WESTSHORE BRIDGE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 138, 28 May 1912, Page 5

WESTSHORE BRIDGE.

DISCUSSED BY THE HARBOUR

BOARD.

At the Harbour Board meeting today, Mr. Clarke referred to the fact that, a section Of the Press had criticised the removal of the Westshore Bridge and spoken of. the additional distance which would have to be

travelled to reach the Port. He pointed but that the bridge must in any case come down, but it would not be removed before it was absolutely necessary. When the bridge had to come down it was the duty of the Harbour Board to provide a ferry service. Mr. Carnell held that it was only the duty of the board to see that room was provided for the harbour. Mr. Lane said that he had a motion dealing with this question which he would give notice to move at next meeting as follows: That m the opinion of this board it is desiX able with a view to economy and despatch that tenders be called simuntaneously by the Public Works Department, the County Council and the Napier Harbour Board for construction of an embankment across the inner harbour, each for that portion in which it is interested, and in the direction already agreed upon between the board’s engineers and the Public Works Department, as such simultaneous action would reduce cost to all and one plant for the work would suffice and might be specified to be of the description required by this board for its future operation in reclaiming land.” With regard to the remarks on the embankment, it was not only the Press but also the chairman of the River Board who had referred to the matter. He was compelled to say that he thought it outside the province of the chairman of the River Board to criticise what had been done. What the distance was to the Westshore was no business of the River Board. The board had been asked

to send a delegate to the meetmg ! to discuss the matter, but no representative had attended, and now the chairman had showed bias in his criticism. The talk about the annihilation of a suburb of Napier was absurd. He had never heard such “bosh.”

Mr. Niven pointed to the fact that while the present bridge served one end the new embankment would serve the other end of West shore where expansion would take place. These people would be served by the railway and in time no doubt mot clears would run on the line to better advantage than a tram line. He objected to the statement that Westshore would be cut off as there wou ! j always be a ferry service. Mr. Parsons endorsed the objections and what had been said by the chairman of the River Board. Mr. Jull said lie had not read what the chairman of the River Board had said. He did not exactly see that it was the duty of the board to provide a ferry service but if that was so perhaps they could profitably extend it to Wairoa. However, until some definite art ion was taken rc garding the embankment it was premature to discuss the question. The bridge was there now and a good deal of water would flew in and out before it was removed.