A NEW BRIDGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12784, 30 October 1919, Page 3

A NEW BRIDGE.

PROPOSED FOR NEW BRIGHTON. ,A conference of representatives of local bodies, which was convened by the New Brighton Borough Council, was held in the City Council Chambers yesterday afternoon to. consider the question of replacing the present tramway bridge over the Avon at New Brighton by a more suitable structure. The various local bodies interested were represented by the following delegates:— New Brighton Borough Council, Mr F, | .Kibblewhite (Mayor), Councillors J. I Gamble and W. Bellamy and Mr J . F. | Eames (town dork) ;* Christchurch City I Council, Councillors, J. YV. Beauland ! (Deputy-Mayor) and. J. A. Flesher; ! •'-hiistcj.iurch Tramway Board, Messrs j if. Pearce, S- A. Staples and F. Thompi son- (secretory); Heathcote County i Council, Mr C. Flavell (chairman) and ’ Messrs G. K. Bin-con and E. E. Pat- ; fen. Mr Kibblewhite was voted to die j chair. I In his opening remarks Mr Kihblei white thanked the various delegates : lor the way in which the invitation to j consider the matter had been received. I Concerning the onestion of a new | bridge, New Brighton saw the neces- ; rity for it very considerably, but it was | recognised that there were many difiij cuifcies in the way, which were quite j appreciated by his council. In view of l the ever-increasing traffic, and the dangers attendant under present circumstances, it had been decided to convene the conference. The present bridge had been built by the Tramway Board and it was the main thoroughfare to New Brighton. But there was no use heating about the hush—the structure was dangerous. From the Christchurch side the approach was up a big rise, and there had been several minor accidents, and with increased traffic the probability was that more would happen. Un New Brighton they were considering ,the question of going in for a loan, and among the items in this the bridge would be included. They wanted to know if the other local bodies interested in the matter of the bridge were sympathetic, and if the time was deemed opportune. They were grateful to the Tramway Board for what had been done in the past, hut now it was the desire of New Brighton that a new bridge should he built if possible. Mr Kibblewhite quoted figures of the traffic over ti., bridge at various dates, the tally taken on Monday fist (Labour Day) showing: Pedestrians into New Brighton 385, out 290: bicycles, 201, 192 j motor-cvcles, 137, 76: motorcars, 123, BSj other vehicles,' 42, 49. There were 50 electric trams inwards with 100 trailers, and 51 electric trams out with 102 trailers. The return, which covered a period from 8.30 a.m. to 7 p.ra., showed that there wore 21 vehicles (cars and motor-cycles) held upby trams in crossing the bridge, and 13 vehicles by motor-cars. The present bridge, continued Mr Kibblewhite, was 12ft wide. What the. New Brighton borough would like was a bridge large enough to allow a tram to pass oyer and room for a.vehicle on either side—a width, if possible, of 40ft. Mi- Burton said; that a return prepared for a commission in 1913 showed that the traffic over the bridge was much _ greater than that presented by Mr Kibblewhite, the number of bicycles alone averaging 726 per day. Some discussion took place upon the type of bridge, ferro-concreto or otherwise, and Mr Kibblewhite said that a bridge costing £SOOO should not be beyond them, with four contributing bodies. Mr Pearce; The chief benefit is to New Brighton. Mr Kibblewhite.- But we’re proriding a lot of attractions for the people. Mr Pearce: And the board is providing a very good tram service. Mr Burton said that, as far as Heathcote was concerned, it was thought that it was the‘wrong time to consider the matter. Page’s Road acted as a conduit to the city and New Brighton without any corresponding advantage to. Heathcote. . ■Mr lubhlewhite'; ' 'We : ; adrait--.aii that. Mr Burton said that personally lie felt it was rather an unsuitable time ior the proposition, Mr Pearce: If the bridge' was not there the traffic would not be there. Mr Burton replied that Page’s Road leading to the bridge was very much more costly than it was ever thought it would he. If they were going to go on with the bridge he would like to know what they would be called upon to pay. Owing to the cost of construction he thought the present time was inopportuneAir Kibblewhite replied that they had to face the fact that the cost would not come down for some time. Mr Pearce said that, in the opinion of the Tramway Board, the bridge was certainly good enough for some years to come, and it was hardly a fair thing to expect the board to pay the same amount towards a new structure as the borough. Mr Gamble moved that, in the opinion of the meeting, it was desirable that a new bridge should be erected over the Avon at New Brighton, to I take the place of the present structure tor all traffic. Mr Bellamy seconded the motion. No doubt within a measurable distance of time, lie said, the Tramway Board would be constructing a double line from YVainoui to Now Brighton. As the Borough Council was thinking of raising a loan for general improvements, an increase of traffic to the seaside resort would doubtless follow. The present bridge was 12ft 6in wide, and as the tramcars were Bft wide, every day. other,' vehiclar traffic was hung up owing to the narrowness of the bridge. 'He hoped the motion would he passed, so as to ensure the general advancement of the district. In -reply to a query by Mr Bellamy as to the condition of the present bridge, Mr Staples said that the Tramway Board engineer had reported that the bridge was perfectly safe. Mr Flesher stated that one thing that had been running through, his mind was that the people on each side of the bridge should pay half the cost. Mr Kibblewhite replied that the idea of New Brighton paying up to 50 per cent would not bo palatable to the borough. Mr Bean land and Mr Pearce said that the bodies they represented would not entertain anything else but the erection of a -structure that would be permanent. The motion„was carried. . ‘Gter further conversational discusj sion a recommendation was passed, on the motion of Mr Flesher, seconded by Mr Pearce, that the proposed bridge should be not less than 56ft in width providing for double tram tracks, and the passage of vehicles on each side with two footways. ’ Off the motion of Air Bellamy seconded by Mr Gamble, 'it was resolved that the City Council and the Tramway Board should he asked to allow their engineers to prepare route sketches of a suitable bridge, with an estimate of the cost, for presentation at a future meeting of the delegates.