HARBOUR BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 13, 16 January 1929, Page 6

HARBOUR BRIDGE.

QUESTION OF WIDTH.

(To the Editor.)

The supporters of the proposal to bridge tin harbour will require to be careful to avoid side-tracking. Two suggestions nave already been made either of which will be sufficient to delay the project indefinitely. The first is that the bridge should provide for a railwar- and as the configuration of the harbour puts difficulties in the way of grading a railway up to a height satisfactory to the harltour authorities it will be a very long time l*?fore a railwav bridge is built. The second suggestion is that tbe bridge should be over one hundred feet wide, the reason given Wing that the Graf ton Bridge, thirty feet wide, is inadequate for traffic requirements. The Grafton Bridsre, bow ever, is an integral part of a city street, whu> the harbour bridge will be more' in the nature of a highway. Even so. another fifteen fee* would provide Grafton Bridge with sufficient footpath width and with a four-track roadwav and this could never be a serious bar to traffic The proposed Whan Bridge is to be fiftv f«*t wide, and this is in a situation more resembling that of a city street. Jn the November numb r of the "Overseas Engineer"' there is a descrin tion of two new English bridges. One, <m the London-Holyhead main trunk road (lenJiL 440 feet) has a thirty-foot carriagewayHwd two five-foot footpaths, total width fortv feeL The second will shorten the route from London to Hull and the North by twenty-five miles ana will consequently attract enormous traffic- h is the Boothferry Bridge (length 700 feet) iad it is to have a roadway twenty feet wide with two six-feet foothpaths, total Width thirtv-two feet. There can be no question that wide* foot paths will not be required for the harbour bridge, and also that a thirty-five-foot roadwar providing ample room for four streams of traffic is the maximum that should receir* serious consideration. CIVIL ENGINEER.