RE WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 65, 17 March 1915, Page 7

RE WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

(To the-Editor.> Sir, —I think one or two things are quite clear. First—Auckland's most imperative public need ie railway accommodation. In a year or two our whole export trade by which we live, will be choked for tbe want of railway facilities. Second: Mr.'Hiley's waterfront scheme is the only feasible way out. It ig true a few objectors at Judge's Bay have brought forward Mr. Metcalfe's tunnel scheme as an alternative. This tunnel will be 3D chains in length—more than double the length of that present horror the Parnell tunnel. Unfortunately for •Mr. Metcalfe, no engineer or railway man of any repute can be found to support hig sclieme. He is* hopelessly wrong. For he has failed to study or grasp the special railway problem "that must be solved in Auckland. ' His tunnel simply won't fit it. Even Mr. Ashley Hunter and Mr. Munr'o Wilson—who were expected to bless Mr. Metcalfe's tunnel —absolutely condemn it as impracticable. I am riot surprised at this. For over two months, assisted by expert engineering advice, I wrestled with this | very question. Three different tunnel proposals were considered, but not one of them wag fourid workable. Person- | ally I strove hard to avoid touching 'Campbell's Point at all. but irl the end I was compelled to the conclusion that I there was no other way out. The only 'possible alternative, to my mind, is to place the railway station outside the city—either at Newmarket or Hobson's Bay, and this would involve so much expense and difficulty in handling passengers and goods as to make the idea unthinkable. Again, there are many sound reasons against keeping the station on its present site. May I correct one or two wildly inaccurate statements? Judge's Bay is not to be used as a " marshalling ground.'" The whole bav —15 acres in extent inside the railway — has been given to the City Council, and not a single truck will ever be put on it. Mr. Metcalfe says the Government will never put the railway on piles. My reply is that 1 liavp Mr. Hiley's cxptcss undertaking to do so should the City Council request it. We are told, in the proposed petition to Mr. Massey that Point Resolution is to be cut down and the baths destroyed. This statement is an absolute fabrication, and T hope no citizen will put his name nt the foot of it. As for Campbell's Cape, the outer Dortion must certainly go. if Mr. Hilev's schemp be carried out. In Mr. Pearson's capable hands, however. T believe the Campbell Point, hy suitable terracing, will be made to look a great deal more attractive than it does to-day. Finally, the point for all of us is that Auckland needs a big railway scheme, even more than a bay for a few yachts. Ip to the present no one can pToduce a better scheme than Mr. Hilev's. and the obvious moral is that even if we must make a little sacrifice, our largpr interests dictate its acceptance.—l am. etc., C. J. PAK'R. (To the Editor.) Sir. —Many of my friends, in addition to myself, are anxious to add our weight to your protest against the poliation of Campbell's Point and Judge's Bay. etc. You say that petitions are being signed in connection with this, but you do not say where they arc to be found. Please enlighten us. and if small sheets were issued I believe many people would circulate them among their friends. In connection with this scheme. I would like to add that, unless Mr. Gtinson sets his face against this vandalism, a great , many of us will certainly vote against him. —I am. etc.. I AN OLD AUCKLANDER. ' (To the Editor.) Sir.—The public of Auckland should feel indebted to you for drawing atten- ' (tion to the spoiling of onr harbour frontages, and I am pleased to see the article by Mr. Metcalfe, which T sincerely trust i will help to waken up the public before it is too late. You have proved there is | another way, and an equally good, if not I better one. Lot us to work at once and call a public meeting. Where is our"one and only Albert Edward? the man to fill the gap. Let him once get on the warpath, and things will happen. Have we forgotten how he saved our Government House? Surely this bigger question awaits him.—l am, etc., Q. (To the Editor.) Sir, —The "Star" readeT of Friday and the article appearing in Saturday's issue re the proposed destruction of Campbell's | Point demand the attention of every Auckland citizen who feels the smallest .degree of pride in this city. German vaindalism and disregard of citizen rights and property has filled us with 'horror, .and while our eyes have been turned on | the devastation of Belgium, the most audacious and merciless scheme for I devastating Auckh\ndV> beautiful waterI front has been consummated in our very midst. Had it not been for the prei occupation of Aiieklamders in the affairs lof war this matter could never have gone so far as it has without protest. | Mr. (Unison Vilks about Campbell's Point I being beautified. »ml great transformations being effected by the new railway ischeme. Who wants CampbeH's Point beairtitied? What need for any transformation? Is not this historic und beautiful hcadhimd. beloved by every citizen who knows the first thing about civic pride, quite sufficiently licautiful as it i«? Nature gave us lovely beaches and grassy cliff-tops long before Mr. HSey offered us mud and iron! It presumably doesn't matter particutorly to either Railway Department or I Harbour Board that people should naturally prefer God's- gifts to Mr. Hiley's, but the time has evidently come I when nothing but immediate and eonIcerted action on the part 'of Aucklanders wiH avail to save this laßt remaining I headland and beach on owr eastern shore. To talk about beach arid beauty being preserved and enhanced by tlris scheme is I simply inept twaddle. What beauty can there be in a beach bounded by a towering mud-Hank-, what «a.fety for yachtsmen or Ixithens where tlie tide-Tip. sw'.riing through an arched vent, will carry everything before it? The alternative route, a plum of which was published hi your Friday's issue, offers the same advantages while still preserving our heritage of waterfront, and the suggestion of the Mayor of Newmarket that a conI feirenee should be held and the Government approached before it is too late, would doubtless bring to light a point | that neither Harbour Board nor Railway Department has bothered about, namely. that when men set to work in earnest to find an alternative, it can generally be found. Hitherto, no -attempt whatever has been made to find a-ny other outlet, and the people of Auckland have -simply been gulled into believing that there was no other, and that the growth and prosperity of the city depended solely on this ruthless destruction of citizen rights wid property.

Admittedly a few ■Qtoauatdi tans of clay and a few thousand galkmß of clean ' blue water have no market value, and it is only sentiment that is at last finding voice to cry aloud against their permanent destruction, but the only truly worth-while things to the world are those born of sentiment, and these things are without money and without price, not to be bartered away for gold or Bilver. mud or worn, or any other ' industrial commodity. —I am, etc., CTVTC PRIDE. (To the Editor.) .Sir, —in the interest of all Aucklanders —present and future generations—it is to be sincerely hoped that the anticipated spoliation and destruction of one of the most beautiful harbours in the world will b e prevented. If your recent articles, and also the opinion of one of our most reliable engineers as to the feasibility of another Toute which will leave intact the wondrous beauty of our harbour and headlands, be neglected, and the already commenced work of destruction be proceeded With, pending a full inquiry- into the alternative route suggested, the memory of those responsible for such criminal neglect of the city's iaterestg will truly he execrated by future generations ot Ancklaiiders, when the 16ss is fully realised! afid the damage done will have become irretrievable. Our worthy Mayor may have done much ■to secure park arias for the city, but whatever credit it accruing to him on this account will assuredly be far outweighed by the'blame attaching to him should th e present scandalous scheme be persisted in. How many votes would Have been recorded for the purchase of tlie Gillies Estate, at the figure paid, had ■it been known that the destruction of Judge's Bay and the adjoining headlands I was to follow? Very few. indeed. We 'all know the enormous sums expended !at Home in beautifying coastal towns, and here, where Nature has b?en so bounteous in her gifts, they are to be spurned and ruthlessly destroyed. Immediate steps should undoubtedly be taken to prevent another shovel full of soil being removed from Campbell's 1 Point until the whole matter has been I thoroughly thrashed out. and if anyalternative scheme is found feasible the extra cost would truly have to be enormI ous before it should be turned down in favour of the present scheme, with its attendant vandalism, desecration and utter disregard of one of the finest stretches of harbour and coastal <rrantdeur forming the approach to any city in the world. The deplorable manner ia which the public is being smiled, and the I endeavours to rush the matter througn i without due consideration of the im- | mensp sacrifice entailed says little for I the wisdom or foresight of those responsible.—T am. etc.. HERBERT G. MILBURX.