TIME TO WAKE UP.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 64, 16 March 1915, Page 6

TIME TO WAKE UP.

WHAT GOVERNMENT IS DOING

ON OUR EASTERN WATER FRONT. BAYS AND HEADLANDS TO DISAPPEAR OVER A DISTANCE OF THREE MILES. OPINIONS OF EXPERT ENGINEERS. PETITION OF PROTEST.

Opinions expressed by leading Auckland engineers, who have seriously studied the Railway Department's plans for a waterfront railway, make almost startling reading. One well-known engineer, interviewed this morning, while supporting tbe Government scheme, actually declared that tbe destruction of headlands aud bays for two or three miles along the waterfront cast of Mechanics' Bay was inevitable. The Mayor of Auckland yesterday stated tbait all the city's interests were being well safeguarded, and that all other beauty spots would remain intact. Meantime the band of the spoiler has already made its mark. Campbell's Point has been attacked, and hundreds of tons of earth brought down. What further devastation will be wrought is referred to in the following interviews by men well qualified to speak. "SOOTHING, BUT .** "The Mayor's opinions are very soothing," said Mr. 11. H. Metcalfe, one of the Dominion's best known civil engineers. "First we were told that Judge's Bay would be preserved intact by the erection of sluice gates in a railway embankment, running from Campbell's Point to Point Resolution. Then it was going to be converted into a boat harbour. Next, it was to be a nice green park, and now we arc going to have a bridge of ferroconcrete. This promise from the Mayor indicates that money simply doesn't matter. The Government is prepared to spend nearly a-quarter of a million on a bridge across Judge's Bay. From point to point it would be 1400 ft in length, and the plans provide that tbe rails and esplanade shall be 200 ft wide. A bridge 1400 ft long and 200 ft wide would cost approximately £250,000. The public must judge whether Mr. Parr seriously believes that the Government will do this. I think that with continued practice you can believe all things. But Air. Parr can take it from mo that bhe Government has not tho remotest idea of building a bridge across Judge's Bay. The Bay is one of their chief aims—it is their Naboth's vineyard. To attempt to deny it is simply stupid. Their own plana clearly show six lines of rails, two of which, marked "shunting legs," run into Judge's Bay, and there is not the slightest doubt that that area is intended for reclamation and conversion into a site for unsightly goods sheds and shunting yards. In any case, with a bridge such aa that the Mayor talks about, the mud would accumulate in the bay faster than they could dig it out, so that the bay would in any case be destroyed." WHEN FIGURES TALK. "As for the tunnel scheme," added Mr. Metcalfe, "there is. nothing impracticable about it. By taking the line through the hill from Stratford Street to Campbell Terrace, overlooking Hobson Bay, the whole of the threatened waterfront would be saved. As for the cost of the proposed tunnel, it would lie about eight times less than the cost of the Mayor's little bridge across Judge's Bay. It would be ideal country for tunnelling, and at an outside estimate would not involve a greater expenditure than £1000 per chain—a total cost of £30,000 for 30 chains. Tho plan published in the "Star" involved a rise in the tunnel of 20ft. That could be reduced to any extent desired. The suggestion that it would entail too great a sweep out of the railway yards in Mechanics' Bay is not a sound one. The point of connection could be altered ■without any bother, so as to take in the whole of the Mechanics' Bay area, and the angTe would not be greater than some of those contained in tbe existing plan for a "waterfront railway. I say, unhesitatingly, that the tunnel scheme is practicable and inexpensive, and that unless it is adopted, the Department will destroy Campbell's Point, Point Resolution, Judge's Bay, and other beauty Bpots along the eastern waterfront." DESTRUCTION INEVITABLE. Mr. H. Munro Wilson, C.E., while preferring not to commit himself upon tbe matter of either the waterfront or alternative route, said there was not the shadow of a doubt that if the waterfront scheme was proceeded with all the headlands, bays, and beaches from Mechanic's Bay to Wilson's Point would go. The headlands would be required for fillings, and the enclosure of the bays would mean their destruction. That was inevitable. WILL THE PUBLIC MAKE THE SACRIFICE?

"It is a pity to have to say it, but obviously the small bays, as well as the headlands, for two or three miles along the Auckland waterfront will have to go if the Railway Department's scheme is to bo carried out," remarked Mr. Ashley Hunter, C.E. "Personally, I am inclined to think there is no help for it. Tbe tunnel scheme would involve too sudden a sweep out of the railway yards, and the acute angle is against it. Auckland is destined to be by far the biggest city in New Zealand, and adequate railway accommodation is an imperative necessity. From the Railway Department's point of view, the waterfront route is the only one to be considered. There is not the slightest doubt that, as Mr. Metcalfe says, the Department wants room for shunting yards, and Mint all the small bays for a distance of two or three miles will dieap- [ pear. The sacrifice is one I am afraid public yjU hare to w*k_" _. J , i . ,

AN IMPORTANT SUGGESTION. Mr. F. E. Powell, C.E., is strongly of j opinion that the question of tbe new ' railway route should not be proceeded with until tbe public has had time to realise what is involved. "In the first place," remarked Mr. Powell, "it is surely a Host serious matter to shift tbe passenger station lialf-a-mile further away than it is at present. The time thus lost per annum by railway users! will be enormous. This can be overcome by keeping the station where it is., nnd raising it, say, 20ft. above road level. The whole width is then available for rails and platforms, with trices and road space down below. This would serve for many n long day. Another advantage is that the grade to the Parnell tunnel would be nt once improved, and the Breakwater Road would pass under the railway. If the 'Star' scheme were adopted, a station in the tunnel, like the 'tube* railways at Home would serve a, lnrgc part of Parnell." CAUSTIC CRITICISM. In regard to the controversy over the Department's scheme for n waterfront railway, Mr. Powell asks: "Why were the plans for this work not advertised open for inspection, as all Harbour Roard reclamation plans have to be? What is the value of Mr. Gunson's assurance that nil public interests artbeing preserved, while nt the very time the cliff is being cut down ? Can the public not be made to see the danger of letting two or three men decide what is good for us without consulting us? The whole thing is looked ut from the point of 'business,' but if that is the only point of view, then the Germans are right in demolishing ancient cathedrals, as the sites will probably pay better as building sites. It is comical to read tbe criticisms of Mr. Metcalfe's remarks. It is safe to say he knows more about tbe matter from every point of view than tho Mayor. A.H.B. chairman, and Railway Manager combined." A PETITION OF PROTEST. Petitions are now out. and are being largely signed, protesting against the continuation ot this work. The wording of the petition is as follows:—"To the lit. 'Honourable tho Prime Minister, W. F. Massey, Esq., P.C. Wellington.— The petition of the undersigned residents of the city and suburbs of Auckland sbeweth: — 1. That the construction of a railway as now proposed by the Railway Department, extending alone the foreshore of the Waitemnta Harbour, will cause serious los 8 and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the said city and its suburbs inasmuch as: —

(a) The whole of the present foreshore from the Kings wharf to tbe eastern side of Hobson Bay will be effaced.

(b) The said inhabitants will be deprived of tbe uses and benefits of the only beaches easily accessible to them at the eastern end of the said city.

(c) The recreations of a large number of the inhabitants will be seriously interfered with, since—Firstly, the publio swimming baths recently completed at Point Resolution will be destroyed. Secondly, the effacement of the foreshore will destroy the only safe and convenient shelter on the southern side of the said harbour for pleasure yachts and launches, of which there are a largo number moored in the bays to be destroyed. Thirdly, the sites of the two rowing clubs, each having a large membership, will be lost, and there will be no other suitable sites for the clubs accessible to the members.

(d) The natural beauty of the sa'.d Harbour is one of Auckland's greatest attractions, and this will be greatly marred by th,. construction of the said proposed railway since the contour of foreshore will bo destroyed, and Campbell's 'Point and Point Resolution will also be partially destroyed.'

(c) With the object of preserving the natural beauty of the said Harbour, aid! obtaining for themselves the use of -th-? foreshores, the inhabitants of the said city have expended large sums of money in acquiring, in the locality- of the said proposed railway, properties with harbour frontages. These frontages will be destroyed by the said proposed railway, and many public parks and reserves will be considerably depreciated in value and in their natural attractiveness will bo greatly decreased.

2. There, are other routes by which proposed railway mijrht be taken nt no greater cost of construction, and without in any way infringing upon the convenience of the said inhabitants or causing them any loss, and such other routes would be equally suit-able for thp purposes of tbe Railway Department.

Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the work of construction on the 6aid proposed railway be immediately stopped and that the proposals in connection with the railway be reconsidered.