ANDERSON BAY BRIDGE

Evening Star, Issue 15293, 19 September 1913, Page 9

ANDERSON BAY BRIDGE

The Portobello Hoard Board control the Anderson Bay bridge, and yesterday.afternoon the board at a special meeting considered what would be the best course to adopt in the matter of renewing the bridge in accordance with the finding of the Commission. There were matters that would have to be submitted to the board’s solicitor. For instance, at the inquiry by the Commissioner it was mentioned that the work of reconstruction of the bridge could not be proceeded with unless the Minister of Public Works was satisfied before any money was expended that it was a satisfactory work. The Minister had not yet agreed to the work being proceeded with. Mr Dickson thought that representatives from his board should confer with representatives from the Bay Town Board and from the City Council. Mr Beal has stated that for the sum of £3OO Or £4OO the bridge could be put into a state of repair making it safe for traffic for a period of 10 years. That was worthy of consideration, and he had called the special meeting to consider it. The clerk was instructed to endeavor to arrange a meeting of representatives from the bodies mentioned, to meet for the purpose of considering the proposal referred to by the chairman. In , reference to the finding of the Bridge Commissioner conducting the recent Anderson Bay bridge inquiry, the clerk read a letter from the Public Works Department, which had been accompanied by a copy of the warrant published in ‘Gazette,’ No. 66, of August 28 last, authorising the Portobello Road Board to construct _ the Anderson Bay bridge and apportioning the Cost of such construction. The letter stated that it would be necessary to advertise the effect of the warrant. The warrant apportioned the cost, less the amount of any Government contribution thereto, as follows: —Portobello Road Board. 50 per cent.; Dunedin City Council, 40 per cent.; and the Bay Town Board, 10 per cent. It was further authorised that the contributions from the City Council and the Bay Town Board should be paid over within one month of being demanded by the Portobello Road Board.

_ A copy of the report of the Commissioner’s inquiry was also received, and that report reviewed the circumstances leading up to the sitting of tho Commission, and also covered tho proposals of the Portobello Road Board in respect to tho bridge, those proposals suggesting that the cost of renewal of the bridge should be apportioned thus : —Dunedin City Council, 40 per cent.; Bay Town Board, 15 per cent.; St. Hilda, 10 per cent.; Otago Heads Board, 5 per cent. ; Portobello Road Board, 30 per cent. The City Council agreed to pay 40 per cent., but St. Hilda, Bay Town, and Otago Heads repudiated any liability. The principal evidence adduced waa the result of a tally of traffic taken at the bridge by the Works Department in March and April, 1911, for the purposes of the inquiry, and that showed that the Portobello Road Board district supplied 47 per cent, of the bridge traffic, Dunedin City 46.8 per cent, Otago Heads 0.7 per cent., Bay Town Board 4.10 per cent., St. Hilda 1.4 per cent., and Peninsula ROacl Board nil. The Commissioner apportioned the cost as set out in the warrant referred to above.

The position now in respect to the bridge is that the three bodies concerned have to decide whether they will construct an entirely new bridge, or merely improve tho present one so as to absolutely secure the safety of the traffic crossing it.