MANGERE BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 76, 31 March 1913, Page 5

MANGERE BRIDGE.

ALLOCATING THE COST. AMONG THE LOCAL BODIES. The Mangere Bridge Commission, the duty ai wjucn is to a-ilocate tne cost ol tne .Viangere bridge among Uie vanoua local botiies cited jaeiore ihe Commission, wad continued ibelore Mr C. C. Kettie, b.Ai., Commi6tiioa«r, to-day.

■Air £>K.elton, appearing iur the ilangere Koa.d Board, intimated iioa-t a design 11 ad been submi-ued to the local bodite for tneir consideration.

f i'he <>i.;uuthu .borough Council (Dr. Bam lord) intimated thai it did not have any objection to .the design of the bridge. It, did not, however, auinit ite liability .to contribute towsurds the cost, aithougn it would contribute -towards an embankment with the neceeeary locks for canal purposes.

■Mr fckeiton said that the Marine Department had notified tiheir withdrawal of .their objection to the 'bridge being a monolithic structure, on the condition t-hat the M±. Wellington Road Board and the Ellerslie Town Board withdrew their objections. These two local bodies were thereupon struck out as parties.

On behalf of the Auckland City Council (Mr Stanton) a.ud Onehunga Borough Council (Mr Bagnall), it. was stated that they did not object to the design.

■Walter -Montgomery, motor-car proprietor, Auckland, gave evidence that he had been engaged in carrying traffic around Auckland tor over 20 yeaTS, and preferred the Mangere Hoa<i to 'the U-reat ikmtii Road, on account of the superior condition of the former. In his opinion, motor traffic did not injure the roade.

Mr Skellon set forth the proportions proposed by the Mangere Road Board, which were as follows: —'Mangere Road Board, 27 per cent: Onehunga Borough Council, 2.~> per cent: Auckland City Council, 15 per cent; Newmarket Borough Council, S per cent; Ot&huhu Borough Council, 15 per ce-nt. Mr Skelton asked that tlreue proportions be adhered lo as nearly as possible with the pTOposesi apportionments of those local I bodies which 'had been struck out distributed .pro ra-ta. The bridge, he etated, had been opened fox traffic in 1874. The finst proclamation vesting its control was i&sued on Feb. 19, 1889. Since that time Onehuoga and Mangere had been bearing the burden of tihe upkeep of th? bridge. While the structure was essential tor .the Mangere district, it was a very gre-at convenience to the other districts, tire local bodies of which hod been cited. Mangere was a farming district, and produced a large amount of produce which went to Auckland. One firm in twelve months had taken £700 worth of this produce, and the vehicles of another ftrm had averaged 55 trips a week for a year over the bridge. In addition, a "joy ride" was not complete if it did not in-clud-e the croeein-g of the bridge. With regard to the position of Newmarket, that district purchased a lot of produce raised in Mangere, and. ae far as O-tahu-hu was concerned, moet of the pl-easure trafilc from that place to Auckland w;ie over the bridge. Also, there were abatcoirs untl saleyards at Otahivhu. Jtobe-rt Forbre Moore. C.E.. engineer for the construction of the Mangere Bridge, slated that the estimated cost of a 30ft bridge was £16,C50, and of a 50ft bridge £25j150. R&bert Hugh 'McKcnzie, farmer, chairman art the Mnngere Road Board, feaid that ttie construction of a new bridge was quite essential to the whole of the district. The Ma-ngere district was partly farming and partly residential. The produce went both to Auckland and Newmarket — most of it to Auckland. During the past year he had transacted ovpr £2,000 worth of .business with Auckland City, including the sale of £500 worth o-f grain. Most of the otJvcT farmers in his district had dealings with the criy. (Proceeding.)