The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-05-16
BOILING TELLS DR. PLANS
FOR REPAIRING BRIDGE
sRys Eight SPINS uf Concrete Would
lie Incongtuous In Old Iron
bridge.
nECIs FAVORED CHEAPER REPAIRS
Would Hnvo Patched Old bridge Up
Until City Wn, Ncady TO Erect Mod
crD. Wide ThorouShTarc.

IN letter to the Administrative
Eoard Yesterday. City Engineer Boil
Ing clears up certain Inaccuracies that
gained currency earlier In the week
u. Ia Matthews OF contract for the
rcconatruction OF the Ninth street Free
Bridge Ut hts bid or S53,JOo
1he award was made Monday by
divided vote. three iHcmbcrB--Mcssrs
i!irachbcrg. Folhes and Whittot--sup-
porting it, Mr. Beck opposed tho
award favoring I'm It's stead IL plan sub
united by the Virginia Bridge and
Iron Company, which proposed to re-
pair tho bridge Ht Il cost Of Si7,76Q. by
Introducing a series OF new steel
trussoa between the old ones. Mr.
Mccarthy declined TO vote.
Sitville Dc Claiborne. OF thin city. sub
nl!tted bid based on q plan OF their
own. Offering TO reconstruct tho 500
feet OF the bridge designated In tho
CITY Engineers drawing as in need OF
repairs. with reinforced concrete at
"a cost OF $500. This plan was pre-
i"rrcd by sir, Mccarthy to the steel
matthews.
The three members Who voted fo-
the HIat,hews award yore Grill
ci"ed In some quarters for their
preference. on the ground that
The Saviilo q Claiborne plan would
NAY" served tho city's purpose "a we'll.
ana at saving OF moro than $4,000.
CITY ENGINEER TELLS
OF VARIOUS PROPOSALS.
me CITY Engineer in his letter 10
inc board reviews tho auvcrtisiu, for
ana tho tabulatiHg OF the bids received.
ana sustaiis the contention of m,
| Young majority o. tho board, that IN
/ awarding tho contract 70 II. /. Mat
! ne"s' 1t acted IN accordance with no
t'"FiS!"ns or the ordinance authorlz;nI;
! TIC nIidsc appropriation With re,rurJ
20 statements said to have hoe, .,,.lo
~ hlln 10 tho board on the cor,,nnr,
I'VE merits OF the several ulnns Sub
"'ttcd' Mr.. Boiling. in Ills letter. .ays.
- 20 ms statements to Tho board
oi INC respective bids. stated that II
IL "as The purIfse of tho board Ia lin
ply '"pair the present brldI.e. would
"'''"eHn the award 70 The VtrxIni,
Ht'"te ana Iron COMPANY for ~ -,
~ 4t''1o but II II was conternnl,,-.,i ~
"So 'he present bridge for MAN. ,.c,-
/ 3" conc tsaE twenty years.. tha. ! IN.
"t.iN recommended acceptnu,s. a.
"lthews3 bid. Tho reason for
e'H9 neNg mat its construction, c.-rtnl
" IN ~ phvcd roadway on n c,,,c,n,a
o"se. and that whenever {. W. =,
-ucH !" replace s. with another hide
.n.t mere would be a large nn,o,,r,
.'H1H'' as tho bridge when ,aI.o,,
-. IcWoNed' could be used ;or
''"I[ other kinds OF cons,ruc,Io,,
ala not recommend IN. nGn,,ion
C ~ NC pIan or bid OF Mcssrs. savIilc e..
h, .i'i,ofi,e i%f " reinforced concrete
"'''"e ior the reason thar rho dost,,
"as 'AconEruous with he o,bor ,t,.a
sections OF the bridge north ana SCUM
- [.o pToposed now part of the Frce
-'l"se' ana whenever Il should hnco,ac
necessary to remove the sam. IN
n"uIu Do it,le or no salvage. and n .
renewal would DO both dinlcui, and 49,
! stated further tina, II f. wo. 49,
'oS"' 20 build u new bridr. ny,,-oi..
ron. ron shore TO shore. l would unauaI,-
'euiE reconin end = reinforced co,'crn,o
! bridge. but that did NOT arr,a ,,.' 80 =.
NJ. intermediate link between ,un
b 5fJjton ms Of steel construction, to b..
/ u called upon hy tho honrd -, w >
{ P '6e plans for the rencwa! or tn,
en- LET 81 The old bridge ! could no,
49,. or recommend any other design
4 Ihd'i tho one 7 had suhr,,f,,~.. '''H -