WHARVES OR DOCK ?

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 100, 25 October 1904, Page 2

WHARVES OR DOCK ?

FURTHER WHARFAGE NEEDED. CONSEQUENCE — DREDGING OF DOCK POSTPONED. The question of whether the Wellington Harbour Board should at once proceed with the dredging of the dock site after the dredge Whakarire .has completed excavating for the projected Tara-naki-street wha-rf, or whether it should be employed dredging for a further instalment of ■urgently-needed •wharfage before commencing the dock dredging (which latter will probabry occupy two years) was the import-ant issue before the Harbour Board yesterday. There were present — Messrs. William Cable (Chairman), H. Beauchamp, C. E. Daniell, D. Nathan, F. Townsend, J. M'Lellan, and: the Hon. T. X- Macdonald, M.L.C. A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION. The meeting had before it a report of the Harbourmaster (Captain Johnson) em* phasising. in the strongest terms the need for additional berthage. The Engineer (Mr, W. Ferguson) endorsed this recommendation. The [Engineer, in the course of reports dated 13th October and 24th October respectively, wrote: "It will be within the recollection of members that in last April the Board decided, on the recommendation of the Wharves and Accounts Committee, 'that after the completion of the dredging at the Glasgow and Railway Wharves the Whakarire be placed to dredge for the proposed, wharves at Taranaki-street and at Clydequay, and thereafter prepare for, the construction of a further wharf to the northeast of the Glasgow Wharf.' Subsequently, in August, the Board resolved that 'aiter the completion of the dredging at the Taranaki-street wharf -the dredge bo employed in the w.ork necessary for the construction of Ac dock. The result of this latter resolution is that the construction of wharves required to pro.vide for the constantly increasing trade of the port will be indefinitely postponed. At the present time the requirements for berthing have with difficulty been filled, and it would appear that there must be serious difficulty unless the Board arranges to proceed with the much-needed wharf accommodation. The growth in the shipping is gradual but continuous, and it is only those who, like the Board's officers, are in daily contact with it and are able to watch jt by the aid of statistics, who can really appreciate the changes that have been going on. I am therefore glad to put on record, for the information of the Board, th© following data : — GROWTH OF SHIPPING. "Comparing- five years ending September, 1899 and 1904, and dealing with steamers only, I find that steamers from the United Kingdom and British possessions, other than the Australasian colonies, have increased in number by 30 per cent, and in tonnage by 85 per cent. Steamers. Tons. 1899 ... 76 205,359 1904 ... 99 379,577 Increase ... 23 174,218 Intercolonial steamers have increased in number by 8 per cent., and in tonnage by 32 per cent. — Steamers. Tons. 1899 ... 150 247,755 1904 ... 162 326,302 Increase ...' 12 78,547 New Zealand coastal steamers have increased in number by 2J. per cent, and in tonnage by 65 per cent. — Steamers. Tons. - 1899 ... 2123 857,795 1904 ... 2569 1,419,092 Increase ... 446 562,097 Steamers from foreign ports have increased by 8 per cent, in number and by 55 per cent, in tonnage — Steamers, Tons. 1899 ... 13 30,514 1904 ... 14 47,547 Increase ... 1 17,033 The total of all steamers shows an increase in numbers of 20 per cent, and of 62 per cent, in tonnaee — Steamers. Tons. 1899 ... 2362 1,341,423 1904 ... 2844 2,173,318 Increase ... 482 831,895 Including gailing ships, the total of vessels of all kinds from all ports amounted to— Vessels. Tons. 1899 ... 2456 1,383,672 1904 ■ ... 2959 2,220,314 Increase ... 503 836,642 An increase- in five years of 20 per cent, in number of vessels and 60 per cent, in the tonnage. ■ The a.veragß tonnage of the vessels berthed five years ago, in 1899, was 563 tons, whicji Us grown to 750 tons in 1904. The average number of arrivals per d».y (irvcluding. Sundays) was in 1899 6.7 vessels, which increased, in 19Q4 to 8.1 vessels. The maarimum registered tonnage of any vessel to be provided for has grown from 5401 in 1899 to 7833 in 1904. MORE SHIPS— MORE BERTHAGE. "Although in 1899 there were six berths at the Queen's Wharf and Jervois-quay where the ocean steamers of that date could be placed, owing to the increase in size of these steamers the Board' ha? not now that number of berths available for berthing ocean vessels for the discharge of inward cargo. In 1899 there were 40 vessels arrived of 3000 tons register and upwards, whilst in 1903, or four years afterwards, the number of arrivals of vessels of more than 3000 tons had increased to 78, or nearly double. During this period the Board has only provided two additional berths, j I would be glad if the members of the Boaffd would consider whether in a short period they may not be called upon to provide bertha-ge accommodation having railway facilities so that the mail trains may be brought directly alongside the Lyttelton ferry steamers. At Lyttelton for some time past the trains have met the ferry steamers, and with, the opening of the through Main Trunk line to Auckland there will undoubtedly be a necessity for similar accommodation even if the demand is not made before then. "I desire to place on record that the experience of the past half-year has con- % firmed the view that I expressed in March, 1903, and again In April this ! year, that the Board ought to proceed ! with the construction of the wharves at Taranaki-street and at Clyde-quay and of a railway wharf Bipolar to tire' Glasgow Wharf, with this addition, that it now appears to me that before these works can be completed the Board may have to provide for a further railway wharf." HARBOURMASTER'S REPORT. The Harbourmaster's report points out the increase, both in number and size of ships, and the fact that we now require 550 ft of berthage space to accommodate one steamer. Inter alia, he states " The Railway Wharf, now under reconstruction, has not berthage space to accommodate the intercolonial and coastal traffio which is growing in volume each succeeding year. The Union Steam Ship

Company baa on more than one occasion had to refuse cargo on account of no berthage space being available at a railway wharf, and even live stock has been refused on that account. We have the Union Steam Ship Company's mail and cargo steamers twice a week from the West Coast ports (Greymouth and Westport). They carry coal for the Government railways, and must go to a railway wharf to laid it, and other vessels carrying State coal for the same purpose and for country settlers ; then the local coal and Newcastle coal for the Manawatu railway, besides all vessels loading or discharging timber. lam placing these facts before you to show how impossible it is to expect that when the reconstruction, of tie railway wharf is completed the ocean steamers can be berthed there If that is done the coastal and intercolonial traffic will be shut out, and thpq what about coal for the Government railways ? 'No doubt you will hear from them when that occurs. For the pass two years I hare been compelled to appeal to the various shipping companies, and agents to assist me by giving .no the supposed dates their steamers were likely to arrive here to load." I then conferred with them as to whether the berthage space would be available or not. In many instances they had to pass this port arid arrange to arrive when the berth was vacant. When dates could not be altered "by going to other ports they have had to wait in the anchorage. Had hot the shipping companies assisted mv in this matter, for which I thank them, it block would undoubtedly have occurred detrimental to the port. Should one of the laTge ocean steamers have her 'decks swept by the sea, losing her deck house 3 or fittings, and put in here for repairs, we are unable to give her a berth at the wharves where she could effect repairs, for the simple reason there is none available. During the busy months we are unable to grant permission to any of the large steamers to lie for a week at the wharf to clean boilers or effect repairs. They have to go to the 'anchorage or proceed to another port." The Harbourmaster urges " the immediate necessity of constructing a large wharf north of the Glasgow Wharf and similar to it. I would also recommend that, when the dredging for the Taranaki-street wharf is completed, the dredger should be removed north of the Glasgow Wharf and dredge the site for driving the piles, so that the wharf may be proceeded witJi without delay." ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. The Engineer's recommendations, which are the result largely of the findings in the above reports, and which the Board ultimately adopted, are contained in the following report: — " Assuming that the dredge can be worked for sixty hours per week during the summer and for forty-eight hours dur ing the winter, or an average of fiftyfour hours all the year round, and allowing for holidays and for lost time through bad weather, shifting moorings, docking, etc., the experience of the past ten months shows that we may reckon" on obtaining 5000 tons per weejj dredged and deposited. The dredging remaining to be done at the Taranaki-street wharf will take four weeks from date. To dredge a trench on each side of the proposed wharf to the north-east of the Glasgow Wharf, say 80ft wide, so as to enable the" construction of the wharf to be proceeded with will take three months. To complete the berthage for the proposed new wharf on the western side and to dredge the east side of the Glasgow Wharf to 33ft would require four month?. To complete the berthage on the eastern side would require, say, three months. To dredge a trench on each side of the proposed Clyde-quay wharf so as to enable the construction of the wharf to be proceeded with would take two and a, half months. v To complete the dredging so as to make both sides available would ■ take a further period of, say, three months. To dredge the dock site will take two years. The Engineer suggests that, on the conclusion of the dredging for the Tara-naki-street wharf, the Whakarire should be put to cut out : — 1. The trenches to enable the construction of the wharf east of Glasgow Wharf to be proceeded with. 2. The trenches to enable the construction of a, wharf neaa* Clyde-quay to be proceeded with. 3. The deepening of the water on the east side of the Glasgow Wharf to 33ft to the line 6f the new wharf. 4. The graving dock works. If this ccruTse were adopted the dredging for the dock could probably be commenced at the end of August nest year." The Wharves and Accounts Committee endorsed the Engineer's advice in the following recommendation :— a That in view of the reports presented to the members of the Board by the Harbour Master and Engineer pointing out the urgency for providing as speedily as possible additonal wharfage accommodation, the committee strongly recommends that the dredge Whakarire be employed to dredge out a site for a new wharf to the north of the Glasgow Wharf before it is employed to dredge out the dock site." THE DISCUSSION. " Mr. _H. Beauchamp emphasised the necessity of dredging the shoal near the harbour entrance as soon as the dockdredging was done. Would the dredge, after finishing at the dock site, be able to start on the shoal? The Engineer: Yes, so far as I am aware. Mr. J. M'Lellan stated that 70 per cent, of the increase was due to small steamers. But the only way of providing additional berthage for small steamers was to provide new berthage for .the large, and therefore he thought they should tackle at once the, large wharf proposed. He could see no other way ont of" the -difficulty than that- recommended by the Engineer. Mr. Beauchamp contended that the Board had now got matters into Shape for the rapid construction of the dock. It had constructed a certain length- of wall, and the plans were ready for the approval of the Governor-in-Council. Then, as regarded the present demand for extra wharfage, the Board would fail in its duty if it went past the emphatic recommendation *of its executive officers. He sincerely trusted the Board would approve the employment of the Whakarke in the order of work recommended oy the Engineer. He would do nothing to keep back the construction of tho dock, but extra wharfage was " of paramount importance if the port was to maintain its present position. To put the dredge on to the dock site after completing the Taranaki-street wharf 'site would be to delay the construction of this extra wharf-age for two years, and what rjosition would they find themselves in if increase of shipping continuod at the same rate as in the past? AN ALTERNATIVE— ANOTHER DREDGE. Mr. D. J. Nathan supported the Engineer's report. The alternative of obtaining another dredge he dismissed on the ground that it would be absurd to spend £50,000 or £70,000 to get another dredge for eighteen months' work. He was aware the Board had decided to begin the dock-dredging after completing at Taranaki-street, but in view of the demand for wharfage, the Engineer's recommendation would be in the best interests of the port ; and it would cause the dock very little or no delay. The Board would be able to start portions of the dock almost at once. The question of contract or day labour arose in this connection, and he thought ,the Engineer would recommend feaat the Board

start with day labour. "We ought," concluded Mr. Nathan, "to have ordered the dredge three years before we did." Mr. F. Townsend stated that when he supported Mr. Wilford's motion to begin the dock-dredging after completing at Taranaki-street, he had no idea that it would take two years to dredge for the dock. In view of this, and the report of the Harbour Master and the Engineer as to the demand for more wharfage accommodation for deepsea vessels, he supported the Engineer's recommendations. Mr. M'Lellan interjected that he considered the Harbour Master's report rather pessimistic. There was not such a dearth of accommodation as was depicted. A PROTEST. The Hon. T. K. Macdonald said the Board was asked virtually to rescind a solemn resolution passed some time ago. This was too small a meeting to take such a step, and the matter should be adjourned to a special meeting. It was rescinding a- resolution by a side wind. (Cries of No.) In reply to interjections » that only members of Parliament were away, and that they were having an outing on the tramcars, Mr. Macdonald replied that in the dying hours of the session members could not be in two places at once, and that after hard work they were entitled to relaxation. Mr. Macdonald could not understand how the Board could postpone the dockdredging till August, 1905, in view of the provision of the Act of 1902, that the Board "shall substantially begin the construction" of the dock within eighteen months »f the coming into force of that Act. The eighteen months expired in March, 1904. He congratulated members of the Board on the ingenious way in which they were killing ;the dock. The scientific way in which local bodies killed many public matters was by delay. They knew how to do that in Parliament, but the Board went one better. The Board got Parliament to pass an Act which definitely fixed, in accord with public sentiment, the time when the Board should "substantially begin" the dock. The Board was not doing that. It was breaking faith with the pubiic and Parliament, and getting to windward of the Act of Parliament. There was no guarantee that the dredga would not be wanted for some other urgent work, postponing the dock further. For instance, the entrance shoal might become so bad as to require the dredge urgently. rhe Chairman thought this very improbable. WELLINGTON AND GLASGOW BERTHAGES COMPARED. The Engineer compared the shipping and berthage figures of Glasgow and Wellington, as follows: — Shipping: Glasgow 5440 tons, Wellington 2220 tons, Wellington being 41£ per cent, of Glasgow; lineal berthage: Glasgow 45,116 ft, Wellington 10,197 ft, Wellington being 23£ per cent, of Glasgow. We must double our berthage to be equal to Glasgow's in proportion to shipping. Air. M'Lellan said the cases were not parallel — one was "a terminal port. The Engineer admitted that the circumstances were different, but he emphasised the discrepancy. Mr. Macdonald said he would do his best to secure proper berthage, but they wanted the dock, too. It came to this — they wanted another dredge. The Engineer stated that he had inspected available dredges in New South Wales and Victoria, and found them old and costly. In reply to Mr. Macdonald, he stated that he did not want another dredge. , Mr. Macdonald: But you have five years' dredge, work ahead. The Engineer: Admittedly so; the life of a dredge is more than that. Mr. C. Daniell contended that when Mr. Wilford's resolution was passed, the Board had not its present information. Mr. Macdonald held out the prospect that, in view of its breach of faith, the Board would find itself in a hole next time it went to Parliament for money. Mr. M'Lellan quoted the expenditure the Board had already made for the dock, lie stated that Wellington got no return from shipping companies for providing facilities that enabled them to unload here in two or three days when it took them a week elsewhere. Mr. Macdonald : Charge an extra rate. Mr. M'Lelland, in reply to Mr. Beauchamp, said the shipping interests on the Board had differentiated against Wellington by lowering the rates here, so that they couid afford to pay higher rates at other ports. THE CHAIRMAN SUMS UP. Mr. Macdonald moved an amendment to adjourn the question to a special meeting on Friday at 11 a.m. He did not press the amendment, as country members declared the time would be inconvenient. The Chairman said no one would be more glad than he to see the dock completed as soon as possible, but he recognised the position the Board would be put in if they entered upon a two-years' work before preparing for extra wharfage. Ten to twelve months' work with the dredge should prepare for all the wharves they wanted. The wharfage then would be equal possibly to tho requirements of Wellington for ten years. A member: Not by jugfuls. The Chairman replied that, ot any rate, it would enable them to get the dock done. The Board, on the voices, adopted the recommendations of the Wharves and Accounts Committee, and of the Engineer in his report. It was decided that the Engineer make farther enquiry as to the possibility of hiring another dredge. OTHER DOCK MATTERS. The Chairman reported that the Railway Department was willing to lease to i the Board on nominal terms portion of the railway yard at Te Aro to facilitate the dredging for the dock. The Engineer stated that the terms included a peppercorn rental, the Board to bear the cost of removing fence, and to give up lease when called on at three months' notice. It was resolved to forward to the Marine Department for the approval of the Governor-in-Council the plans of the graving dock.