ROAD BRIDGING PROGRAMME

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27401, 14 July 1954, Page 10

ROAD BRIDGING PROGRAMME

CONTRACTORS FULLY OCCUPIED STATEMENT BY MR F. M. H. HANSON (From Our Own Reporter) n WELLINGTON, July 13. Recent suggestions urging a greater allocation of funds for bridge construction and renewals drew the reply from the chairman of the National Roads Board (Mr F. M. H. Hanson) today that a major increase of this nature was not practicable at present. Mr Hanson said the board would like to spend much more money on bridging, but prevailing conditions were all against that objective. It was not possible to put any more money into bridge construction than had already been made available. “Bridge contractors are committed at present to all the work they can undertake,” said Mr Hanson. “Any attempt to obtain more tenders would result in higher prices, without any additional work being done. In fact, it appears that efforts to expedite bridge construction by inviting tenders for more work than can be handled may already have had the effect of inflating unit costs.” Mr Hanson said the limit that had been reached by contracting organisations had influenced the board in its decision to import supplies of Bailey bridging. By that means, the board hoped to adjust, in some measure, the unit cost of bridging. With Bailey bridging, said Mr -Hanson. it would also be possible for the board to provide all-weather crossings on a number of important trunk routes much sooner than would be possible otherwise. This lorm of bridging would also be used to strengthen many bridges on arterial highways, and thereby enable load restrictions, which now adversely affected road transport, to be removed.

The availability of structural steel was a factor that could contribute to faster bridge construction, said Mr Hanson. Already steps had been taken to design a number of bridges embodying steel superstructures instead of rein.orced concrete. An instance of this was a new bridge at Huntly, which, it was hoped, would be completed in about two years and a half, instead of the four years necessary if a full reinforced concrete design had been adopted.