NEW FITZHERBERT BRIDGE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 116, 17 April 1931, Page 7

NEW FITZHERBERT BRIDGE

ifcPROVED BY HIGHWAYS BOARD lIeRMS OF SUBSIDY DISCUSSED ;W ■ VIEWPOINT OF CHIEF ENGINEER AW, Approval o£ the erection of a new Fitzherbert bridge over :||®i e Manawatu River to replace the existing structure of over .fjjftalf a century old was signified by Mr E. W. Furkert, chief jfflßngineer for the Public Works Department, when the Main jjjSßlighways Board was approached iu Palmerston North this 'iMmorning for more favourable terms of subsidy. Considerable gßfcatisfaction was expressed at this climax to protracted negoWtiations.

NEW SUBSIDY SOUGHT

to say. It is only a patching process. Mr Batchelar said a worse position than anticipated might be revealed when the bridge was stripped in parts. Mr Furkert said that a bridge designed at a cost of £45,000 to last for fifty years would cost about £2B 00 a year. It would be twice the cost of maintaining the present structure. Mr Batchelar: Do you think it advisable to do that ? Mr Furkert; There is no doubt that a new bridge is in the offing. It cannot, however, he built in a day and there will be an overlapping charge for maintenance during that time. You assume that the city will receive a subsidy on a new bridge, though it does not get it for maintenance ? The Mayor: Yes. Mr Fukert: Well, what grounds have you for that assumption ? We have no more money for new construction work than for maintenance. It is a rather fine point as to whether the city is entitled to any subsidy. How is tlie cost divided? Mr Hughes: Half each. Mr Mcnzies said the city at present received no subsidy on its mantenance, though the county did. The city controlled the bridge. Mr Furkert: That is rather curious if tho bridge is in the county. Mr Batchelar: That position has existed ever since there has been a bridge. Mr Menzies said he understood that the matter had been fixed by a commission, but the records had been lost. Mr Furkert commented that the traffic tally was very heavy. The repairs to the bridge offered a very ticklish job. “It is a big job,” said Mr Menzies, “and when it starts we do not know where it will finish. Some of the old timber piers are in a very bad state. They are of totara and have been in for 54 years.” EXAMINATION OF PLANS. Mr Wynyard (a member of the board): The bridge lias been a pretty good servant to the district. Mr Furkert: I should say that it lias done a good service. Not many modern bridges in New Zealand last for 50 years. Mr Menzies said that in 1905 three sets of steel cylinders had been put in. Mr Furkert: What provision has been made for the new bridge. Mr Menzies: Pile piers and concrete arches, with 110 or 120-foot spans. Mr Furkert: Pretty bold spans for pile piers. Mr Menzies said there were three alternative designs and none had yet been adopted. Mr Hughes said that one of the alternatives was steel trusses. Mr Furkert was advised that there had as yet been no experimental pile driving to test the nature of the river bottom. Mr Menzies said the deck level of tho new bridge would be the same as the top of the present trusses. Mr Furkert, discussing the subsidy question, said that Palmerston North was receiving petrol tax and wanted a subsidy as well. Had the bridge been five or six miles out the Kairanga Countv would have received a subsidy of £2 for £1 up to £IO,OOO and £3 for £1 over that. That accounted for the board’s attitude in the past. “If we both can raise tlie money,” stated Mr Furkert, “there does not seem to be much use in keeping the present structure going.” RESTRICTION OF LOADS. Advice to the controlling authorities to reduce loads on the F itzherbert bridge to five tons in the meantime was offered bv Mr Furkert. The present limit is eight tons. Mr Furkert: If I had anything to do with it, loads would he limited to much less. Mr Batchelar: AA’c would have to station a man there with a loadometer. Mr Furkert: It is better to do that than to spend £4OOO on the bridge. Heavy loads could go over tho Ashlnirst bridge or through Foxton. Mr Hughes estimated that if tho new bridge was started immediately it would take three years to erect. Mr Furkert: It looks as if loads will have to be reduced drastically or some money will have to bo spent to mnke the bridge last for another three years. Mr Batchelar intimated that the county wo’.'ld consider the matter and probably restrict loads to 6J tons, tho next grade. Mr F’urkert said it was looking for trouble to allow eight ton loads to go over a fifty-year-old wooden bridge. “What about the new bridge?” asked Mr Batchelar. “Well, on present indications it looks as if arrangements will have to be made for a new bridge,” replied Mr Furkert, “although I have not discussed tho matter fully with my colleagues.” Mr Ronayne suggested that competitive designs for the new bridge might be called for, and general approval was expressed with this suggestion. Mr Furkert said the board was pleased to clear up matters by personal discussion. They all knew Palmerston North was a thriving centre, with heavy traffic.

iWriie matter of the renewal of the djgtzherbert Bridge was brought beAjl»re the board by Mr J. Batchelar Sjhairman of the Kairanga County /; Council) and the engineer (Mr J. j'H Kenzies), also the Mayor of Palmer!,mon North (Mr A. J. Graham) and ~|Bre city engineer (Mr J. It. Hughes). MM Discussing the cost of maintaining '‘!l file present Fitzherbert Bridge, Mr ; (/Batchelar said it had been estimated '•'NiSr (ipr five years. The joint committee ’uflet up by the Kairanga County flSsfouncil and Palmerston North City WCpOuncil had estimated the cost of a ! ;*w bridge at £40,000 or £45,000. .bllhe board had already offered a subJiSy of £2 for £l, but that meant I the county still had to find '‘Consequently, Mr Batchelar ced for a revision of the terms the subsidy on a basis of £2 for up to the first £20,000 of the t of a new bridge, and £3 for over that figure. VIEWS OF ENGINEERS. 3 viewpoint of tho engineers conng the existing structure is set n their joint report as follows: — lost of the more important parts le bridge are in an advanced of decay. It should be noted that timbers are the most difficult and ; to renew. We refer to those timin the lower chords of the main os which, in many cases, have patched and spliced. This, howlias not had the effect of strenging the structure at the vital ;s, i.e., tlie straining blocks are bearing on the old decayed timand do not receive any support the more recently added splice Ve have allowed in our estimate he driving of piles to carry a stagrhicli will support the trusses durilie replacement of the timber on ) spans which are across the prewaterway. Those on dry land can I'l’lp® mole cheaply supported. Moreover, 'ijif' will be necessary to restrict the loadipping on the bridge during these opera-;-J . tions. H “We have gone carefully into the ’.'jj,.question of the estimate of cost to fwinako tho bridge safe for a restricted {ffijloading up to 8 tons. It must be reWSinembered that this bridge is ovdr 50 Myears old, built almost entirely of to®jfara, and timber which appears to be wfflßound at present may, on account of its Plage and brittleness, give way suddenly [VjjSeit any time. We are therefore not prepared to state to what extent the usc•MSul life of the bridge can be prolonged by carrying out the work upon which following estimate is based. minimum amount which we •! '.consider should bo allowed for replacall known decayed timber, strengIjfflibening pile piers, erecting all false ■i'pwdrk and temporary staging, and replacing ironwork is £4OOO. 'Mm FIGURES FOR TRAFFIC. IgHi fj| m|“Another matter arranged with the ySistrict engineer was that a traffic tally ifXßpicmld be taken at the bridge extendrang over a period of seven days. This ■ been done and the results are as ip '(■follow: —Motor lorries, 553; service cars i'i ? wpid buses, I2G; motor cars, 3754; mocvcles, 44G; horses and horse drawn I illhicles, RI S - The dai D average is ■ e||p>. The delays caused on account of $ gHEe one way traffic were also noted, it jjj fflßing observed that the traffic was put (; considerable inconvenience and dehave given this matter a good p 1 wjfjjftal of consideration and from our !i|lmowledge of the condition of the pre(J|||ltit structure, which is now called Mjljion to carry the large amount of traftjMß as shown by the tallies .we are of f'll'tlie opinion that the expenditure of iwS®"’ 4s}®*li®refore recommend that steps should now taken to finalise arrangements the erection of the new bridge, the basis of a £40,000 estimate ipraOT* new bridge and approaches, the subtsidy offered hv the Highways Board of I ’fjwijPr f° r "'ill involve the city and (.’cojinty in an expenditure of £GGOO each. 'Tlie city’s proportion of cost for yfljPfflprying out repairs will l>e at least wiSspOOO as this will not carry any subfrom tlie Highways Board. The incharges on the city’s proportion ; of the cost of tho new bridge will be ©■Present bridge is repaired tlie cost will equal to A\ years’ interest on tlie fflggfeity’s share of the cost of the new ffijffitbridge, the erection of which will still iphave to ho faced in the near future. UlThe position of the county with regard Kto the cost of repairs will ho slightly ■Khetter as they would receive a subsidy SBfrom the Highways Board.” nra, The Mayor stated that the joint |aHj report had been discussed and it had iragbeen deemed advisable to seek a new Mbridge, also to approach the Higli■Rwavs Board for more favourable terms Mof subsidy. The county and city were fflfiprepared to carry the burden themHffselves and were ‘not bringing in any fflfother local bodies. The alleviation H| : of their position would be greatly appredated. jf| LIFE OF BRIDGE. W Mr Furkert asked how long it was estimated that the bridge would last M|after repairs to the extent of £4OOO ||or £SOOO had been carried out. M: Mr Hughes: We are not prepared