BRIDGE PROPOSAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 447, 31 August 1928, Page 13

BRIDGE PROPOSAL

WIDER VISION ADVOCATED ENGINEER ON OFFICIAL REPORTS After studying the published reports of Auckland Harbour Board officials dealing with the proposed harbour bridge, Mr. R. F. Moore, civil engineer, feels that the attitude adopted has been too conservative. While admitting that much work must be done and that expert knowledge must be brought to bear on the problem, he is of opinion that the questions should be approached from the viewpoint of the general public and that a broad vision must be employed. His letter to The Sun is as follows: May I trespass upon your correspondence space to reply to the published reports of the officials of the Auckland Harbour Board, on the question of the harbour bridge? I am personally acquainted with all these gentlemen, and esteem their relative abilities, therefore, anything appearing in this letter I trust will not be taken by them in a personal sense. After studying the relative reports, I have concluded that a very conservative attitude has been adopted by three of the officials, and all they apparently wish to show in their reports to their board is nothing breeder than tho board’s rights and interest'- Also, their reports are filled with subject matter which, I take it, hardly comes within their scope of reference. For instance, I can hardly see how estimates of ferry fares, riparian rights, the length of the bridge, or cost of same, and several other details which come within their scope of reference, should belong entirely to those who will eventually control the bridge finances. NEBULOUS STATE That the bridge is in a nebulous state I must admit, but so was the earth and all upon it in the same state once, and in many phases is now. But surely, with the rapid progress of things generally, much that was done in the past and even much that is being done at the present, will have to go by the board to make room for better and more enlightened progress, irrespective of what it has cost. We are perfectly aware that a great deal of work will have to be done before the bridge can become a fact, and we are aware that expert knowledge must be brought to deal with the subject matter and the rights of the Harbour Board and the requirements and safeguards. But official minds are not always judicial, and are apt to forget that the body they represent is a public body, and consequently as such is expected to look after the interests of the general public and its requirements fairly, and not merely the interests of one section of. the public. Broad vision must be brought to bear, and individual opinions must sometimes give way, as they may be cramped and narrow. Some of the matter in the reports may be quite correct—some I feel sure is not. However, independent experts, representative of all sections, would undoubtedly be set up to fully decide upon all matters relative to the bridge, when every aspect for and against would be thoroughly investigated. The bridge, according to high level design, would be 4,000 ft long, 66ft wide, and giving at high water spring tides 86ft clearance. ESTIMATED COSTS The estimated detailed cost of the bridge is £500,000, and the embankments (two only), one to Northcote and one to Bayswater, £150,000. The Harbour Board’s engineer’s figures are not correct. I will not attempt to justify the proposed site of the bridge at present, beyond stating that if it were situated at Northcote, the greater proportion of the marine suburbs would be deprived of the use of the bridge, and a vast proportion of the revenue lost. Also, I consider the Shoal Bay endowments would materially benefit with the bridge head in the centre. Without the bridge head situated as proposed, the Shoal Bay endowments will likely remain mud flats for ever.