COMMISSION HALTED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 820, 14 November 1929, Page 1

COMMISSION HALTED

Bridge Association Not Ready REQUEST MADE FOR BORINGS Impasse at First Sitting CONTENDING rhat their ease was not yet fully prepared, and urging that borings and soundings be carried out before evidence is heard, representatives of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association declined to place its proposals before the commission which sat for tlie first time this morning. Notwithstanding the requests of the chairman, who held that borings and soundings were unnecessary at that juncture, no ease was presented and an impasse was reached. It was then decided to adjourn the sitting until the end of the month.

About 30 representatives of interested bodies assembled iu the Chamber of Commerce Hall when the sitting opened. The commission consisted of Mr. J. Marchbanks, engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board (chairman*. Mr. F. W. Furkert, fcngineer-in-Chiet' of the Public WorkDepartment. and Captaiu C. McDonald, of Dunedin. The chairman said that the sitting nould be of a preliminary nature and would be adjourned perhaps to the end of the month. In the meantime the commission could examine proposed sites and investigate the growth of population and lay-out Oi the country on the North Shore side of the harbour. Mr. J. T. Watkins, secretary, then read the Governor-General’s commission detailing the forthcoming activities of the commissioners as published in Monday’s Sun. INTERESTED BODIES Mr. Marchbanks issued a formal invitatiou to interested bodies and persons who w ished to give evidence and submit recommendations. The Hollowing introduced themselves to the commission: Mr. *l. f Finlay and Mr. R. H. fjreville, for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association. Mr. R. McVeagh. representing the Auckland Harbour Board. Mr. E. U. Northeroft, the Dev unport Steam Ferry Company. Mr. V. R. Meredith, representing the Waitemata Bridge Inquiry Protection Association. Mr. J. Stanton, for the Auckland City Council. Mr. H. J. C. George, representing the Northcote Borough Council. Mr. E. Aldridge. representing the Devonport Borough Council. Mr. J. P. McPhail, representing the Birkenhead Borough Council. Mr. J. W. WUfamson, Mayor of Takapuna. Mr. C. A. Cawkwell, for the Waitemata County Council. Mr. J. W. Hayden, representing the Waitemata Electric-Power Board. Mr. TV. H. Nagle, representing the Mount Eden Borough Council. Mr. F. E. Powell, representing the Auckland Automobile Association. Mr. N. G. Gribble. representing the Waikato Waterways League.

The Chairman: Two million pounds! Well, if the association considers the scheme practicable from £SOO.OOO to £2,000,000 I see no reason why it should not go on with its case. Mr. Finlay explained that the evidence was not yet fully collected. Local bodies had yet to supply certain information. Mr. Greville added that the taking of borings and soundings would enable the association’s engineers to formulate estimates. He’proposed that after the necessary information had been secured, there should be an adjournment perhaps to the end of Januai y. CHAIRMAN ADAMANT After consultation with his colleagues, the chairman said the commission proposed to go on with whatever evidence was available. Mr. McVeagh said the Harbour Board was not prepared to give evidence until the schemes were put forward. This additional declaration was considered by the commission, after which the chairman said it seemed to him that the evidence of bodies in favour of the bridge should be put forward. In the meantime the questions of soundings and borings were beside the point. Dead silence greeted this statement, and the chairman asked if the Sugar Company’s representative would care to produce evidence regarding the required height to suit the company’s vessels. Mr. Richmond said that one vessel was 110 ft. and the other 112 ft. But there were others —overseas boats—the specifications of which he could not produce at the moment. Several of tho Union Company’s boats ran from 91ft. to 101 ft. The company's only interest in the problem was that relating to clearance for Its vessels, otherwise, contrary to Mr. Finlay’s belief. there might be a serious claim for compensation.

Mr. H. B. V. Richmond, for the Colonial Sugar Re lining Company. Ltd.

FERRY COMPANY S ATTITUDE Mr. Northcroft said that the ferry ' ompany did not anpear by any means 'n opposition to the«cheme. but rather fo give information that might be required.

The Chairman: Will the tally of passengers be available?

Mr. Northcroft said all evidence i possible would be given, the only difficulty at present being to find just j what information the commission would require. The other representatives explained briefly that they wished to give evidence of a nature relating to the re quirements of the bodies they represented. Opening the case on behalf of the Harbour Bridge Association. Mr. Finlay said Us desire was that the bridge should be a conveuience and a saving. The association was somewhat ham Pered at present because it considered certain initial steps, such as the taking of borings, should be carried out before the site and feasibility of the scheme could be discussed. “On the coat depends every other issue,** he declared. "We ask the commission as a first measure to exercise its power to arrange for the taking of borings and soundings to the extent of the finances available.*’ He said that two sites were considered—one from Shoal Bay and the other from Gaunt Street to Northcote Point. The Chairman: You want us to take borings on both sides? Mr. Finlay: Yes. I understand the co *t will be quite moderate —£500 for two lots of nine borings each. “CAN GO FURTHER’’ The chairman said quite a lot of information could be obtained before borings were taken—information regarding the suitability of the various sites. “I think. Mr. Finlay, we can go farther at present.** he added. Mr. Finlay said the association’s contention was that the proposal was an economic one. Its case was not Prepared, and its evidence would depend on the results of the borings and soundings. Mr. Meredith asked that the association be requested to state what it considered to be an economic limit of cost. The Chairman: That is quite reasonable. After deliberation with his colleagues Mr. Finlay said the executive had computed on the economic limit of a capital cost of £550,000, on the basis of one-third of the present charges. This would allow of an increase to a capital cost of £2.000.000 on the full estimated charges without the scheme becoming economically impracticable.

The chairman invited Mr. Aldridge’s evidence, but he had left the hall. Asked the constitution of the Harbour Bridge Association. Mr. Finlay detailed this and added that it was a difficult body to get under way. A few days’ notice was hardly sufficient. Mr. McVeagli said the Harbour Board was willing to place a launch at the disposal of the commission. Answering Mr. Finlay's repeated suggestion that borings and soundings should be taken in the meantime, the chairman said that would be done in due course. "You are placing too much weight on the question of these borings.” he added. “The fundamental problem is whether or not the bridge is required.” said Mr. Furkert. “The outcome of the evidence might conceivably be that the bridge was not required at all.” The chairman asked if the case could be prepared by the end of the month: in the meantime the commission would take whatever evidence was available and examine the sites. Representatives expressed their agreement. Mr. McVeagh said the Harbour Board was obtaining information regarding a number of American bridges. The sitting then adjourned to inspect the various sites and the harbour generally. This will be done in the next few days.