Bridge Association Gives Explanation

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 821, 15 November 1929, Page 6

Bridge Association Gives Explanation

NOT ENOUGH NOTICE TAKEN BY SURPRISE ■•We were not ready for the Commission. The notice given us that it would begin its inquiry was not sufficient to prepare a case of such vital importance.” said Mr. R. H. Greville in explaining the attitude taken up by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association at the opening day of the Commission, at a meeting of the committee of the association held last evening. “The Minister for Public Works was in Auckland on October 19. when he gave the order of reference to the Press, but. did not. hand a copy to the association, the principal body concerned. We wrote on October 23 and waited a reasonable time, but there was no reply, so we wired. On November 5 we received one copy of the order of reference and then we had to set to work immediately to have copies made to send to local bodies/’ continued Mr. Greville. NOT COURT CASE

“Then, concerning the actual date of the Commission,” said the speaker, “the first I knew about it was when T saw it in the Press on Saturday evening. On Monday we received the official notification and held a meeting as soon as possible, which was on Tuesday, and that evening we instructed Mr. Finlay to act for us. That really gave us only a day to prepare our case, which was certainly not sufficient. It is not like preparing an ordinary police court case concerning £lO. This - is one which concerns millions and naturally it has to he dealt with in a proper manner.

“We were given to understand that the Commission would not sit until after Christmas and in the meantime we were busy gathering statistics, for we had to give figures concerning the increase in population, in motor growth, and capital values and these alone take time,” concluded Mr. Greville.

After this explanation had been given many members of the association spoke to the effect that it was evident that the association could not be blamed for the attitude it took up at the opening day of the Commission. It was felt that the date had been sprung on the association as it was the general impression that the Commission would not open before December at the earliest. MEANS OF FINANCE

It was decided to advocate a toll bridge on the basis of the user paying. With respect to other methods of finance, it was decided to submit that a local authority should be set up with power to raise the money by a bond or debenture issue to be retired out of the earnings of the bridge, the issue to be on the security of the bridge and tolls, and guaranteed by the State.

An alternative to be suggested is that a construction company should be given a charter to erect the bridge, and to take the tolls for a definite period, the tolls to be sufficient, to cover interest and sinking fund on the capital outlay and maintenance, and to be reduced as the traffic increased, and at the end of the period the bridge to be handed over to some local authority or authorities as a bridge free of encumbrances.

One method favoured by the majority was that of an art union. “I think that is too much of a gamble,” said one member. Mr. Greville: The British Museum and some of the biggest cathedrals in England were built, with the assistance of an art union, so it is surely good enough for us. A Member: Well, we are all gamblers, but, after all, it is not much of a gamble, because we are sure of getting something for our money. CITY COUNCIL INTERESTED The harbour bridge scheme has secured the interest of the City Council. Last evening it was decided to prepare a case for presentation to the commission as evidence. The council’s case will be in the hands of the City Solicitor, Mr. J. Stanton. Mr. T. Blood worth, chairman of the Town Planning Committee, remarked that it. certainly was a concern of the council where the bridgehead should lie on the city side. It was also the council’s interest to know how the cost would be allocated, and who should pay.