NEW RAILWAY OUTLET

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 67, 19 March 1915, Page 6

NEW RAILWAY OUTLET

WHICH IS THE BEST WAY? TWO THOUSAND PETITIONERS FAVOUR PRESERVATION OF WATERFRONT. DEPUTATION TO MINISTER TO ASK RECONSIDERATION. Some two thousand signatures have already been attached to the petition asking the Government to cease work on the destruction of Campbell's Point, as part of the waterfront railway scheme, until the question of an alternative route han been considered. An attempt ha* been made' to mislead the public in regard to the object of the petition. A new railway outlet is admitted by everyone to be absolutely essential. The point at issue is whether tliere is any need, in gaining this outlet, to destroy every Ikiv an,| headland between Quay Street and Wilson's IPoint at Orakei. Mr. 11. •If. Metcalfe, who rank** amongst the leading civil engineers of the Dominion. t-tiites that a cheaper and more effectual route may be followed br running a tunnel, less than half a mile long, and almost level, from the Mechanic's Bay side of Parnell into Hobson Bay. This tunnel, big enough to accommodate four lines of rails, and with only grade enough to ensure proper drainage, would be well ventilated, unobjectionable, and only entail some sixty seconds in negotiation. It would, moreover, only represent a cost of C 30.000. as against in estimated expenditure of a quarter of a million sterling on one small section of the waterfront line—the proposed ferroconcrete bridge across Judge's Bay. between' Campbell's Point and Point Resolution. Tlie aim of the petition is solely to have the question of the alternative route considered. With this object in view a deputation proceeds to Wellington on Monday night to present the petition to the Minister of Railways, while a deputation will also be organised to wait on Mr. "Robert Rums and ask him to call a public meeting for the purpose suggested br Mr. A. M. Mvers. M.P. Today the petition to Parliament was exhibited in the Victoria Arcade, and was largely signed. DUNEDIN AN* TLLCSTRATTON. The persistonev with which it is maintained that to carry a railway embankment across the front of Judge's Bay will not detrimentally affect the bay breaks down under the weight of evidence of what has happened elsewhere in similar circumstances. Many residents of Auckland are familiar with the i numberless bays that fret tbe shore of | Otago Harbour, along the eight mileg or |so between Port Chalmers and Dunedin. Formerly wooded almost to the water's edge, the beauty of their natural configuration was considerably enhanced by the fact that the waters of the harbour swept oter pebbly and sandy beachet* to their verr feet. The railway line from Dunedin to Port Chalmers, however, followed the water's edge, and cut across on trestle bridges and embankments containing sluiceways, the short est route from point to point along the shore. Tlie result to-day is that these bays are now inlets al«ost invariably covered with a coating of silt and stagnant slime. The landward surroundings are still fair to see. though now treeless for the mo-t part, but the lagoons which used to be nebblv hays are now stagnant an ( | offensive smelling. " UNNECESSARY AND UNWARRANTED." The .Mayor (Mr. C. J. Parr) and the Chairman of the Harbour Board (Mr. J. 11. Gunson) both continue to maintain that the waterfront scheme is the only one. "Agitators suggest a public meeting as a remedy," declares the .Mayor, "but imagine a public meeting wrestling with the technical details of a complicated railway scheme! A further notion put forward is to have ten men elected to revise the work done by the Government and the local authorities. But suppose twenty men are nominated, by what machinery are those thousands gathered together in public assembly to take a ballot? Of course, an easy way would be to rig a ticket of ten men with accommodating views beforehand, but this would be scarcely a fair way to test the issue." Mr. Gunson, in referring to this matter, has remarked: "On all grounds I would join with the Mayor, and ask that the petition be not signed. Whether there is a difference or not, one thing is essential, and that is that the facts should be known, and . the opposition based upon a correct knowledge of the circumstances and likely results. The suggestion that a citizens' committee should consider the matter is, to my mind, wholly unnecessary, and not warranted in any way." ! " MR. MYERS INSISTENT. Mr. Arthur M. Myers. M.P., on being | further interviewed this morning with ' regard to the proposed waterfront railway, said it was evident there was some misconception as to the actual position. The Mayor, of the Harbour Board, General • Manager of Railways, after going exhaustively into details, had adopted a certain scheme. Mr. Myers said he had had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Hiley's proposals, and could state without any hesitation that, in view of the necessity of a comprehensive scheme of railway improvements for Auckland, he entirely endorsed them, even although it might mean the alteration of a portion oi the waterfront—always provided, of course, that there was no equally satisfactory alternative scheme which would preserve the natural beauty of our hnrhour front. A number of representative citizens claimed that there was such an alternative scheme, and a petition to this effect was being largely signed. If this petition were proceeded with considerable delay would probably occur, and it was with a view to facilitating matters that he (Mr. Myers) had suggested the holding of a public meeting, at which ten representative men could be appointed to examine all the details available. He believed that this could be done* in one or two sittings, and that the decision of the majority of the members of the proposed committee would be acceptable to the general public of Auckland. It was. of course, not necessary | that the conclusions arrived at by the committee should be unanimous. ; Mr. Myers stated that he was still-of

opinion, in view of the opposition to the present scheme, that the most satis factory method of expediting matters would he to adopt the course he had suggested. ANOTHER EX-MINISTERS VIEW. The Hon. .1. A. Millar (ex-Minister for Railways) also believes that the suggested inquiry into the alternative route is worthy of consideration. "I naturally prefer not to attempt to discuss the relative merits of the two routes," said Mr. Millar, "for to do so one first needs to be thoroughly acquainted with all the circumstances. The waterfront scheme was under consideration when I was in oflice. hut we decided to duplicate the present ' Parnell tunnel, and that, of course, will lie sufficient to cope with Auckland's traffic for many years. The arrangement I whereby the Doi-artment has obtained 30 acres in Mechanics Bay for goods sheds and shunting yards should also be suflicient for all present requirements, particularly whvn one remembers with what a remarkably small amount of space they were able to manage in the big towns of the Old Country. It is the policy of the Department not to build on a curve that docs not command a fifteen chain sweep, and this may constitute one objection to the proposed alternative tunnel scheme. But if the required approach can be secured, and the tunnel is on an easy grade through good country, it is a .scheme worth considering. Certainty no | one should object to an inquiry into the question of which route is best." AUTHOR OF THE SCHEME. The Hon. E. MitchcUon, late chairman of the Harbour Board and an oxMinister for Public Works, contends that while the alternative scheme may lie worthy of consideration the waterfront scheme provides the Ix-st railwayoutlet from the city. The scheme was first introduced by him in 1887. and provided for a line round the waterfront, connecting with the main line at Penrose. Auckland's railway requirements were so great, and the province was developing so rapidly, that he thought the benefits accruing Trom the waterfront route would outweigh the. loss of .fudge's Bay, while Hobson Bay. reclaimed, would serve a useful purpose in providing accommodation for railway sheds and yards. CIVIC LEAGUE'S PROMPT ACTION. The Auckland Civic League is taking prompt action in regard to the proposed i destruction of the liays and beaches along the eastern waterfront ; and has asked the Mayor, as chairman of the j Town Planning Association, to call a meeting of that body, with a view to holding a public meeting. The letter ii signed by Mrs. F. E. Baume, president, and Miss Monu Maekay. secretary, and reads as follows:—"The Civic league i< much interested in the question that has arisen as to the new railway proposed to be built round the eastern harbour front in Auckland. In common with a large number of citizens, the League deplores the destruction that will result t<> one of the chief beauties of the city if the scheme proposed is carried out in its present form. The League's object in writing lo you is to | ask you, as chairman of the Town Planning Association, to call a meeting of that body at as early a date |as possible, with a view to arranging for a public meeting to be held to give the citizens an opportunity of expressing [ their opinion on this subject, which so deeply concerns the welfare of the whole city, present and future."