NEW WAIKATO BRIDGE

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 21 May 1932, Page 5

NEW WAIKATO BRIDGE

URGENT NEED AT HAMILTON. ESTIMATED £21,500 OUTLAY. HAMILTON, May 18. Recommendations in reference to the replacing of the traffic bridge ’across the Waikato River at Hamilton were made to the Borough Council on Thursday by the bridge committee. They are as follow: (a) That copies of the borough engineer’s report and Messrs Vickerman. and Lancaster’s report on the condition of the present bridge be forwarded to the Waipa and Waikato counties and they be advised that in the opinion of this council the matter of erecting another bridge is so urgent that unless immediate steps are taken to provide one at No. 1 site the borough will have to make other arrangements to meet the position. (b) That the council, in view of the present condition of the Hamilton traffic bridge and the difficulties in the way of financing a more expensive bridge, accepts the proposals approved by the conferences of local body representatives in September, 1931, for the erection of an all-reinforced concrete bridge, comprising three bowstring spans of 25ft each, estimated to cost £21.500, apart from tlie approach embankment. the cost of the work to be provided by the local bodies, to be apportioned as follows: Hamilton borough, four-ninths; Waikato county, four-ninths: Waipa county, one-ninth: subiect to the work being arranged for without delay.

(c) That the controlling authority, the Waikato County Council, be advised that the Hamilton Borough Council will be -pleased to render every assistance in its power to- secure the substantial grant of £1 for £2 up to £BOOO promised iby the then Minister of Public Work's, the Hon. W. Taverner, in October. 1930. and, if necessary, will authorise delegates to wait with other local body representatives on the Ministers for this purpose. The proposed Ivridge at w*hat is known as the No. 1 site is a low-level structure.

The site is at Whitiora. a -mile to the north of the present bridge, and is in the Waikato. and Waipa counties.

The council adopted the recommendations of the committee by seven votes 1 to three. Messrs W. H. Dillicar, C. Lafferty and C. J. W. Barton dissented.