PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18406, 13 August 1931, Page 9

PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l am in perfect agreement with the views expressed by your correspondent “ Mark Time ” in regard to the above subject. He, however, makes a mistake when he says, "To build a bridge will necessitate a loan." The engineer's original estimate for the structure was £12,000. It is now estimated to cost £24,000, funds to be provided:—Government grant £BOOO (the bait) and £16,000 by the local bodies, viz., Waikato County (controlling body), Walpa County and Hamilton Borough. A commission will apportion each local body’s contribution. I should imagine the borough's share will be in the neighbourhood of 75 per cent, of the £16,000, say £12,000. The engineer's idea is that this sum should be found out of the general rate spread over a period, and I think the majority of the council Is favourable to this. So your correspondent will see that there is a very grave danger of this liability being contracted without any appeal to the ratepayers.—l am, etc., GO SLOW. Hamilton, August 12, 1930. (To the Editor.)

Sir, —It is disappointing to find the Mayor advocating the erection of a traffic bridge in a position beyond No. 1 Bridge, out of the borough. If I remember rightly, prior to the election, he spoke in favour of a central bridge, but the site now suggested is anything but that. The only way in which it will benefit the town will be to relieve the present bridge of a certain amount of stock traffic, and perhaps, carry a few farmers into town, but it would be of no advantage to Claudelands and the adjacent area. What is urgently required—and has been "in the air” since 1914— is a structure somewhere between Bryce Street and Liverpool Street, which would centralise the business area of the town for all time, and afford good walking ways to and fro. The railway bridge footway was never meant to carry the present traffic, it Is totally Inadequate at busy periods of the day, and most Inconvenient for women and children. The only valid reason that I have heard for the erection of a bridge outside the borough, is the low cost, but why should the town find £BOOO or £lO,OOO to put up a bridge so far out, and later to have to find the money for another one (which will eventually have to be built) within the borough. By including the Fairfield and Hukanul Road areas in the borough a considerable extra sum would be paid in rates to help pay the annual cost Interest charge of a central bridge. If an agreement cannot be reached as to the site, why not ask the Town Planning Board to advise, and abide by their decision. —I am, etc., CENTRAL SITE. Hamilton', August 11.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your Issue of Tuesday, 11th., there appeared a letter over the nom de plume of " Mark Time," In which he slated that the “ farmers of the district have given Hamiltonians a lead and that they recognise that another bridge across the Waikato River Is not required and have put their views on record as a pro- ' test.” Where did he get this from? He must have been reading the report of the Farmers' Union Executive. Does he not know that they are not the representatives of the farmers? They may represent ten or twenty who belong to their little organisation, but the majority of the farmers have nothing to do with them. They are continually butting in but get nowhere. A few days ago they wei* trying to upset the present system of medical control at the Waikato Hospital; now they tell us that we must not have another bridge. The mover 'of this resolution, Mr Felsst, asks, “Who wants the new bridge?" He does not; he lives at Cambridge and Is well served as things are. He does not consider the hundreds of farmers who want a shorter route to Ilamlli ton and who live between Claudelands and Gordonton, and who have to sell their cattle at the Frankton sale yards. It is time and money to them, but that does not trouble Messrs Felsst and Furnlss—it does not come out of their pocket. Oh no. The seconder of the motion, Mr J. H. Furnlss, I believe, lives at Huntly; so he is also well served with the present conditions. It is a pity both of these gentlemen did not get domiciled in the Gordonton Swamp for a year or two; they would then be looking for a shorter I route than the present to the Frankton yards to sell their boners, and it would also make them think of others as well as themselves.—-I am, etc., THOS. A. COOPER. Rototuna, August 12, 1931.