THE CANAL CONFERENCE

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11332, 23 July 1902, Page 10

THE CANAL CONFERENCE

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. A meetinz of the delegates to the Canal Conference was held in the City Council C&ambers last evening, Dr. C. J- Russell presiding. In opening the meeting, the Chairman said he was afraid the people of Canterbury did not quite realise their true relation to j the outside world. He looked forward to the time when their tunnel would be totally inadequate for their needs, and that a canal would be needed to give their fertile district proper connection with the sea.. The following report of the committee was presented: — "To the Chairman of the Canal Conference, "Sir,—We beg to report that, in accordance with the resolution passed at the meeting on April 16th, we have examined into the feasibility of the three schemes put forward for the more convenient carrying on of traffic between Christchurch and the outBide world. ENLARGEMENT OF THE TUNNEL. "At a recent meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, when the congestion of the Port traffic was considered, the enlargement of the present tunnel was incidentally alluded to, but, with the exception of occasional and slight reference to the matter in the correspondence columns of the newspapers, no definite nor serious proposal in this direction has been put forward. Letters which have, at various times, passed between the Railway Department and your secretary were before the <MMnmittee, and it was the opinion of members that the cramped accommodation at Lyttelton was almost the only serious block to the free circulation of traffic. It was stated that the Department could, at a pinch, run from 160 to 180 trains through the tunnel in twenty-four hours, and although this assertion may lack positive proof, it appears certain that the increasing New Year's Day running bas during the last two years been greatly improved. Your committee consider that there is no present necessity for widening the tunnel, but suggest that the Conference should request the Government to take some steps, either by ventilation or by an improved method of traction, to abate the risk and nuisance caused by smoke and gas. PROPOSED HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT AT GOLLAN'S BAY, AND ITS CONNECTION WITH CHRISTCHURCH BY MEANS OF A SHORT TUNNEL AND A RAILWAY. "The proposal to connect Lyttelton anew with Christchurch by way of Sumner was put forward by Mr J. H. Newlyn, in the Christchurch 'Star,' on February 14th, 1901. The proposal included the part enclosure of Gollan's Bay by means of moles, towards the construction of which material from a tunnel (through to the Sumner Valley) and from the cuttings on both sides could be utilised. The estimated length of the tunnel is given at less than half a mile. By running the line across the estuary as far as practicable, it is considered by some that apart of the shallow water could be filled in and used for building purposes, and the adoption of the scheme made favourable to the formation of a canal at some future time. The committee beg to refer the Conference to the printed appendix on the subject for further information, and suggest that before expending large sums of money on the improvement of the present harbour, the Lyttelton Barbour Board be requested, by borings and surveys, to test the practicability of the Sumner canal, and the feasibility of the suggested Gollan's Bay enclosure and Sumner railway" route, as outdined in the 'Star' of February 14th, 1901. PROPOSED CHRISTCHURCH SUMNER CANAL. " Your committee have had before them the report of the Canal Committee of 1894, upon the proposal of the late Mr R. Gardner, several newspaper cuttings and correspondence from the Lyttelton, Auckland, Otago, Bluff, and Melbourne Harbour Boards. The former body could not, unfortunately, supply any new information. The Lyttelton Harbour Board's control over tbe Sumner .estuary is ifounded upon a proclamation by H.E. the Governor, and dated September 21st, 1888. The Canal Reserve, which was set apart in early provincial days, was vested some years ago in the Heathcote Road Board for road purposes only. Before the construction of the tunnel, a considerable portion of the traffic was occasionally carried on by wav of the estuary, the first survey of which appears to have been made in 1854 by Commander Drury, of H.M.S. Acheron. With the abject of determining the practicability of improving the entrance for the security of small vessels, the provincial <2overnment directed Messrs Whately, Elliott and Thornton, in 1874, to examine the state of the entrance and report. Referring to the bar, Mr Elliott wrote: - 'There is only one method by which a greater depth of water can be maintained ovetr it, and that is by enclosing and concentrating the channel on both sides cut into deep water.' He further pointed out that the work would be too costly for the object then in view, namely, the secure admission of small coasting craft. The last survey was made nine years 'later (in 18831 by Mr Nap:er Bell, who reported:—'That in his belief the depth on the bar could be greatly unproved by guiding the current in and out of tbe estuary with a suitable training wall on the north spit; but as this would cost a large sum of money, h» did not suppose the Harbour Board would"then entertain the question.' It might be benePutt I '_** 9 onfei,e,lce COI,M from the Harbour Board some information as to the estimates supplied by Messrs Elliott and Bell, whose reports, made by the dire?tion of responsible bodies, and after the openmg of the Lyttelton tunnel, amply prove that the suggestion that a proper ™7!Ti the estU . ar y should be undertaken cannot be classed as a 'soatterbra.n' proposal. "As your committee do not vet desire to pass any opinion upon the feasibility =>f constructing a canal, which will be renruneB WIU W* TCfor the Conference to the appended report of the Canal sub-Committee of 1894. details of £5 I? th *_t*<:tkabaitY of the la-e Mr Gardner's scheme endorsed. The total cost of the proposed canal and docks was «t down at slightly less than half a m f if 11 J^ hDg ' jncludine the redamation waS* w>F aßd .^ 0 ' 000 *«■ ** train ng *_Hf Vv W i th . a yndth w,la] *» that of ♦.]._ Sn«Canal it was anticipated that a depth of 33ft could be obtained at hid. water More complete details are to b? found in appendix B. which is a very full JSort of plained hrs proposals. C and D are editoral remarks upon the scheme of 189? and _U generally of a sympathetic character. quotation may be approbate here <« bear ing on the suggestion the committed desire &£*?■ following remarks.— "The main problem -ttftOfir. Ii - i" 1 «?«>diture of twice ±»0,000, the canal will be constructed b7 n^ke^Eld ° eDtnt7 -' W rJtJT * re re P° rts rf theH».. m «*• ««ial onestion m 1894 and in 1902, and may be of value for future reference; the saL _Z * ** d of »W»d« G, which fra rZ>rToi the Burgesses' Association meetine that an , comerence A few of the op nions and ?*<■ added under the letters H and I lour committee desire to call *_-_,- i attention to the letter marked J T, t produced *• »&. K. L. M. N. and Na. the whole group formt &"*.* f V IH * Co**™** was X Bluff Auckland, 1 fW and Melbourne, aU of winch have what may be termed a duplicate water accommodation. The distance from Port Chalmers to Dunedin is stated to be about eight -riles, and the ■aria* to consignees and sbippm by rasMk

coining up to Dunedin, as agajnst the railway rates, is about 3s per ton. In a care-fully-prepareds paper, the Treasurer of the Melbourne Harbour Board, thus sums up the benefits whioh have followed the deepening and straightening of the Yarra Yarra:—The value of the improvements in the river are vouched "for by th© fact that tbe register tonnage of vessels going to Melbourne wharves in 1882 was 864,123, or 48 per cent., whereas in 1901 the figures were 2,281,571, out of a total tonnage oi 3,798,312, or 60 per cent. Allowance must be made for the fact that the register tonnage of aU the large steamers of the Orient, P- and! 0-, Norddeufcscher Lloyd, M-ssageries Maritimes and the White Star lines is included in the total of the port, whereas they are passing on to Sydney, and do not go up to the Melbourne wharves. In 1882 under 50 per cent, of the total imports and exports went to the Melbourne wharves, but in 1901 the percentage had increased to over 85.' "In conclusion, your Conxrnittee venture to affirm that the above extracts fuAly warrant the rewnnmendations which they now, venture to make, and which are: — "1. That the Lyttelton Harbour Board be respectfully requested to cause a survey to be made of the entrance to the Sunmer Estuary, with a view to ofetermining the practicability of constructing a canal in tbe direction of Cbristchuroh, as far as maybe upon the lines prepared by the late Mr R. Gardner. -_.__•* "2. That (a) borings to determine the difficulties 'likely to be met with at Sumner Estuary; an_ (b) a rough survey to test the apparent feasibility of the Gollan's Bay and Sumner railway route, should precede any costly attempt to improve the accommodation at Lvttelton Harbour. "3. That tihe Government be requested to, as far as possible, add to the comfort and safety of passengers and officials using the Lyttelton Tunnel." Mr Newlyn said the views stated had been arrived at unanimously. 'He formally moved the adoption of the report. Mr R. M. Cresswell seconded the motion, which was carried. On the motion of Mr C D. Lightband, the secretary was .instructed to send copies of the report to all the local bodies interested, and to the Lyttelton Harbour Reference was made to the small attendance, which was stated to be due chiefly to the important gathering in the Canterbury Hail. Special votes of thanks to tqg, corporations assisting by forwarding i_formation to the Committee, and to the City Council for the use of the Oonncil Chamber, were carried. The meeting then adjourned sine die.