THE PORT QUESTION.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16812, 19 April 1920, Page 7

THE PORT QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —In your Saturday issue "Interested" asks some important questions which I would be glad of space to answer ns follows. The railway yards I at Lytteiton are. I believe, the largest of any large port, while the flat land unoccupied is fortunately very extensive, large areas both east and west being entirely unused ns yet. Regard- j ing the accommodation of the inner} harbour itself, tallies taken on busy days have proved that even without increasing our accommodation, goods at the rate of over a million tons per annum can be dealt with, or approximately double our present requirements. | By increasing the accommodation, twico I to threo times the shipping can be ' dealt with, without going outside the i moles. Lytteiton inner harbour has, therefore, a future capacity of over two million tons per annum, or something like four times our present needs (see Cpinal Commissioners' Report). It was recently officially announced that Lytteiton may be dredged to a depth of 40 feet L.W., to take vessels inside the moles 1000 feet long, 100 feet wide, 40 feet depth, when necessary. The entranco between the moles is even now deeper than the entrance to New York harbour. Careful consideration of the Tunnel road project shows that it combines more than all the advantages of an Estuarv port without the drawbacks,' and at a fraction of the cost. Lytteiton , : has only two disadvantages; It is 2J miles further than a Heathcoto port, | and it has less space for sheds. As most of the time would be taken in j loading and unloading tho vehicles, the 6} miles to Lytteiton would cost only : a fraction more than tho four miles to : the Estuary. If the wharves are widenI cd to accommodate the sheds, it means [ reducing our future shipping space somo- ! what—instead of being able to increaso our capacity to four times our preeent \ trade we would have to think about ! Oollan's Bay by the time our trade had doubled. But it may be possible to use i a better system than the antiquatedl method of moving goods by hand' trucks. Consideration should be given to the conveyer belt or moving platform system for wharves that have not sufficient width for sheds, and the, sheds built on the foreshore adjacent, j If "Interested" will study the various; engineers' reports, he will find that the j "unnavigability of the canal in bad wea- j ther" is only one of its disadvantages, ! the enormous first cost, the risk of! utter failure, and tho incessant siltago j beinc of far greater importance. Jt! would take columns of your space to j detail all the disadvantages of tho canal. —Yours, etc., OOGNTSANT.