gov--s ernment would pay half cost up to £IO,OOO, three-fifths from £IIO,OOO to £20,000, and tAvo-thirds of so much as exceeded £20,000. He understood that the Department Avas recommending No. v 2 route, which ran partly through t Shannon borough. If the Avhole scheme e Avas treated as a bridge and approach, >r then the Shannon borough contribution would perhaps cover its of that

cost. At present its £BOO contribution t was purely over the bridge and ap- * proaclies. On this occasion this Council was dealing with the bridge and approaches, and not with the roads. QUESTION OF ROUTES. Further consideration of the matter took place in connection with the following recommendation in the Works i Committee's report:—“Approach roads c new Manawatu river bridge: After in- ] spection and due consideration of the three suggested approach roads within the Horowhenua County, this Commit- • tee strongly recommend that the Conn- i cil approve of No. 1 route, in view, of i the same being the least expensive 1 and also affording the most safety to i the travelling public." Cr. Ryder said it was his wish to < emphasise that clause. The whole of i the committee," with the County Engineer, were absolutely unanimous on that- route. The crossing was good and level, with a good view, and on good ground. If this route was adopted, they would do away with a dangerous crossing that existed now. If either of the other routes was taken, there would always be a dangerous crossing, because a portion of the Shannon yards had to be crossed. Cr. Catley said that, after inspecting the various routes, he came to the conclusion that No. 1 was the best. The cost of it was only about 60 per cent. of the cost of the others. The Council should not leave any stone unturned to give effect to this recommendation. Cr. Kilsby said he thought that the Council would be taking a wise step in adopting this route, for two or three reasons. The route first chosen uas too much subject to floods, and the maintenance on the other alternative route would be rather heavy. The chairman pointed out that on No. 2 route the Mangaore bridge would be in the Shannon borough. Cr. Ryder said he had heard a “wheeze” that Cr. Barber wanted a route that was not in the interests of the public; he was very pleased to find that it Avas only a “ivheeze.” _ Cr. Kilsby asked if the placing ot the Mangaore bridge in the (Shannon borough ivould have an effect on the cost to the County. The Chairman: Probably. . Cr. Ryder stated that on No. 1 route no extra bridge would be required. Cr. Whyte stated that No. 2 route was discarded a few years ago by the Copncil because they found that it was very hard to maintain, and part of it avlis sold. It Avas the original road to Foxton. Cr. Ryder, having asked for the Engineer’s opinion, Mr Anderson said that he thought the Council knew his opinion all along. lie had been m favour of No. 1 route all the time, and its cost Avas the lorvest. It Avas only the other day that he noticed that the Mangaore bridge Avas in the Shannon borough; and if No. 2 route Avas adopt--ed it Avould give the Council less road to* maintain to the ManaAvatu bridge. OtherAvise No. 1 Avas’ much cheaper. Gravel Avas handy, and this route did away Avith a dangerous crossing. Cr. Jensen said that in making mam roads they should not look so much at the cost as at Avhat was for fhe best. Once this road Avas payed and put in order, lie did not think the maintenance Avas going to be so very hoavv. Even if it Avas a little heaAuer, they would haA r e a road that Avould be safer for the public, and a more direct road. Across the bridge onj No. 3 route there Avould, be a bend. They should endeavour 'to have the safest 1 and best road for the public to tiavel. ' The first cost on No. 1 road would be 5 the lightest, and he did not think the i maintenance would be very much. He ' ivas‘ very strongly in favour of No. 1

route. The Works Committee s recommendation was adopted.