THE OTHER STORY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 68, 20 March 1915, Page 9

THE OTHER STORY.

. :~ S IS" TKERfi ANQTHER "WAY ? PEACTICAELE SCHEME. . FOR Asf INQUIRY. ■-.- _ 'r"Many statements have been made-'>--concerning the waterfront railway agi-~-;-tation,"_ declared Mr. Metcalfe this 5 "but no one appears- to have *-';■ .attempted to deal, with the .'.real- poiiit ■ The Government propoees to a Jievr railway outlet along the : . v tfaterfront, destroyrag _afl bajs and - ; =-leaSilands betvwien the Tailway station ■;V and Wikon's Point, at. Orakei. Peti- -_: -tjoiis have been circulated, and are being 2' -aumerouslv signed, asking, the Govern- ~; ment to stay the destruction of Camp- •"" IJell's Point, now in progress,- Awhile the _"■ of alternative -routes is being What possible objection -.=-can-there be to such an inquiry? Surely, _;-- it-tke-same object can ber.-achieved by. _: rnqning a half-mile tunnel on a level "p: grade under the hill from the Mechanics' ; ; Bay side into Hobson Bay on the o.ther, .J,.'" caving intervening bays and head-. ■£~*% H will be worth -while do ing, so-j

m a recent issue of the "Star," is in ■^ er^J.T a? - Pr^tiea ' bK Objection has peen. taken on the ground that-it would involve too' 6aafp.~a.--isnrve from the ?rauway, reclama±io» -into, the- tunnel, lhere ie no justification for that assertion, but in any-case another plan couldvery, easily be devised for running the" ime into a tunnel without any curve at ;aIL, .or. at the Tnostwith, but,» elight flat •carve. This could be fol•iowing a tunnel- route about on the line •with -Bridgewater, HoaAi 'The scheme would involve a short > tunnel- under triadstone Soed, coming out. into the igully-above Judge's and then entering another •short ..tunrfeL running' under; Gillies-Parkland coming-out in iHofeonj ißay, THese two. shoxt tunnels ■would-be""easy' of- construction, would •inverVe practically no-curve, and would oost.iless, to conetsuct Qjan -would the railway rouSd-the waterfront. ■ A tunnel ■wide enough, i o carry- foa r lines;, of rails, on-almost a level grade, Vonld involve f°_, aapleasantnese, ■ and wouH take Ittttle- mere than'- ia minute to As stated in last nights. '« h ?,% dne y-people absolutely retoed to aßow the HiribuTTrnstto re-cfemi-or-build-embaaimente across any. of *he-nnmeroua.*ays afrout the Sydney, waterfront Surely. .Auckland residents shouH-at leaatsee the justification of a Teqoest that We ehoirld: have a full iqoiry jnto alternative routes before our eastern, waterfront iaidestroyed. It is ■sigaiftcant - -that "*fiile engineering authorities may differ upon the question of r.oute, no one attenigts to deny that bays -and headlands''would inevitably disjiappear. 1 can only repeat that I coneider: it io simply stupid to attempt to deny that, the .Railway' Department's scheme will mean the immediate destruc,tion...of Ckinpiiell Point, Point Resolution,; St. "<Je6rge's Bay, and Judge's Bay. "The Railway-Department, moreoverpro- r!.poses that the line shalj run across fromPoint Resolution to Wilson's' Point, leaving a vast area' In Hobson Bay to be reclanned.. This reclamation., would take at the very least ten .years to ac : cqniplish,. during which time the fesi--dents- of that p?Lrf o" Remuera would find themselves.-possessed of.an offenave smelling area of hundreds-«f acres, constitnting .an . absolute If one of jthe alternative plans is followed, the fine--would run across- Hbbson Bay alongade the. present sewage tunnel, and- the smaller area -would be nruch more speedily -reclaimed. The"< Railway .Department undoubtedly requires these -bays for shunting yards. Their plans clearly show that, and two lines c-f rails imarked "shunting legs".- abruptly end at Judge's Bay. .The -Department should be compelled to do-here; however, as was. done "iff Sydney,-where the shunting yards and sheds were removed 15 miles out' at Glanville. The whole point at 'issue -is whether.. these alternative schemes should not be considered. If the eastern waterfront can-be saved,.and a new railway outlet* in every way just as good, provided, why not at least consider the matter?"