EASTERN TUNNEL

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 55, 8 March 1929, Page 10

EASTERN TUNNEL

" WEATHERCOCK IDEAS "

ADDITIONAL 10 PER CENT

CALLING OF TENDEES

(By "X.")

Towards the conclusion of the special meeting of the City Council when the decision was reached to carry through, if possible, eastern and western access schemes without reference to the ratepayers of to-day—their majority opinion, the council evidently ' believed, being against these works—one councillor asked what guarantee could be given that in three weeks' time someone would not come along with some other "weathercock idea." The reply, in effect, was that no guarantee could be given beyond the manner in which the council voted. The council voted against any issue in connection with east and west access being put before ratepayers (apart from tramway track finance) with complete arid probably unexpected unanimity. There is the guarantee against further "weathercock ideas" —for already there had been considerable twisting and turning to the breeze—but, even so early after that unanimous decision, there are indications that some members of the council are anything but sure that the rooster up on top is looking in the right direction. To their critics they reply frankly, to this general effect: "We expected it, and it serves us right. We floundered out of one difficulty into another so much worse that there is ■ apparently no way out, unless it is that the tunnel cannot be put through with the money available, or the Loans Board,, as some of us expect, queries the new proposal and suggests reference to the ratepayers." The position is that several members of the council are about as unhappy over their new*position as they were before the special meeting, but it is in regard to the east rather than the west that this feeling persists. The way to the west is, comparatively, fairly clear. •!TO COMPLETE THE WORK." A point that has been made may have an important bearing upon the acceptance of a tender for the tunnel. If had been taken for granted during discussions that the vote of 1920, "New tunnel through Mount Victoria, £161,----250," gave the council authority to raise £177,375 at once, i.e., the amount of the authorisation, plus 10 per cent., but doubt has been expressed whether that is quite the position. The Local Bodies Loans Act provides:— If the amount of any loan authorised to be ■ raised . . . is found insufficient to complete the undertaking in respect of which it was raised, the local authority may, for the purpose of completing the undertaking, borrow . . . a further sum. not being greater than one-tenth the amount originally, authorised by the ratepayers, and in any such case it shall not bo necessary to give any notice to or take a further poll of the ratepayers. The Act, therefore, appears Mo lay down that the additional 10 per cent, may be raised without a poll of the ratepayers for the purpose of "complet;ng" the loan work, whereas in the pTssent instance it is a "case of apparent rocessity of raising the 10 per cent, to enable the work to be started. The 10 per cent, clause of the Act was evidently inserted to provide for "contingencies," but to leave nothing to come and go on for contingencies would scarcely be in accord with engineering practice in any part of the world. ' I COMMISSION'S ESTIMATE BELOW £160,000. It has been remarked, however, that the iig-ure given by the recent Commission of Inquiry was still below the straight-out authorisation oft £101,250. Their figures were: No. I—Tunnel, exclusive of . tramway £ 159,624 No. 2—Western approach, including property acquisition, but excluding tramway ..... £39,000 No. 3—Eastern approach road, but'exclusive of tramway ............... £10,800 ■,' • ' £215,424 Engineering contingencies, 10 percent £21,542 Tramway tracks £ 21,150 £258,116 No. 4—Extension of Ruahim; street to Wellington road,including acquisition of property, but excluding tramway £38,740 Engineering contingencies, 10 percent £3,874 Tramway tracks ; &13 726 £56,346 Say £57,000 Cost of complete scheme, including all constructional and engineering costs, with an allowance for acquisition of property, but exclusive of all other charges, £317,000. . ' NOT THE COMMISSION'S . APPROAHES. The tunnel, the Commission had considered, could be driven for less than the £161,250 authorised, but the approaches were apart altogether. Certainly the council now proposed to depart radically from the Commission's recommendation, and to provide approach ways involving much less property, and therefore less expense, but approaches that were not much better than makeshifts dictated by the financial shortage, which, in turn was dictated by the council's decision not to risk a poll of the ratepayers. The Commission recommended that the Ruahine street extension, on the eastern side of the ridge, might be deferred until later, but the approach suggested on the city side was much more direct than that,agreed to by the council as sufficient for the time being—i.e., up Ellice street, then by a right-angled turn and a half-turn to the tunnel mouth. Should no favourable tunnel tender,. be received, the council will, it would seem—if the Commission's estimate was near tho mark, and providing also that unemployment relief loans , and subsidies are adequate to provide, approaches —have practically no option but to undertake the work itself, for the Commission's estimate was presumably based upon the work of officers of the City Council. . RELATION OF TRAMWAY LOAN. Though tunnelling work may "be less costly to-day than in the peak years following the war, and consequently the 1920 vote may cover the cost of driving the tunnel itself, it is to be noted that tho £101,250 of 1920 was for a tunnel complete witli approaches and tram tracks, not merely for. an imposing, holo driven through the ridge. Approaches are to bo constructed, according to present plans, out of unemployment relief moneys; loan tracks, it is proposed, shall be provided for by a part of tho tramways loan ■which is to be submitted to the ratepayers, on the day of tlio municipal elections. Had Councillor W. H. Bennett's motion been adopted by tho council the position would have been that,: no • matter' how favourablo tlie tunnel tender-or how adequate the money for approaches, neithei- tunnel s°l aPPJ"?Mhea could. jje undertaken, jl

this tramway loan item was not sanctioned. The council, however, declined to be so bound and to safeguard itself against being tho owner of a tramway and traffic tunnel, without tram tracks. That complication will, however, be definite, and will be cleared away altogether (by tho turning down or approval of the tramways loan) before tenders can be considered, for the election and polls are to take place on Ist May, and it is not possible that tenders can be received and considered by that date. It was stated that the minimum time required for the preparation of plans and specifications was a month, formalities invariably add a few more weeks, and contractors are not at all likely to glance through specifications for such a work as this and say in a day or two what their price will be. So far the council has not discussed the calling of tenders in any detail, but presumably tenders will be called from outside, as well as within the Dominion, and that may mean anything up to six months of delay. In the meantime the term of office of the present council will have expired, and though it is probable that tho majority of the present councillors will enter the new council, a new member —possibly a present member —may after all introduce some "weathercock idea" and the eastern tunnel will be discussed from a new angle. The fact is that certain members of the council are unhappy over the solution, which it is clear does not please the majority of Wellington citizens.