The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNINC. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17. 1912.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3707, 17 December 1912, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNINC. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17. 1912.

The report of the proceedings at the I conference of representatives of the various local bodies affected by the bridge problem makes very interesting reading. It will be noted, first of all, that it was made clear at the meeting that the plans of any proposed bridge over tidal waters which are under the control of the liarboi; authorities, must receive the approval of the Board as well as that of the Marine Department. As things now stand it turned out, indeed, that the Borough Council plan for the projected traffic bridge over the Waimata river has not even come before the Marine Department yet. This discovery will, we think, be in the nature of a surprise, seeing that it was understood the Borough Council was 1 merely awaiting the approval'of the Harbor Board in order that the erection of the bridge might be pushed ahead. When the conference came to deal with, the question of the Kaiti bridge, it will be seen, a number of other important questions wore raised. Apparently what was most prominently before the meeting in this regard was the point as to whether a j

The Bridge Problem Again.

structure over the Turanganui River at Gladstone Road coukl he _ done without, <ln this connection it will be recalled that Mr McDonald, th? Harbor Engineer, had suggested that it might he considered advisable to adopt a scheme under which the Ivaiti bridge would not be rebuilt —at any rate at once—and all the Kaiti traffic would be diverted via substantial bridges over tho TaruherU and "Waimata Rivers.) For their part the representatives of the Cook County seem to have adopted a strictly neutral attitude, as between the Borough and the Harbor Board. As regards the > members of tho Harbor Board who were iri 'attendance they made it plain that jfclrifai it was intended by the Hojcl to protect the true interests of it£ port everything that could he djfhie would bo done to promote the interests of the Borough. Perhaps, the most important sequel to the calling together of tho conference was the fact that it showed more conclusively than before that the municipal authorities would, on no account, listen to any scheme which would involve n j decision not to rebuild the Ivaiti bridge when the present structure becomes quite unsafe. Of course it was j only natural that there would be strong opposition to any such suggestion as that which was contained in Mr McDonald’s report. In his elaborate and somewhat remarkable defence of the retention of a bridge over the Turanganui River at Gladstone Read the Mayor seems, however, to have quite missed the big points which were raised by the Harbor Engineer , In tho matter. It is no doubt the

case that a great many people would he more or less inconvenienced if ail traffic from Kaiti to town and vice' versa were diverted via bridges over the YTaimata and Tarulieru Rivers. But if we have read Ms report aright Mr McDonald has never said that it would seriously interfere with the development of the river above the present Ivaiti bridge if a permanent bridge were erected at the spot. TThat he lias declared on the subject is merely that in the future any inconvenience that may arise in this regard' would be suffered—not by users of the waterway—but by those who may wish to use the structure at a time when the swing would be open. Mr Pettie. it would seem, has also failed to grasp the position that what was behind the Harbor Engineer’s suggestion was chiefly the fact that ft would help the local authorities interested if they could in the meantime be spared the cost of erecting and maintaining a new bridge over the Turanganui River seeing that a new bridge must be built over the AYaimaia River and before long a great deal of money will also have to be spent on the Peel Street bridge or it will have to be rebuilt altogether. As we pointed out 1 in a previous article if the local ■ bodies qoncerned ever felt at any ■ time subsequently that they could j also afford a modern bridge in place : of the Ivaiti bridge—in addition to the other substantial bridges that will have to be erected over the AVaimata River at Ormond Road and the Taruheru River at Peel Street —there j would (one would imagine) not be ; likely to be the slightest opposition to i the proposal by the harbor authori- * ties. As showing the weakness of. Mr Pettie’s elaboration of the position one has only to analyse (say) the following remark: "To divert the tramway by way of AYhataupoko as proposed wouTd mean a large additional expense and also congestion of traffic and many other inconveniences.'" Xow tve should just like to ask him if it is not a fact that sooner or later for a period of at least two years—the time which it will take to rebuild the Kaiti bridge—all the traffic to and from Kaiti will perforce have to be diverted via the Peel Street bridge and the projected new bridge over the AYaimata River? Of course it is a fact, and nobody should know it better ! than the present Mayor. Boiled down, j then, the question of the almost immediate re-erection of a new bridge over the Turanganui River must resolve itself into one of £ s. d. If the local authorities concerned should find when the time comes round that they have the money to spare for the work there should be nothing to pre- 1 vent the Ivaiti bridge being rebuilt on modern lines as soon as was deemed advisable. In the meantime, however, the Borough Council in particular should bestir itself with a view to providing for all contingencies by having a substantial bridge built over the Waimata River without delay and having steps taken either to strengthen or replace the Peel Streetbridge.