The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-12-14

ne 0uotss rrou the Reports or Boards OF
E-sineers 90 show that = sirsie-sps.
Bridge, Rrnt on Ether tbe CsntiIsvsr
or Suspension Principie. ws-id ne SAFE
ana Not I,practicabIe ss 90 Cost.
WASHINGTON. Dec 13.-secretary Lamont
has declined to approve the project Of the New
York and New Jersey Bridge Company to build
q cantilever bridge, involving q pier In the Hud-
son River, although 1t appears from q letter adj
dressed to him by the company on Nov. 81 that
a provisional contract had been made with the
Union Bridge Company for the construction Of
such a structure. The Secretary, in . letter
dated yesterday. quotes President Cleveiand's
message vetoing the act passed at the first SEES
sion Of the present Congress permitting such
q bridge, which led to the passage Of a
modified bill intended to conform TO and
meet the objections urged by the President"
and which directed the President to create .
board Of fve competent, practical, disinterested,
expert bridge engineers TO examine and deter
mine at what length OF span not less than 1000
feet a practicable railway bridge could be built,
and make their determination as to the length
of the span final. Under the provisions OF this
bill the President appointed Major Charles w.
Raymond OF the Corps Of Engineers, L.. $. A.;
Prof. William II. Burr of Columbia College,
q. Bouscaren Of Cincinnati, George =. Morrison
Of Chicago, and Theodore Cooper OF New York.
who, after a thorough investigation of every
phase OF the problem, submitted an exhaustive
report, signed by al the members, which closed
with the following recommendations:
The only subject referred to your Board is ITO rec
onimend what length OF span not less than 1000 feet
would be safe and practicable for q railroad bridge to
be constructed over the Hudson River between Fifty.
ninth and sixty ninth streets" A single span from
pier head to pier head, built on either the cantilever
or suspension principle, would DO safe. The est.
mated cost OF the 3,iO0foot clear span cantilcver
being about twice that OF the shorter span, your Board
consider themselves justified in pronouncing Il I'M.
practicable on financial grounds. As the cost Of the
sinsie-span suspension bridge ls ut most not more than
one.thIrd greater than that OF the Q 600 foot cantilever.
your Board are unable to say that such greater cost
|, enough to render the suspension bridge impractical
The Board have reached this conclusion after care.
full course Of reasoning which they have followed.
' dSsy Of aes ths sH deep isf r fSai'afs Sanda stesnS 81 Ssh the e s9pisT"s;
bridge, even wsIyins tho absolute necessity oi carry.
part OF the greater cost OF the Suspension bridge.
This finding was confirmed and strengthened
States engineer officers. appointed prior to the
legislative provision for q board, with %instruc-
lions to nihvestigate and report their conclu-
cable for suspension bridges, and consistent with
an amount OF traffic probably sufficient to war
rant the expense OF construction" The conclu-
sion OF this Board was as follows:
w 1aS d snsi BE- l aGop,s fer .i Z wG sSs most S5 such sa,en %ssp Isss'
reticsi and eIperinents investisstions, and the esti
mated cost would undoubtedly be much reduced by
s sSs p ,hS % Ss;,.S SS% ,s., s5a f NM nee : mansss%sns
Innate Tor a six.track railroad suspension bridge.
Z 200 feet long, and they consider the amount q traf
1 1isv warrant SSasv the , ssIep 9ss q Sr,S Son', ,ToniS 10 They be.
s sGysi apT that is 'H Capacity sGs 'r csS be sh TsaaIly 9H Increased 30 sSa,
and with the suspension ,ys,em this can be provided
snehSrssse.. ''Ae "'n' towers anu
en as sseiS'' 70 i P4spsrs ssm SsTS Hl' Ssals 10 eG amp ..1s.
mates Tor a snslespan bridge at this locality. the
sSsia &c a eS;s dasS' Within shii R ;se ii@is : cf eo.s e lht9 s:sl:
mate given above.
that both the 1000 foot cantileyer bridge. which
REQUIRES a pier In the river, and the $500 foot
in the eless suspension bridge. without z centre
cost, the estimates being as follows:
Pier Bridge, ,Cantilever,, SIX Tracks-Clear. span,
pounds p;SSS rsf psr t foo, i CT tlse t,sI ,a5 5ee.i S %Sy'S sst iGaG isa s;GSo
Including Necessary vladnct making Il equal in length
iset, Zoo fsSti moving load, 5000 pounds per foot o.
,. sp'R ;a;:i Bridge; s 81 Trsct, na,,ss span, ss,SsSSSS
! 200 pounds per foot OF track strain on cables, So
w SJ SISsf lsspS i' 800 s3SSr sg iaSa: f Sss i laSi % track: strain
on = cables ,,os So;09S pound, Pc. square inch, s9i :e7i 0SoG;
pounds per foot Of track, t5I ,yT7!s5I; location near
q ,rae[ ss7. y 900: location near, siI.ty.ninth street
DER : f6ot E ~ R r ss2 sa'S3o, Joe %SS'ins load loo pounds
Secretary Lamont says he is further assured
by the members OF the Commission that the
time required for construction would be approx
imately the same for either bridge, and closes
his letter as follows:
"ln view. therefore,, of these facts and fnd-
ings, as of tho very serious objections TO q pier
in the harbor, with It's attendant delay and con-
slant menace 10 navigation. | am constrained TO
require that the bridge TO be built by the New
York and New Jersey Bridge Companies across
the Hudson River shall have a single span be-
tween the pier lines OF the New York harbor.
- hIlA Il do not nndaFfnkA In N that thu
objection OF an obstruction in the harbor is suf-
t1ciently grave to prohibit the construction of a
pier bridge, were a suspension bridge impracti-
cable. IL is a matter for public congratulAtiOn
that q scientific investigation Uf the subject by
skilled and experienced engineers determines
that both the traffic on the river. as well as that
over 1t, can be accommodated without interfer-
ence, and the rights OF all protected. with only
such an increase OF expense, II any. as Is clearly