BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18517, 20 October 1925, Page 4

BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

TRAMWAY BOARD'S ATTITUDE. The question of a new bridge at New Brighton -was referred to by iho chairman of tho Christchurch Tramway Board (Mr 11. Pe&rce) in a memorandum to yesterday's meeting of the Board. The memcraadjim stated that as tho Board was prevented from contributing to tho new bridge &ver the Avon at New Brighton by tho Auditor and Controller Goneral, tho othc.r local bodies interested requested the Board t-o remove the old bridge wh:ch belonged to the Board and tc make other and temporary arrangements ■to transport trams across the. river. Theiso bodies proposed ifeat all other vehicular traffic should use tho Bower bridge. It would be too expensive! to construct a temporary bridge, for the trams as requested. If, on tho other hand, tram-cars stopped on each Side and passengers were required to walk across, considerable public inconvenience- would reerult. . He liad conferred with th 6 representatives of the other bodies and pointed out to them that the plans and specifications for the new bridge provided for tho south side of the new bridge to be built first, leaving tho present wooden bridge intact save lor the footbridge portion. The tram traffic could than bo changed ovor to the new position which would enable the old bridge to bo removed with a minimum of public inconvenience. There would bo no need to send the ordinary struct traffic round by Burwood, as suggested by Now Brighton Council. He would submit to the Works and Traffic Committee his recommendations respecting the removal of the old bridge. Tho quest-on had been raised w.hy should tho Board provide probably £BOOO for tho removal of the Sumner bridge and refuse to contribute to the cost of tho now bridge at New Brighton. The answer was that the Sumner bridge, the property of the Board and used solely by it, had got into a dangerous state of repair owing to the sea scour. Renewals were , imperative and this was being found by tho Board's renewal reserves. In Good Order, On the other hand, the New Brighton bridge wa.s in good order and suitable for tram traffic for which, alone it waa built, for many years to com©, but owing to the public being allowed to use it, it had become too small, for both classes of traffic. The Act prevented the Board from contributing to purposes other than tramway requirements, and tho Auditor-General stated that he could not approve the Board contributing to a new bridge made necessary by the increase in ordinary vehicular traffic. If tho Auditor had not so pro hibited, the Board would have had to raiso a loan for ita share of tho bridge aa tho condition of the old bridge was such that it could not be made a charge on renewals fund, as was tho case at Sumner.