The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1915. THE WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 65, 17 March 1915, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1915. THE WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

a For tha earns that lack* atststanoa, For the wrong tliat needs resietamoe, For the future in the distance, And the good that we eon da.

lv an interview on the vexed question of the Waterfront railway, which appears in another column of this issue, Mr. A. M. Myers puts forward'a proposal which we hope will at once hear fruit in action. He' suggeste"fiiat''the Chamber of Commerce should, convene_apublic meeting to discuss Mr. Hiley's scheme, so far as it involves the destruction of rt'W*\>iJ«emaW : <Tlore§ftc i ; aiid 'that it should appomt a representative committee of public men to go into the matter, and take such, steps as may be necessary to safeguard the public interests and rights. This s?ems to us a thoroughly practicable and opportune proposal: indeed it is the first step yet taken to enable the people of Auckland to learn exactly what is going on in regard to the proposed spoliation of the harbour front. As our Teadere are aware, when it was suggested last year that the ; City Council should hand over Campbell's I'oint to the Harbour Hoard and the Harbour Board should simply demolish it and use it to, till in reclamations, the scheme aroused 60 vehement an outburst of public disapproval that it was promptly dropped; and as the Mayor amd the CityCouncil spoke strongly in defence of our harbour's natural beauty, and declared emphatically that they would not consent to such vandalism as this, the people of Auckland were lulled imito quietude, believing that the matter was settled and the foreshore was safe. But now it seems that the City Council and the Harbour Board, without consulting the city, have agreed with Mr. Hilcy on a scheme of railway construction that, seems to necessitate tire complete destruction of all the outstanding futures of the landscape along the harbour front for some miles eastward of the city, and it is high Dime, in our opinion, that pubdic feeling on this question should once more find means to express itself rigorously and decisively. I We have no desire to traverse ground that but we ( may point out that on the evidence ivo have submitted to our readers during the past week. Mr. Riley's scheme is calculated to do a great deal more to the waterfront than simply to deface and destroy Campbell's Point. Four oi the leading civil engineers in this <ity, two of whom approve of Mr Hiley's proposals, have stated publicly that his scheme, if carried into effect, vouil involve the destruction of every bay and headland along this side of th:; Waitemata for three miles eastward of the city. If these bays arc to be filled in, | it is obvious that the material can be obtained only by cutting down the headlands, and co the railway will trim the vaunted Waitemata shore into a neat straight line, with every sign ot natural beauty, and every feature that now so picturesquely diversifies the landscape obliterated for ever. The Mayor, in a letter which appears elsewhere, in- this issue, maintains that Judge's Bay will be preserved as city propcrt3'. and that the railway works will not encroach upon it. If that is so, and if. as Mr. Parr assures us, not a single railway truck is ever to be put there, why does Mr. Hiley's plan show two shunting lines running down to Judge's- Bay and stopping there? The "New Zealand Herald," we observe, tells the people of Auckland that the City Council has the right to decide whether Judge's Bay shall be retained "as a sheltered boatharbour and beach resort," or reclaimed and converted into a recreation ground. We may point out that if a bridge or ! i viaduct is run across the mouth of the bay, as Mr. Hilcy seems to intend, it > i will -be useless for sailing boats and 'dangerous for bathers. But if the City I Council now claims the right to fill in the hay, what becomes of the argument by which the people of Auckland were induced to spend large sums of money in acquiring the Gillies estate—that it would -be a picturesque aj»proa«h*.to : the - finest tidal beach and bathing resort on this side ..of The City Council cannot haycit, both ways;, and, in any case we faij to see why. such an. important step as the destruction., of Judge's Bay and the surrender of the chief excuse for the existence of Gillies Park should be taken without ever putting the case clearly before the people . of Auckland and asking their, permission. Naturally . the supporters of Mr Hiley's scheme affect to treat the objections raised as essentially - trivial. Mr. Parr himself soys that it ie more important for Auckland to have a good railway exit than a bay for yachts, and our morning contemporary oheieTfuilly advises U6 to reconcile ourselves to "certain small sacrifices" for a great and permanent gain. We deny altogether that the sacrifice would be email. The irreparable destruction of statural beauty on such a scale ob this ie surely no trifle. The "New Zeal-ami Herald" tells us that the presence of several iraiilway lines along the sea front would "add greatly to it 6 beauty and distinction.'' How the demolition of Campbell's Point and the lillrng of Judg-es Bay are to be eompan&ited, a,esthctk'asiy speaking, by the dead line of a railway embankment with

the usual accompaniments of dust, smoke and uproar peculiar to railway traffic, we cannot as yet conceive. But this is entirely a matter of taste, and we have still to cpnsider other aspects of the case. Mr. Parr assumes that we cannot get the advantages that Mr. Hiley's new railway outlet offers us without losing our bays and headlands;'but is this so? The Mayor tells us that the tunnel project has been exhaustively discussed already, and he is convinced that it is impracticable. Against thi 8 w e must set the emphatic statement of Mr. H. Metcalfe, one of Auckland's most experienced and distinguished engineers, that the tunnel route is practicable and far less expensive than the bridge which will .he Tequired to carry the railway across Judge's Bay. Under the circumstances the people of Auckland have a rright to demand that Government shall take the-matter into its consideration, and that Operations shall be suspended till the subject has been more thor- ' "bughTy ventilated. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Munro Wilson and Mr. \Hiintej-, who accept Mr. Hiley's Scheme, are both convinced, like Mr. Metcalfe, that it means the absolute destruction of all th e coast features from Auckland eastward to Orakei. "There is not the slightest doubt." says Mr. Hunter, "that all the small bays for a distance of two or three miles will disappear." This may be "good business" from the point of view of the Harbour Board or the Railway Department, but we agree with Mr. Powell that in such matters something else has to be taken into account beside commercial profit, and w n trust that this view of the question will ultimately prevail.