HARBOUR BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 451, 5 September 1928, Page 12

HARBOUR BRIDGE

ASSOCIATION’S “ABSURD SCHEME”

REPLY TO MR. MOORE

The criticism leveiled at the Auckland Harbour Board’s official reports on the proposed harbour bridge by Mr. R. Moore, civil engineer, is replied to by “Observer,” who defends the engineer’s reports in the course of a letter to THE SUN. He contends that Mr. Moore's own figures will not stand analysis, and that he has not shown himself to be the possessor of the “wider vision” which, he said, was lacking in the Harbour Board's officials.

“ /OBSERVER'S” letter to The Sun is as follow: Sir. — “Under the heading of ’Bridge Proposal,” Mr. R. Moore, civil engineer, stated in a letter published in your issue of Thursday last that the attitude of the Auckland Harbour Board is too conservative, and that a ‘broad vision’ must be employed. He takes exception to the reports furnished to the board by highly competent officials and contends ‘that official minds are not always judicial.’ With careless disregard of the fact that competent engineering authorities would decline to state the estimated cost of a suitable bridge in a position approved by capable engineers and the Harbour Board until borings of the harbour had been made. Mr. Moore presumes, with “broad vision” to determine the position he conceives a harbour bridge should be placed, and the dimensions, elevation and style of construction, etc., of same. He further states that the detailed cost of the bridge is £500,000, and the embankments (2) £150,000, and then coolly states the Harbour Board’s engineer’s figures are not correct. DEVONPORT’S POSITION

“Mr. Moore cuts out the embankment shown on the Bridge Committee’s plan connecting Devonport and Bayswater, thereby cutting off any possible passenger communication by bridge to the residents of Devonport; so that practically over 10,000 people would gain no benefit from the bridge, unless it would be the few owners of motor-cars at Devonport. But while estimating the detailed cost of the proposed bridge, Mr. Moore goes on to say, ‘I will not attempt to justify the proposed site at present,’ and yet he is an advocate for the present bridge scheme, and maintains that the bridge will only cost £500,000. “It is only a short time ago that Mr. Moore addressed a meeting at Takapuna in advocacy of the proposed bi’idge on the absurd scheme submitted by the Bridge Association, and he then stated the dimensions of tire bridge and that it would cost only £500,000. He further stated that the bridge could be constructed in two years by the employment of 1,000 men the first year, and 2,000 men the second year. He also asserted that 60 per cent, of the cost of the bridge would be paid to workers. FIGURES ANALYSED

“Speaking in this reckless manner he overlooked the fact that the cost for the first year, for labour only, by the employment of 1,000 men at £5 a week, would amount to £260,000, and for the second year the cost for labour only by the employment of 2,000 men, would amount to £520,000. So that on his own calculation the cost of erecting a bridge, even on the absurd scheme put forward by the Harbour Bridge Association, for labour alone would amount to £780,000, to which -would have to be added an additional 40 per cent, for materials, so that the cost of the same proposed bridge which Mr. Moore then stated, and now states, could be built for £500,000, would, on his own showing, cost over £1,000,000. And this is the engineer who charges the Harbour Board and its officials -with lack of ‘wider vision!’ “CASTING REFLECTIONS” •“Mr. Moore certainly has not proven any special gifts of ‘wider vision’ either in respect of the estimated cost of the proposed bridge, or as to its locality, or dimensions, 01how the money is to be raised, or the interest and maintenance charges are to he found. I would advise Mr. Moore to exercise a ‘wider vision,’ and also to refrain from casting reflections on members of an important public body, and on its officials, who should be, and are, presumably better qualified to determine questions of harbour works and improvements than he is, and who also are certainly possessed of the gift of ‘wider vision’ equally with Mr. Moore, and I would further advise him to be more careful in his statements and figures.