BRIDGE AFFAIRS.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18652, 2 June 1932, Page 9

BRIDGE AFFAIRS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In my last letter I made an error in writing “With the Government -subsidy assured, the 'borough’s share •of the cost may be estimated at about £ll,ooo.’’ What I meant to write was " without the Government subsidy -assured, etc.” ... The cost of the bridge Is -stated thus: —Government subsidy (?). £8000; Waikato County Council, fourninths; Hamilton. Borough, fourninths; Waipa County Council, oneninth of the balance, but as I reckon the Government £BOOO will not be forthcoming I have calculated the burden to be borne by the three contributing bodies on the total of £24,000. I can wel-1 understand -the W-aika-to Council’s attitude in regard to the question of -a second bridge at Hamilton. The Imembers argue—but, I think mistakenly—that the county will be forced to contribute to a second bridge in Hamilton in the immediate future, the probable cost of which may well be in the neighbourhood of £50,000, and the present proposal Is a cheap way out of that difficulty. The two counties already -contribute to the cost of -maintenance of the present bridge, and -personally I do not think a commission would adjudge them to contribute to a second. They also reckon that Fairfield will some day I join the borough (a movement is al-I-reaily afoot to that end), and a proi portion —a -small one perhaps, will be transferred to the borough. Another reason that may actuate the council is tills: H will he the controlling body. The council will levy on the borough for tlie borough share; the county wi) levy on its own ratepayers by Governor’s warrant; the Hamilton Bbrough Council will levy on its ratepayers by special order for iis shaie, and the money will be found by general rate, 'thus doing away with the necessity for a loan or a poll. A number of ratepayers within the borough -seem to think the money cannot be found without taking a poll for a loan, but it can; and if the -scheme goes on it will be as I have pointed ou-t above. That is the financial position. If I were a county representative I might be guided by these arguments but as a borough representative I am of opinion that the bridge the borough wants is 'one -linking up Frankton, Claudelands and the business portion of Hamilton. In that connection I -regret the Bryce Street project was turned down by the -ratepayers. Sonic years ago the Borough Council went to some expense in getting a report- on a bridge and estimate of cost at Piako Street, Claudelands, ■and crossing the river at a point between London Street andi Rosstrevor Street. This report from Messrs Viekerman and Lancaster was pigeonholed and never came before the ratepayers. Why? Personally I «m of opinion that a bridgo to he of any great use to Hamilton should he at either Bryce Street, Piako Street or Liverpool Street. In -regard to repairing the present bridge I think no more time should be lost. As Hie /Ton troll Vug body we' have a duty to perform to our ratepayers and to the other two -contributing bodies and we -should not let present conditions exist a day longer than is absolutely necessary. It may entail some inconvenience while the bridge Is closed for some of the repairing work, but- I presume foot passengers could use the bridge and we also have Ihe railway bridge for pedestrians. What, is to prevent people who require to do business in or about Victoria SI root parking limit cars in Hamilton Hast or Claudelands. Heavy goods -can go by -rail to -the Claudelands railway sin lion. for -the short time the bridge is under repairI hope when 1 lie repairs are put in hand, as they must, be, sufllcicnl dime win be allowed to do a good job. not as happened when the* present decking was /.ut down —work commenced nt dawn and lintf-rhed in lime for the ordinary day’s traffic! I -shall not pursue this subject any further, and -thanking you for your indulgence.— I am, etc., C. J. W. BARTON. Hamilton, June i. 1932.