"QUITE FEASIBLE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 21, 25 January 1930, Page 12

"QUITE FEASIBLE."

THE MORNINGSIDE TUNNEL ANSWER TO MINISTER. SUBURBAN LEAGUE'S STATEMENT. The Northern Suburban Railways and , Highways League executive has issued , a reply to the Minister of Railways, \ the Hon. W. B. Taverner, in connection with the recent rejection of the Morningside tunnel project. This statement 1; is as follows: — < t A (a) The total cost is given as £2,174,- , 000, including electrification to Helens-' ' ville. Presumably the estimate for electrification includes the cost of duplicatinglthe line as'far as New. Lynn (10 miles), and possibly as far as Helensville (38 miles). • " If the north and south lines were electrified only between Papakura and Morningside, the route so treated would total 33 miles —a convenient length. At i Otira the electrified section is eight miles long, and Between Lyttelton and'Ghristchurch it is six miles, of which a little over 1J miles is in a tunnel. '. The original estimate for .the Auck-land-Morningside line was £449,000., The cost of the tunnel portion, standard double-track section, at £70 a lineal foot, would be £560,000. The open portion should not exceed . £100,000, including land resumed. Adding 10 per cent for contingencies, the-- total should be £726,000. With duplication as far as New Lynn it would be £900,000. - ' Analysis of Figures. , The estimated cost of electrification from Papakura to Morningside, including branch lines via Remuera and Mount Eden, is £700,000. ( (' Omitting the duplication to "New Lynn this makes a total of £1,426,000, or £750.000 less than the Minister's figure. ! (b) The alleged difficulties and ■ dangers involved in constructing ,a 1 double-track tunnel under a city >have ; been overcome in. hundreds of case's, such as those of London, New York and , Sydney. • ■' '■ 5 The Morningside tunnel. would have i ample vertical„ clearance ~or overburden, i almost throughout, except criear, the sug- J gestedcity - station; somewhere near i Wakefield, Street,, where, for,, say, five t chains, the ■ depth, wouldl '■ be ' W little, i

that "cut and cover" methods would have to be adopted. This would mean ■the removal of all buildings for this length, but this removal, together with p s underpinning in other, places and othernecessary operations, would be, quite simple. ''. .• • •? - ■ There would be no difficulty in .passing under or alongside buildings on the line/for none \is of any magnitude. In • any case, the line -could be deviated on an easy curve to, avoid-any difficult locality, and a suitable site for the central station could still' be found. ' "Large Economies:" ■?] (c) The Minister alleges that-iio saving in goods haulage Would 'result. '_ When the . Auckland;Westfield devia T . tion was 'proposed, and; again when it was -opened for goods traffic;' figures were quoted to the effect that the saving, in haulage of goods trains would'amount to £22,500 -a year, sufficient, to pay 5 percent interest 6n ; the expenditure, Simi-.. lar figures .were adduced in support of the Wellington-Tawa Flat,. deviations now in progress. The Morningside deviation would not only ease the present grades but also would shorten the line if one mile 38 chains, whereas the Westfield deviation gives - a slightly ' longer route. • ■ °£1 • It is hard to credit that' the savin" would be only 182,222 net ton-miles, seeing that, Auckland is the great export and import centre for North Auckland. It is imposible to avoid the conclusion that there would be large economies in haulage. v ■ ■ ■„" : Other Points Traversed! (d) As regards the < contention that much passenger and goods traffic would still have to be. carried between Morningside and Newmarket, the passenger 'traffic would be"very small.indeed. •is admitted that only one-fifth of the south-bound goods -traffic would go via Newmarket. ,JThe north-bound traffic would probably be negligible. The present line would merely have to be retained ae a loop. v ! (e) The harbour Drldge is .not really a factor in the matter. It could not affect the traffic from Helensville or from beyond Wellsford'. In-any case, no bridge is likely to'be built: for many years. • - ' • . (f) That the line would hot influence goods or passenger traffic.to any extent is absolutely wrong. It would simply revolutionise it, and would once and for-all solve the problem of. transport ' for .all the western suburbs, as well for i the .adjoining districts, and more : especially;so' if, the;Te Atatu deviation 1 ] wereputin. .. . - .-.; --, .;:;,... ,

■ . The-league suggests that as the tunnel would ibe broken in the centre-by.an open station, to work it.by steam.■would, not he impracticable., Each length would ■ 'be-in effect a, separate tunnel 60 chains long, with a grade of 1 in 80. The Poro-o-tarao tunnel, on the Main Trunk line,' . is 60 chains long, half being on grade ~ of 1 in 80, and half, in 257. ;Itis * eingle-tracK tunnel, whereas the Morningside tunnel would be double-track. Also, -artificial ventilation could be used.. • ■ *■ ;; All possible weight, ,says the; league,, has been given hy the Minister to everything averse to the project. Arguments have-been- unreasonably strained ;and irrelevant matters have been introduced. From an engineering point of view ili« deviation •:s • quite- ■ feasible, and will. prove,financially beneficial to the Railway ■Department.- ••••••• , „■