The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-06-06
PATCHING OLD BRIDGE
HAS PROVED EXPENSIVE
City Has Paid Out s34.220 In Six Years
to Keep Shnky Structure
Open.
OPPOSE IT'S RECoNsTnu CTIoN
Mnny Councilmen Object to Further
PATCHING of Narrow Old Structure.
New bridge Only Solution.

Complying with request from Il
member of the Common Council for Il
detailed statement showing the repair
cost of the Ninth Street Free Bridge
during the past few years. City Auditor
Crenshaw has tabulated the appropria-
ions made for this purpose since tho
richmond Manchester consolidation Of
1910 According to this statement, the
city of Richmond has since 1910 cx-
pended IN repairs to the bridge the sum
of S29,526.52.
Prior to the consolidation the Bridge
,E ,..1n1l spent annually Oh the
or approNimatcly $l.700 a year. In ad-
dition. in the year 1909. the cities of
Richmond and Manchester made an
appropriation of 500 each for repairs
From the beginning of the current
fiscal year until May the city has
spent OH the bridge $7l6.37.
enumerated is s3i,22G.67-,hc money it
has cost to keep the bridge in repair
Tor The last six years: Allowing rca-
tenancc cost. there remains a large bal
ance which has been consumed in
patching the bridge from year to year
SlO.l5 expenditure OF the last four years
was divided as follows: 1910. s2.3sO.53
i9li; 81 .96l; go; i9l2. s5.33b.7i. and 1913
s50.oo0--a direct allotment contained In
the 81 900. 600 bond issue.
BELIEVE NEW BRIDGE
ONLY SOLUTION
In the opinion of many members of
the Council. the statement OF expcndi-
lures prepared by the city Auditor is
an eloquent argument against dallying
further with IL structure which is no
longer equal To the traffic demands Of
the twin cities. y drastic reconstruct
plans prepared by the city Engineer
would, in the opinion OF many. offer
only temporary relief. and would only
defer for eight or ten years the con
struction OF the new bridge, which
alone. IT is felt, will solve the problem.
Although the Finance Committee has
recommended an additional appropria-
ton OF si.SG0 to enable the Admins
trativc BOARD 10 award $4,000 re-
construction contract to II. l. Matthews.
II is extremely doubtful If the Coun-
ell will give the measure its approval.
In the Finance Committee itself there
was a sharp division of opinion. and
by n divided vote
The engineering authorities OF the
City Engineer lioll!ng-have clearly cx-
pressed their belief that the cxpcndi-
turc OF II. large sum of money. for re-
undesira bile. Both of them favor a rc-
enforcement viii ch will make the bridge
safe for several years to come. holding
the belief that AN entirely new bridge
Is Inevitable:
LEAVE NARROW ROADWAY.
y reconstruction Of eight spans of
the bridge, as provided for in tho
Matthews bid. it is pointed out. would
still leave the bridge only thirty feet
wide. 1t would produce n patched
structure. in which eight spans would
be practically new and good for an
indefinitely long service. while five
spans would he old and different from
the rest OF the bridge in appearance
and structure.
These and other considerations. since
the bridge agitation has been In prog
ress, have had the effect of cooling the
Councils enthusiasm for an extensive
reconstruction of the Frtec Bridge. and
Il distinct tendency to cOnfne repairs
to what is strictly necessary to insure
safety Is noticeable. Council leaders
predict that no additional appropria-
ton will be made. The Administrative
Board. OF course. has at It's disposal
$4,000. which 1t has the power to spend
In any way 1t chooses on the repair OF
the bridge.