Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-15

Il on reinforced concrete pies. deck
live load $50 lbs. per SO. IT,. $335.
4 San Francisco. Cal. Pier IS, eylin,
ders spaced l5'xl6' &C, 1920.
Same. Pier 26. s3I6. .=
Same. Piers 30 and 80, $3.50.
Same. Pier 90. 1851. ~...: =.
I While the piles proposed to be used
by Mr.. Forbes may be shorter than
those used at Havana, or more cheap
/ ly placed than the cylinders used at
other places, il Is to be remembered
| that the structures above mentioned
were built when the prices of rein
/ forced concrete materials were low,
compared with those current at the
present time. -. e-.>.
We are also of the opinion that the
plan suggested by Mr.. Forbes pre-
sents grave possibilities from the pub.
lie health viewpoint. A large empty
space of about one acre in area. en-.
closed on top, bottom and sides by
concrete and earth. dark and ircon
penient of access to human beings,
would afford an ideal refuge for rats,
which are becoming more and more
widely recognized as carriers Of di
sease We find statement i'm The
Survey" for February "a, 1917. p. 609,
as follows: -. - -
"A bill has been presented to the
Massachusetts, legislature requiring
that all new buildings along the wa
terfront Of Boston be made rat-proof
as well as fireproof This bill is the
result of an eldeavor to rid the city
OF its annual expense of 81 $751;, 900 for
the support of rats, which, as was
suggested last summer, might carry
infection of poliomyelitis,' and have
been proved to carry infection of bu-
bonic plague" ..--.--s*
1t is hardly necessary for us to dwell
further on this phase of the matter
We have no desire, either as COM
mittee or as individuals, to enter into
a controversy with Charles r. Forbes
over this matter 1t is evident that
the manner in which Mr.. Forbes ap-
breaches project of the magnitude of
the one under discussion is so radical.
ly different from any method which
any one of US would pursue, that it is
highly improbable that we, either as a
committee or as individuals, could ar.
rive at any common basis with him,
from which we might proceed to a
consideration of the main features of
the plan. In our previous report on
the work on piers s, 8 and 10 we earn
estly endeavored to offer constructive
criticism, and we carefully avoided
anything which might be considered
as direct criticism of Mr.. Forbes.
The way in which he attacked our re-
port on the evening of March s was
so hostile and antagonistic that we
have no reason to suppose that any
other report from us, which does not
support his contentious, would be re-
ceived by him in an unprecedented
spirit.
We doubt whether Mr.. Forbes is /
capable of calmly and dispassionatelyl
weighing in his mind the merits Of two
schemes, one his own, and the other |
originating with some one else. The |
plan proposed now by Mr.. Forbes is |
avowedly his own plan, developed and
presented by him, and for which he
accepts the responsibility. Under these
We decline to enter into
any controversy in which we should
render ourselves liable to the vitu-
peratiye verbal attacks which unfort-
unately seem to be characteristic OF
Mr. Forbes conduct toward those with
whom he does not agree.
His assumption as to weight of sub
merged fill we consider ill-advised. In
an article In the Engineering News of
May Is, 1905, page Sill, vol. SO, on
Pier and Bulkhead Construction in
New York Harbor,'' by ]. A. Bensel,
chief engineer, department docks and
ferries, New York city, past president
A. S. C. E., and D. C. Serber. consult
ng civil engineer Of New York, the
following assumptions are given as
he result of their experience:
Weight of riprap in air, 107 lbs. per
cubic foot.
Weight of riprap submerged, 20 Tbs.
)er cubic foot.
Earth filling in air, 10 lbs. per
.ubic foot
Earth filling submerged, &c lbs. per
cubic foot.
"Surcharge live load, 1000 lbs. per
cubic foot of surface"
Mr.. Forbes has assumed that sub
ucTSeu cdIln weighs Only % iDo pei
:ubic foot Our investigation caused
Is to use 65 lbs. Fer cubic foot for
his type of fill.
AS citizens, property owners and
axpayers of this territory, we feel
hat it is right and due to the public
hat We should state that it is our |
irm conviction, based on our examin-
ton of the plans and specifications
# Piers s, and 10, which were pre- {
AIRED under Mr.. Forbes direction and
which received his approval; also on
is sketch and estimate of his pro-
osed "deck-slab anchorage" scheme;
lso on his statements regarding the
eason for approving the design Of and {
for an anchorage which
is own statements lead US to believe
e did not intend to allow to be built:
lso on the fact that he permitted, or
t least did not prevent, the excaya-
ion Of a contact and massive en- !,
ankment on the outer face of the
walls of piers S and 9 that
ormed a natural bulWark of strength =
Dr. the support of these walls; also on
ne fact that he permitted, or at least