The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1929. OTAGO HARBOUR.

Evening Star, Issue 20253, 14 August 1929, Page 8

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1929. OTAGO HARBOUR.

Members of the Otago Harbour Board earnestly tackled a difficult task last night, but the decisions arrived at are of a negative character. The reason for this is that, in the present state of the board’s finances, concentration on either the Lower or the Upper Harbour seems the only safe course to adopt. A decision one way or the other might mean civil war on the board. Members really appear anxious now to work harmoniously, since the guerrilla warfare of the past few years has not been conducive to progress, and has invited outside comment in lyliich unpleasant comparisons with competing ports in the matter of charges and facilities have been drawn. So a species of truce seems to have been tacitly arranged, and the upshot has been that propositions from any quarter are examined and solemnly rejected. Even the chairman’s declaration of the board’s policy was not approved. It was no more than a restatement of an ambitious programme of improvements, chiefly relating to the Upper Harbour. Mr Loudon, as champion of the. policy of making Dunedin the port of Otago, ultimately involving the abandonment of Port 'Chalmers, evidently considered Mr Gow’s statement not nearly explicit enough on this point, and after some conflict with the chair he and others somewhat inexplicably voted in disavowal of the chairman’s statement of policy. Later Mr Soollay’s very reasonable motion concerning the better utilisation of Port Chalmers (in view of the board’s acquisition of wharfage from the Railway Department) was also decisively defeated. On the most important question facing it the board is not a whit further forward.

Nevertheless, some most interesting information was placed before the board by its engineer Some of it was of a distinctly discouraging nature. In 1925 the board qbtained legislative sanction for a loan of £350,000 for Upper Harbour improvements, prominent among which was the conversion of the Victoria wharf into a railway wharf. The engineers of the Harbour Board and of the Railways Department have conferred as to the feasibility of this, its probable cost, and its economic value. A double line of track would suffice for the handling of a limited amount of cargo Only in a given time; a triple line of track would involve the cutting back of the frontages of a number of the wharf sheds, and raise tho probable cost to £50,000. But of especial moment is the very marked reticence of the district railway engineer and of the traffic manager as to the efficiency of conversion in view of the difficulties confronting the handling of traffic from Victoria wharf, through the passenger yard, to the goods yard, and vice versa. Plainly the Railways Department is not enthusiastic over the project. This difficulty of providing another railway wharf at Dunedin is all the more to be regretted in view of the disclosures as to the state of tho existing very meagre railway wharfage accommodation at Dunedin. Mr Wilkie’s report on the Birch street wharf is virtually a condemnation of that structure. Temporary repairs may prolong its life five years. After that one judges it must be entirely reconstructed or abandoned. Should the latter step be advisable it may be of interest to note that Mr Wilkie’s plans for leading the railway tracks to tho Victoria wharf fit in with future extension of that wharf northwards—i.e., down harbour; ’ In view of all this one is forced to agree with Mr when he says that tho board’s past policy is in the melting pot, and that Port Chalmers cannot be closed. ,That being so, it is* most unfortunate, tljat a majority of members could not see their way to supporting Mr Scollay’s motion to improve the depths at the Port Chalmers wharves, equip one of them with a crane from the Victoria wharf, and urge the speedy completion of the Port Chalmers, railway line duplication. It is particularly unfortunate that such a lever should bo given to a Government none too willing to carry to its legitimate conclusion a work undertaken by its predecessors in office iu response to

long-sustained local pressure to fill an, obvious want. Mr Scollay’s motion was construed by tho Upper Harbour party as implying complete concentration on Port Chalmers, and tho writing oil" of the many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on the Victoria Channel and other Upper Harbour works. Mr Scollay was at pains to explain that it implied nothing so drastic. What wo take to bo bis motive is the carrying on of the work of the port of Otago in the most efficient and economical way possible until the board can see financial and engineering daylight. In that view ho is supported by a weighty section ! of local trading opinion. The charges made at this port are excessive. especially in view of the facilities provided. This was forcibly pointed out some weeks ago iu a letter written to us by “Importer.” who declared that “tho business people of Dunedin would welcome a commission to inquire into harbour matters generally.” This contention has not been weakened by the negative result of last night’s meeting. As stated above, the board did its utmost, yet has not advanced the position one iota.