CHRISTCHURCH AND ITS PORT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 224, 15 June 1908, Page 6

CHRISTCHURCH AND ITS PORT.

; 4 On Thursday the Ohristchurch Harbour Board published and discussed the report of an English firm of engineers, Messrs. Coode, Son, and Matthews, upon a problem of port development that has for years been in the minds of 'the Canterbury public. The increasing inconvenience of tho small basin within tho moles in Lyttelton Harbour, and tho high charges on the railway from Ohristchurch to Lyttelton, long ago combined to set Ohristchurch thinking of a way of cscape>»from tho fetters that threaten seriously to hamper its '.maritime trade in years to come. It is some time since the Board's engineer drew up a report upon four possiblo ways of meeting the requirements of Ohristchurch. These were, the construction of a new harbour' at Sticking Point, a new harbour at Gollan's Bay, a canal connecting Sumner with a dock at Linwood, and a canal extending from Sumner to Heathcotc. It is this report of Mn. Williams's that is 'discussed in the long and valuable communication of Messrs. Coode, Son, and Matthews. This firm bases its conclusions upon engineering and. navigation questions, the Board having requested that questions of finance and " general policy should not be allowed to determine the recommpndations.

The figures of the report will be very interesting to Wellington people, as indicating the gravity of the problem bofpra Canterbury. ■ Of the two " new harbour " proposals, the London engineers prefer the Gollan's Bay scheme, as a new harbour , at Sticking. Point would necessitate heavy dredging, not only initially, but subsequently, and the area would in any case bo cramped and incommodious. A harbour at Gollan's Bay would cost £655,430, pf which about £200,000 would be expended on the two enclosing moles, and over £285,000 .on timber jetties, and a breastwork wharf. Of the two canal scheinesj- that from Heathcote to' Sumner is preferred. The engineers dispose altogether of the idea that a canal is impracticable. All the conditions, it appears, from the nature of - the soil between Christchurch arid, the sea to the adaptability of the foreshore for a canal mouth, and the absence of siltirig-up possibilities, are quite favourable, ; and ,the question beconies, therefore, one of finance only. The principal objectionto,-a Liri-wood-Sumner canal is a financial one. It would mean the construction of nearly three miles, of additional canal, and a vastly greater expense in land purchase than would bo incurred in the HeathcoteSuinner scheme. Moreover, it would necessitate a very costly and inconvenient, .swing bridge across tho canal, and a diversion of the Sumner tram-line. The main objection to the shorter canal, from Heathcote,"is tho extra distance from the city, but it is pointed out: that this would be immaterial so' far as the dircct dispatch of goods from the dock to the country' districts is concerned. Having thus rejected the Linwood alternative, the report goes on to give figures relating to the Heathcote proposition. The dock would bo 3500 feet ,by 1750 feet, with two breastwork quays of 2500. feet and 2000 feet respectively, and containing two largo jetties, 2000 feet in length, by 300 feet in breadth. The canal would bo three and a half miles in length, and would give a clear 700 feet of . waterway at the mouth, and a low wator depth of 35 feet, the channel itself having a bottom width of at least 250 feet. The total cost would be £1,921,360, of which tho construction of the moles would cost half a million. Tho construction of the dock, broastworks, wharves, and shed accomjnodatiori, together with the dredging' plant, would absorb a million and a quarter, sterling,"" • v

The Lyttelton Harbour Board will now have plenty of occupation in studying and thinking about• the undertaking. Canterbury's prepossession is strongly infavou'r of a canal rather than , a new harbour at Gollaii's Bay, and Canterbury is probably quite right. Tho development proposals have originated in an expectation, porlulps a too-sanguino. one, of great commercial growth, and it certainly appears that the. growth which is expeetod to justify some new. work ought to be great enough to make even the great initial difference between £655,430 and £1,021,360, a very poor reason for shrinking from the major schemo when the time comes for action. Disappointment appears to be generally, felt in Christchurch at tho high estimate of the cost of tho canal, but this is largely set off by the satisfactory establishment of tho fact that a canal is hot a " wild cat" idea from tho engineering standpoint. The construction of tho canal may bo considered, however, a matter for tho attention of a fairly distant future.. It will be many years before the trade of Canterbury will justify tho expenditure of such an enormous sum aB £2,000,000 in reconstructing the city's connection with the sea.