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

j BtI Hd. IT, ~ tliuSIS 10 ieti &C, FO-SJ.
Same, Pier 4. 1888. ..,#
| Havana, Cuba, Pier No. 2. supported
on reinforced concrete piles: deck
live load $50 lbs. per SO. f., 1885.
San Francisco, CAL. Pier Is, cylin.
ders spaced 15'x16' &C, 1920.
Same. Pier &c. $3.l6.
Same, Piers 80 and 32, $2.52.
Same, Pier 80. $357.
| 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. it 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. ....: -
| 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 incon-
yenient 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 In The
Survey" for February "a, 1917, p. 609,
as follows: II. W..
"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 1856, 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"
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
controversy with Charles R. Forbes
over this matter. 1t is evident that
the manner in which Mr.. Forbes ap-
proaches 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
consideration of the main features Of
the plan. In our previous report on
the work on piers s, 9 and 10 we earn
estly endeavored to offer constructive
criticism, and we carefully avoided
anything which might be considered
as a direct criticism Of Mr. Forbes,
The way in which he attacked our re-.
port on the evening of March 6 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-
ceiyed by him in an unprejudiced
spirit.
We doubt whether. Mr.. Forbes is
capable of calmly and dispassionately
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
ayowedly his own plan, developed and
presented by him, and for which he
accepts the responsibility. Under these
circumstances we decliEe to enter into
any controversy in which we should
render ourselves liable to the yitu-
perative 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-adyised. In
an article In the Engineering News OF
May Is, 1905, page s511, 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 |
ing civil engineer OF New York, the
following assumptions are given as
the result of their experience:
Weight Of riprap in air, 107 lbs. per
cubic foot.
Weight of riprap submerged, 20 lbs.
per cubic foot.
Earth filling in air, 10 lbs. per
cubic foot.
Earth filling submerged, sc lbs. per
cubic foot.
"Surcharge tive load, 1000 lbs. per
cubic foot of surface"
Mr.. Forbes has assumed that sub
merged earth weighs only 35 lbs per
cubic foot Our investigation caused
us to use 65. lbs. per cubic foot for
this type of fill.
AS citizens, property owners and
taxpayers of this territory, We feel
that it is right and due to the public
that we should state that it is our
firm conviction, based on our examin-
alton of the plans and specifications
of Piers s, and 10, which were pre-
pared under Mr.. Forbes direction and
which received his approval; also on
his sketch and estimate of his pro-
posed "deek-slab anchorage" scheme;
also on his statements regarding the
reason for approving the design Of and
for an anchorage which
his own statements lead us to believe
he did not intend to allow to be built;
also on the fact that he permitted, or
at least did not prevent, the excaya-
ton Of a conrDact and massive EN-.
bankmept on the outer face of the
bulkhead walls of piers and that