The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-03-21
ALL BRIDGE BIDS
ARE CRITICIZED
No Design Considered by Board
OF Engineers as Entirely
Satisfactory.

In the opinion Of the board Of en-
the proposed new reinforced concrete
arch bridge over James River to re-
place Mayo's Bridge submitted to a
subcommittee OF the Council Committee
on q, Streets last night. none Of the de,
fulfils satisfactorily all the require
ments OF the situation; and no matter
what bid is accepted the plans and
specified tons will have to be ma :
teriaily amplined and amended, which
the engineers report can be done. The
report says
'.In awarding contract on these
Is essential that the greatest care
should be taken TO include in the speci-
fications and contract many items
which are not touched upon at all by
the plans and specifications submitted.
None Of the designs and specifications
provides In manner satisfactory to
your board for proper anchorage nc OF
accomplished by increasing the size
of the piers or By providing sufficient
anchorage to the bed rock, or both.
Piers Should Re Anchored.
anchored The board believes that
the foundation pits. should be pumped
dry. the solid rock laid bare, and
the rock before placing concrete. None
Of the designs submitted provides for
so constructing the piers that in case
one pier or span should be accidentally
destroyed the damage may not extend
to the entire structure. N the opinion
OF the board at least every other Pier
in case the adjoining arch on one side
We're to be destroyed.
None OF the plans and specifications
provides sufficiently definite informa-
TO be used in the work. The board
also recommends thar the approach
grades he left at as small per cent.
as practicable and be uniform from
where the frcshet line OF 1877 in
tersects the surface Of the street
Provides for Frcsi,et.
THE freshet of 1877 OCCUPIED 3S, lO4
a height Of 25.S6 feet above the zero
of the United States Weather Bureau
gauge, which Is situated at the north
end OF the Southern Railway bridge
across the river. In the opinion OF the
board the waterway provided by the
new bridge should not he less than 80
per cent. OF that just given, or 3e,sVo
square feet, and the crown of all the
arches except the shore spans, should
be at an elevation of not less than
twenty seven feet aboVe the zero OF
the gauge given
to tile engineers for report were those
of I. J. Smith & Co. Stnmper, Ragland
&: Bro. Fl. NJ. Airport & Son Carolina
l-OllCIelCt COMPANY aho NlSiNaS
neering Company. The board consisted
Of City Engineer Charles L. Boiling.
Colonel G. p. T.. Burgwyn and Wilbur
Watson, Of Cleveland. o.
All Plans arc Good.
The report OF the board makes TWEEN
ty-nine pages OF close typcwrisins.
taking up each of the five plans In
detail eaSh being examined for I nity
are reported as good. and with some
notifications suggested, any one of
Them could be made into bridge 10
meet the city's requirement.. The en-
ence. but point out the measurements.
conditions and defects Of each, and
leave the committee to select
OF tile various plans submitted by l.
J. Smith g. Co. the committee expresses
preference for design 3D." to cost
S230,061, with the NfelaH system Of re-
Enforcement. Objection is made. to
cantilever sidewalks and to the fact
that the design does not provide rip
rap for fill on Mayo's Island.
The Airport design. it Is stated II
accepted. should be modified in a num-
Der or details, providing a more posi-
tive means Of taking care of the thrust
Of the arches, the north river measure
nIents arc too long and the distance
construction is criticized, IS in case
of high water it might Gaze a jam
andcr the arches.
The Carolina Concrete Company Of
feGIS Two WI o. I'll Gil COISl uCllCiit
one with cantilever sidewalks. which
the board says should not be con-
sidered as it believes this construction
TO DO wrong In principle for this bridge.
III tho bid OF the Mckay En-
gineering Company the plans are
found TO be flfty-threc feet too short.
making It unfair to compare this Did
With others. unless allowance is made
FOR the greater lcngth.
The cantilever sidewalks are again
objected to in the plan OF Stamper,
Ragland & Co., and the grade OF APP
proa ches is said to be too heavy.
VIII View Approaches.
The committee tables the report so
that the various bidders may examine
II III detail. and. IL they see fit. reply
10 the criticisms of the engineers
\ prolonged discussion was held as
tt' the approaches for tile bridge,
which are not included In the design.
J he committee tentatively adopted a
compromise plan drawn by City En-
Gnccr Boiling for graduated ap-
proaches out over the first span at