From the Kearney Files
Sydney 6th November 1922
BATTLE OF BRIDGES
NO DELAY THE SLOGAN
THE NEW PROBLEM
Correspondence by "the Critic"
What is the issue?
It must be urged that either Mr. Bradfield will not, or the Government cannot, help the man in the street to ease of mind. The man in the street wants to know what happened in Mr. Bradfield's travels abroad to throw the design of the desired bridge into the melting pot. Was it detective? Did practical bridge builders point out certain dangers of difficulties of construction, or did their estimates of cost paralyse the Australian engineer? Let it be said here that no one has more administration of and sympathy for Mr. Bradfield than myself. He is a distinguished graduate of our own University, and, as one with University interests and responsibilities myself, I take my hat of to him. But this matter of the bridge raises such an important public issue, and shall not be a moment's unnecessary delay in actual construction, that the question of frankness as to Mr. Bradfield's experiences abroad is vital. Because there may be delay, it is essential that the public shall be taken into confidence of the Works Department and of the Government. This, of course, opens the issue itself. An arched bridge may be the simplest way out of a manifest dilemma, if bridge building contractors are to be met half way; but it is something entirely new. It was never investigated by the Public Works Committee as a possible alternative, and, surely, , expert witnesses could testify as to its merits and demerits in less than a week if the committee were called together again for that purpose. Even the layman can see that the arch must have critics. The Harbour Trust ought to be consulted at once about it. But here again the man in the street is confused, because he finds that there may be two types of arched bridge. One type will carry the traffic on the crown of the arch, while in another type the arch will rise into the heavens with a mass of steel that must dwarf the city, carrying the traffic half - way down like a child in arms. Which is it to be? These are not foolish questions. They are not intended to obstruct or delay construction, but to facilitate it; for Mr. Bradfield's silence about the need for an alternative design, and the Government's refusal to be frank with the public upon the same detail, have apparently made far - reaching delay probable.
The problem of the best form of bridge need not be further discussed here, it is entirely a matter for the experts; and because the settlement thereof by the Public Works Committee, made in 1913, is now found to be futile, the experts should again be allowed to rise and explain. Mr. Bradfield, however however, cannot be both judge and jury. The Works Department must not be permitted to play the autocrat with a Minister who does not profess to be more than a layman. Engineers are, no doubt, under the department's shadow; but is inconceivable that they will become unanimous just for peace sake. Here again the Harbour Trust must have very strong opinions, and the public is entitled to know what they are and where it's engineers' criticism of the arch as a possible
substitute for the cantilever principal in a bridge to Milson's Point begins and ends. Then also the Harbour Trust Commissioners should be allowed to discuss alternative sites. Whether the type is to be cantilever, arch, or suspension may become a matter of detail, comparatively easy of settlement in a week or so of inquiry, but the latter should include the site in its scope.
Sydney 6th November 1922
BATTLE OF BRIDGES
NO DELAY THE SLOGAN
THE NEW PROBLEM
Correspondence by "the Critic"
What is the issue?
It must be urged that either Mr. Bradfield will not, or the Government cannot, help the man in the street to ease of mind. The man in the street wants to know what happened in Mr. Bradfield's travels abroad to throw the design of the desired bridge into the melting pot. Was it detective? Did practical bridge builders point out certain dangers of difficulties of construction, or did their estimates of cost paralyse the Australian engineer? Let it be said here that no one has more administration of and sympathy for Mr. Bradfield than myself. He is a distinguished graduate of our own University, and, as one with University interests and responsibilities myself, I take my hat of to him. But this matter of the bridge raises such an important public issue, and shall not be a moment's unnecessary delay in actual construction, that the question of frankness as to Mr. Bradfield's experiences abroad is vital. Because there may be delay, it is essential that the public shall be taken into confidence of the Works Department and of the Government. This, of course, opens the issue itself. An arched bridge may be the simplest way out of a manifest dilemma, if bridge building contractors are to be met half way; but it is something entirely new. It was never investigated by the Public Works Committee as a possible alternative, and, surely, , expert witnesses could testify as to its merits and demerits in less than a week if the committee were called together again for that purpose. Even the layman can see that the arch must have critics. The Harbour Trust ought to be consulted at once about it. But here again the man in the street is confused, because he finds that there may be two types of arched bridge. One type will carry the traffic on the crown of the arch, while in another type the arch will rise into the heavens with a mass of steel that must dwarf the city, carrying the traffic half - way down like a child in arms. Which is it to be? These are not foolish questions. They are not intended to obstruct or delay construction, but to facilitate it; for Mr. Bradfield's silence about the need for an alternative design, and the Government's refusal to be frank with the public upon the same detail, have apparently made far - reaching delay probable.
The problem of the best form of bridge need not be further discussed here, it is entirely a matter for the experts; and because the settlement thereof by the Public Works Committee, made in 1913, is now found to be futile, the experts should again be allowed to rise and explain. Mr. Bradfield, however however, cannot be both judge and jury. The Works Department must not be permitted to play the autocrat with a Minister who does not profess to be more than a layman. Engineers are, no doubt, under the department's shadow; but is inconceivable that they will become unanimous just for peace sake. Here again the Harbour Trust must have very strong opinions, and the public is entitled to know what they are and where it's engineers' criticism of the arch as a possible
substitute for the cantilever principal in a bridge to Milson's Point begins and ends. Then also the Harbour Trust Commissioners should be allowed to discuss alternative sites. Whether the type is to be cantilever, arch, or suspension may become a matter of detail, comparatively easy of settlement in a week or so of inquiry, but the latter should include the site in its scope.
Comments
Post a Comment