"TROJAN HORSE."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 285, 2 December 1929, Page 9

"TROJAN HORSE."

STEED IN BACKGROUND. HARBOUR BRIDGE INQUIRY. CASE FOR ASSOCIATION. OUTLINED BY MR. FINLAY. "A Trojan horse organisation with a higH-sounding name," seems destined to play an important part in the Harbour Bridge Commission Inquiry. The description was used by Mr. G. P. Finlay, counsel for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association, in referring to the Waitemata Bridge Inquiry Protection Society. "No one, not even the oldest resident of the North Shore, has ever heard of that body," Mr. Finlay added. He remarked that the Devonport Ferry Co.'s offer to give all assistance in the inquiry, reminded one of the Ancient Greeks, who made a present of their famous horse filled with armed soldiers to the people of Troy. There was a Trojan horse in tho background, in the form of the apparently unknown body which was represented before the commission, he said. , In the early part of his address Mr. Finlay caused amusement in his reply to an interjection by Mr. Meredith, counsel for the AVaitemata Bridge Inquiry Protection Society, with the remark: "Tho Trojan horse has begun to wag his tail. No doubt we shall hear some more of him during the inquiry." . . The personnel of the Commission was:—Mr. J. Marchbanks, engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board (chairman); Mr. F. W. Furkert, Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department and Captain C. McDonald, retired master mariner,, of Dunedin. Counsel representing the interests of various bodies were: Mr. McVeagh for Auckland Harbour Board; Mr. G. P. Finlay, for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association; Messrs. E. H. Northcroft and L. Alderton, for the Devonport Ferry Co, Mr. V. R. Meredith, Waitemata Bridge Inquiry Protection Association; Mr. Richmond, for the Colonial Sugar Co. and Mr. H. George, for the North Shore Borough Council. More than two weeks hav-j elapsed since the commission held It? opening sitting. On resuming to-day the chairman said the Harbour Bridge Association would be asked to present its case first. Mr. Richmond asked permission to submit evidence by the Colonial Sugar Company, which was concerned, he said, about the height of the bridge. A clearance of 112 ft was required by the company's largest steamer and slightly in excess of that might be required for chartered vessels. Sufficient clearance should be provided under the proposed bridge for all vessels proceeding to Chelsea or returning from there at mean high water spring tide, eaid James Newell, manager of the Colonial Sugar Company, the first witness, who submitted a statement showing that there had been thirty-five berthings in the last financial year and the dues paid to the Auckland Harbour Board in the eanie period amounted to £14,592. The company owned two largo steamers and occasionally chartered vessels overseas that might require still greater clearance.

Sources of Opposition. The conservative mind of the community was the source of opposition to the harbour bridge scheme, said Mr. Finlay. Also there was the natural opposition of vested interests. The Auckland Harbour Bridge Association itself'represented no interests. It may, by the concentration of its attention, have become a little self-centred. He had nothing to say of the Ferry Company. A company so directly interested should approach the commission with a generous gesture of assistance. The company appeared to have adopted a helpful attitude. On the northern side of the harbour there was a deep-rooted conviction that some access better suited to tho of the districts than ferry services should be provided. The interest in the movement had greatly increased. All the local bodies on the North Shore and many on the city side were represented. . That indicated the extent of public support. Many members of Parliament were pledged to the movement and the disinterested support of the general public in Greater Auckland was claimed by the association. The questions where the bridge should go and what its character should be really represented the only points on which there could arise a divergence of views, and those were the points set out in the order of reference. Trans-harbour Highway. A good road was wanted, and the bridge would be a highway across the harbour. Mr. Finlay said the association would not advocate, but would oppose, the erection of any bridge which would involve the payment of any rate. The bridge must be self-supporting. No body and no individual's property anywhere would be pledged. The people who use the bridge must pay for it "Anyone who prefers to use the existing means of transport may continue to do so and they will be shouldered with none of the cost," said Mr. Finlay. The Chairman: You propose to charge a toll sufficient to cover interest and other costs involved? —Exactly. Awaiting Development. Would the bridge stimulate traffic? Mr. Finlay asked. The Auckland city was the most progressive city in the Dominion, and the four boroughs on the north had a combined population of 22,750. In Devonport there were 2350 houses. There were 360 vacant sections suitable for building. On the sections and other vacant land a further 870 houses could be erected. In Takapuna there were 214S houses. The borough had 1680 vacant sections. On the total undeveloped areas there was scope for 4666 additional houses. In Birkenhead there were 915 houses and there was scope for 2000 more houses. At Northcote there were 603 dwellings and it was estimated by the Borough Council that there was scope for the erection of 3044 further houses. Behind the borough towns there were five county ridings, Kaukapakapa riding, 44,800 acres; Pukeatua, 35,200 acres; Wainui, 28,800 acres; Birkenhead, 8320 acres; and Takapuna, 16,000 acres, a total of 133,120 acres, which it was considered .would benefit from the erection of the bridge. The five ridings were in the Waitemata County. Fat Stock Problem. Impracticable and tremendously expensive was ferry transport, continued Mr. Finlay. The Westfield fat stock market was not accessible on an econo-

jmic basis to a great part of the North, he added, because of transport difficulties. The Chairman: Cannot the stock be railed ? Mr. Finlay said the distance was considerably greater by rail. A large residential district was awaiting development, Mr. Finlay submitted. The districts had all the amenities necessary to suburban residents _ and they were marine resorts of much importance. There was three times greater density of population in the southern suburbs than there was on the northern side of the harbour. Population had increased in the 1911-29 period to the extent of 159 per cent. The northern boroughs showed a one hundred per cent increase in the same period, but excluding Takapuna, the increase was only 57 p.c. The southern suburbs included in comparison were Mount Albert, Mount Eden, Onchunga, Mount Roskill, One Tree Hill, Mount Wellington, Otahuhu and Ellerslie. "Static Condition." A static condition, both in population and valuation, had been achieved by the North Shore boroughs, Mr. Finlay said. Access was the only question suggested in seeking an explanation. If a road link were provided between the two shores the way would be immediately opened for the development of the districts on the northern side. The Harbour Bridge Association had no quarrel with the Ferry Company, but the perpetuation of a traffic monopoly was against the public interest, Mr. Finlay said emphatically. "Efficient Monopoly." "The ferry , service is an efficient monopoly," he continued. The road was an ever-ready means of access, but the boat service was iestrainecl because it was subject to regulation. . Mr. Finlay emphasised the growth of motor transport. In the Auckland city and suburbs there was one motor car to every eight of the population. A tally taken on the North Shore showed the proportion there was much lower. Leaving Birkcnhead out of consideration there was one motor vehicle for every twenty-seven of the population. The character of the harbour transport facilities was the principle factor in prohibiting numerous people from obtaining motor vehicle**. If they required modern motor transport they were deterred from having their homes across the harbour. If the proportion were adjusted and a bridge would tend to bring up the ratio, the amount of traffic would tend to increase by three hundred per cent. Volume of Traffic. Drawing a comparison with Hamilton, Mr. Finlay said the traffic bridge out of that town carried over 3500 vehicles a day, and the volume of traffic would be only a tithe of that to be served bv a bridge across the Waitemata. Coming 'nearer home, Mr. Finlay made reference to the Whan Bridge. A tally taken on Friday, November 22 last, showed that 9123 vehicles passed over the bridge between 7 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. That bridge served a community of less than 6000 A bridge very analogous in its scope existed at Vancouver, known as the Second Narrows Bridge. It linked tho city of Vancouver with a transharbour population of 15,000. In the threo years the bridge had been open the traffic had increased by 45.8 per cent. In an effort to determine the potential traffic between Hamilton and Whangarei a tally was taken at the Razorback, on tho Great South Road, near Pokeno, on November 25. Motor cars between 7 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. numbered 410. Rival Sites Considered. Dealing with the question of site, Mr. Finlay said the association preferred the site with terminals at Beaumont Street and Shoal Bay. Three other sites proposed were: Jellicoe Street to Northcotc, Point Erin to Northcote Point and Sentinel Road, Heme Bay, to Birkenhead.

The first three sites the association was willing to consider, but the fourth it did not want, said Mr. Finlay. There would be some difficulty about the Shoal Bay scheme if 150 ft of head room had to be provided for shipping, as required by the Harbour Board. Such a clearance seemed unnecessary, and, Mr. Finlay submitted, 87ft of head room should be adequate. In all parts of the world the heights of bridges were comin<* down, because masts were being shortened. The Sugar Company's vessels could- be provided with low mastheads at a comparatively small cost. In the second scheme the clearance would be 135 ft, which would meet all the requirements of the British naval authorities. In the Shoal Bay scheme the actual clearance between the pillars provider in the plans was 370 ft. Estimated Cost over £700,000. The proposal of a site with one terminal at Northcote Point and the other at Jellicoe Street had the advantages that it had high land at either end and the cost would be only £718,000, compared with £800,000 for the Shoal Bay scheme, including causeways connecting with Bayswater, Northcote and Stanley Point. (Proceeding.)