HARBOUR EXTENSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13932, 14 December 1905, Page 2

HARBOUR EXTENSION.

CANAL TO CHRISTCHURCp. HARBOURS AT GOLLAN’S BAY AND STICKING POINT. COMPREHENSIVE REPORT BY MR CYRUS WILLIAMS. THE BOARD POSTPONES DISCUSSION. At the meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board yesterday afternoon, Mr Cyrus J. R. Williams, engineer to the Board, submitted a lengthy and comprehensive report on the feasibility of constructing a canal from the sea near Sumner to the city. He was instructed by the Board to report “in what direction further harbour extensions can be made, and the estimated cost,” and also on “the feasibility and advisability or otherwise of the formation of a canal from the sea at Sumner to Christchurch, and also of other accommodation for shipping at Sumner:” • LYTTELTON HARBOUR. He says that, assuming a steady growth of trade on the basis of the ngures from 1893 to 1904, in twenty years, about 1925, the accommodation in the inner harbour at Lyttelton may be exhausted, in which case extensions will be necessary outside the present moles. He, therefore, before dealing with the proposed canal, sets out two proposals for harbour extensions at Lyttelton, capable of being worked through tne Moorhouse Tunnel. HARBOUR AT STICKING POINT. _ Proposal No. 1 shows a small additional enclosed harbour in connection with the reclaimed land eastward of Officers’ Point, a curved breakwater being run cut in a south-westerly direction from Sticking Point, and another protecting mole being built in a south-easterly direction from the elbow of Officers’ v Point breakwater, leaving an entrance 500 ft wide. This arrangement would enclose a water area of about ninety acres, and effective berthing lengths of about 3800 ft at breastworks, and 6200 ft at four jetties, or a total of 9000 ft of deep water berthage. The cost is estimated as follows—- £ s. d. £ s. d. Breakwater . 38,015 0 0 Protecting mole , 26,100 0 0 Dredging inside . 27,185 0 0 Breastworks , . 68,400 0 0 Jetties,' No. 4 . 90,000 0 0 ———— 250,000 0 0 Contingencies, 10 per cent . . 25,000 0 0 Total .... £275,000 0 0 This estimate makes no provision for rails on the wharves, which, under the present constitution are laid by the Railway Department, who work the cargo, nor for payment to the Government on account or reclaimed land eastward of Officers’ Point, work which has been assessed by them at a cost of £26,000, The accommodation provided would thus cost about £3O 11b per lineal foot of efficient berthage. HARBOUR AT GOLLAN’S The second proposition in respect to Lyttelton provides for a completely new harbour at Gollan’s Bay, with the necessary reclamation to connect it with the present railway system. The water area enclosed would be about 200 acres, and the ultimate effective berthage about 5000 lineal feet at breastworks, and 17,000 lineal feet at the 12 jetties, which could each be suitable for berthing a 700 ft vessel, and still leave manoeuvring space between the ends of the jetties on opposite sides of the harbour. The .entrance would bo situated in 30ft at low water datum, so that no dredging outside the moles would be required. The dredgings from the inner harbour could bo used to make reclamations, unless it was found, as has previously been the case, that the waste from the quarrying operations was supplying sufficient material for this purpose. The reclamation bank extending from Officers' Point to Sticking Point would be extended, enclosing the small bay between Sticking Point and Battery Point, and continued in an easterly direction to form. a shelter from the south-west, and' to carry a series of jetties running north-east and southwest, so that vessels oould berth head or stern to wind as they do at present. He makes the following estimate of the cost of this scheme:—- _ £ s. d. £ b. d. Breakwater . . 53,216 0 0 Western mole and r e clam ation • bank from Sticking Point . 139,906 0 0 Declamation bank inside moles , . 20,515 0 0 Dredging and reclaiming with dredgings . 42,000 0 0 Breastworks . 75,000 0 0 f ■ —■ 117,000 0 0 335,637 0 0 Contingencies, 10 per cent on above . , , . , 33,564 0 0 369,201 0 0 Jetties, No. 12 . . . . 300,000 0 0 Total . , . . £689,201 0 0 or about £3O per’lineal foot of effeotivo berthage. This estimate, like the previous one, makes no provision for rails on the wharves, or for payment for the Sticking Point reclamation. In comparing the cost of these proposals, Mr Williams says, it is necessary to take into account the cost of keeping open a dredged channel into the Sticking Point harbour. A moderate estimate would be £3OOO per annum, which, capitalised at 4£ per cent, equals £66,667, which should be added to the cost of the Sticking Point harbour, bringing the cost up to £341,687, or nearly £3l per foot of berthage; or, comparing them on a basis of equal additions to the berthage, the Gollan’s Bay harbour would only require three of the twelve jetties, making the cost only £435,201 as against £341,667 for the Sticking Point proposal. That is to say, for a 50 per cent increase to the present accommodation, the Sticking Point proposal is cheaper ; but looking further ahead and taking into account the increase in the size of vessels to be provided for, it would be better to go straight to Gollan’s Bay, and provide a commodious tidal basin there suitable for the largest vessels. THE THIRD PROPOSAL. THE SUMNER CANAL. PORT AT HEATHCOTE OR WILSON’S ROAD. LARGE AREAS OF LAND TO BE RECLAIMED. Mr Williams then enters upon the most interesting portion of his report, the proposal to make a canal from Sumner. He has named this Proposal No. 3, and he has divided it into No. 3A (a port or tidal basin at Heathcote), and No. 3B (a canal from tho sea and a port at Wilson’s Road, opposite the Linwood railway station). Before going into details, he says:— “In considering such proposals as these, involving -the expenditure’ of £275,000 or £369,000, as the case may be, in the first, instance, and of nearly £700,000 ultimately, it is necessary to take into consideration the question of whether it is desirable or good economy that the trade of the district should depend on railway communication through the hills. I am not among those who think that the capacity of i tha present tunnel is likely to be scon

overtaxed, as I know that it ns capable of dealing with a large increase to the present traffic, and when necessary it can be duplicated, though the cost of such duplication, which would probably bo at least £125,000, would really be a charge against the harbour works, however it might be paid for. Tho point is that as regards general merchandise, coal, timber and imports feneraliy, the district is handicapped y tho railage charges; and though these could be considerably reduced, and still leave a large margin of profit, they aro not likely to be so reduced as to put Christchurch and the district served by its port on an equality with large seaport centres. Under tho present system manufactures will always bo handicapped. The position as regards export of produce is not so acute. Consequently data have been obtained with a view of ascertaining tho feasibility of constructing a canal from tho sea towards Christchurch.” PORT HEATHCOTE. CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS TO OCCUPY FROM FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS. __ EIGHT HUNDREtTacRES TO BE RECLAIMED. Of Proposal No. 3 A, he says that it provides for a tidal basin formed in the Estuary near the mouth of the Heathoote River, connected with the Boa by means of an open cutting 30ft deep at low-water springs; with bottom width of 200 ft, and side slopes calculated at 5 to 1 inside the present Sumner bar, and 6 to 1 outside the bar, opening into the open sea just outside Sumner Head in five fathoms at low' water of spring*tides. The channel would bo protected on the north side by a mole about 7500 ft long, of similar construction to tho outer mole now being built at Timaru, and tho entrance would be nan-owed to 700 ft between the centres of the moles by a short mole from Sumner Head, covering the half-tide rock near there. The ebb currents in tho channel through Sumner Bay would bo directed and confined oh tho north by the north mole, and on the south by a low training wall, to be covered at quar-ter-flood, thus allowing for the dispersal of waves and for the free ingress of the flood-tide.

The present Sumner Bay would thus be converted into a wave-trap or stilling basin, its shoalness precluding its use as an anchorage, unless dredged out, which is not contemplated in this proposition, as anything in the nature of a harbour of refuge or anchorage foxlarge vessels would be unnecessary with Port Lyttelton so near; while vessels waiting for a pilot could lie off or anchor outside in fair weather. The sides of the channel from tho month of the Estuary to the Port would be protected by means of reclamation banks, behind which the dredgings would be deposited, _ which would Jesuit in the reclamation of upwards of 800 acres of land.

At the port itself sufficient land would be reclaimed round the margin seaward of the present high-water line, for administration, storage and other purposes, no provision being required for land resumptions. The berthage accommodation would consist of breastworks and jetties with sheds, with rails between the sheds and wharf faces, this space being spanned by travelling electric gantry cranes, capable of lifting tho goods from the vessel’s hold on to small platforms in front of the sheds or into drays or trucks on tho rails as The wharf rails could be connected with the Tramway Board’s system. An export wharf would be constructed along the south side of the basin and channel, connected to the railway system of the colony by means of the old railway line along the Heathoote River. Under this system the cargo would be handled by the Board as at Wellington. The construction of these works would occupy from five to seven years. PORT WILSON’S ROAD. CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS TO OCCUPY SEVEN TO TEN YEARS. WHOLE ESTUARY TO BE RECLAIMED. Proposal No. 3 B provides for a tidal basin or port just below Wilson’s Road, opposite the Linwood Railway Station. The ultimate area would be 162 acres, which would form the basis of the necessary land resumption here of 236 acres. Only 70 acres, however, would be excavated at first, the basin being enlarged as trade increased. Tho depth in the port would be 30ft at low water, and it would be connected with the sea by means of am open cutting, with 130 ft bottom width and side slopes at the natural angle of the material, out to the present high-water mark, and 200 ft bottom width thence seawards, the lower works being identical with those described under proposition 3 “A.” At the port the wharves wotad be provided with sheds, cranes, etc., as before, but no rails would be laid on any except the export wharf, along the south side of the basin, which would bo connected with the railway system. In this proposition it would jbe necessary to provide for the acquisition of 358 acres of land, 122 acres for the canal and 236 acres for the terminal port; while the whole of the estuary would be required to dispose of the’ dredged spoil. Under this system also the cargo would be handled by the Board as at Wellington. Tho construction of these works would occupy from seven to ten years. ESTIMATES OF COST. . PORT HEATHCOTE. The following is the estimate of Proposal 3 A, with a pert near the Heathcote Bridge, with an area of 176 acres, a channel 30ft at low water, 200 ft bottom, with side slopes, 6 to 1 outside the present bar, and sto 1 inside the bar £ s. d. £ s. d. Plant, including necessary cranes and dredges .. . I 52,000 0 0 Preliminary expenses in connection with quarry, rails, . and temporary • ' - bridge . . 11,750 0 0 — 163,750 0 0 North mole, with staging . 168,000 0 0 South mole . . 16,340 0 0 Training wall in . Sumner Bay . 7,048 0 0 Retaining walls to contain dredgings . 3,575 0 0 Dredging— , . Present bar to open sea . 22,316, 0 0 Present bar to port . . 128,012 0 0 Tidal basin or port . . 241,354 0 0 — 391,682 0 0 Wharfage . , . 130,000 0 0 Sheds . • 37,500 0 0 Cranage outfit . 30,000 0 0 Rails on wharves 10,000 0 0 957,895 0 0

Contingencies and engineering expenses, 10 per cent . . 95,789 0 0 Tctal .... £1,053,634 0 0 ESTIMATE OP THE COST OF THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF WORKS. £ s. d. Total estimated cost as above 1,053,684 0 0 Saring by only excavating 50 acres of tidal basin, continuing as extensions become necessary . . . . 200,000 0 0 Total cost in working order £353,684 0 0 PORT WILSON’S ROAD. -Tli© following is the estimated cost of Proposal 3 B, with a pert near Wilson’s Road, an area of 162 acres, a channel 30ft at low water, 200 ft bottom width frow» eea to high water mark, and 130 ft

bottom width from high water mark to port:—■ £ sd. £ sd. Plant, including necessary cranes andi dredges . 152,000 0 0 ■ Preliminary expenses „ . . 11,750 0 0 North mole, with staging . . . 168,000 0 0 South mol© . . 16,340 0 0 Training wall in Sumner Bay . 7,046 0 0 Reclamation walls to contain dredgings .... 3,575 0 0 Dredging— Present bar to open sea . 23,316 0 0 Present bar to / h.-water mark 174,861 0 0 High - water mark to port 121,916 0 0 Tidal basin or port at Wilson’s Road, with 162 acra . 359,571 0 0 Wharfage . . 130,000 0 0 Sheds 37,500 0 0 Bails on-wharves 6,C00 0 0 Cranage outfit . 30,000 0 0 1,239,877 0 0 Contingencies and engineering ex--1 ponses 10 per cent .... 123,967 0 0 Total cost of construction £1,363,864 0 0 Land resumptions and compensations for canal, 122 , acres; for tidal basin, store space, etc., 236 acres —358 acres . . 379,526 0 0 £1,743,392 0 0 ■Cost of canal proper, not including land resumptions or compensation to property owners, about £9OO per chain, or £72,000 per mile. ESTIMATE OP THE COST OP THE FIRST INSTALMENT .OP THE WORKS. Total estimated cost of construction as above . . 1,363,864 0 0 Less difference in cost of tidal basin constructed 70 acres in extent, instead of 162 acres Jas finally proposed 210,000 0 0 1,153,864 0 0 Add estimated cost of resumption and compensation, for canal, 122 acres; for tidal basin, store space, etc., 236 acres—3sß acres . 379,000 0 0 Total cost in working order £1,5321864 0 0 Tho estimate of the cost of Proposal 3 “ B,” modified with a port near Wilson’s Road, cut to 70 acres, with provision for subsequent enlargement to 162 acres, channel 130 ft bottom width, cut to 26ft at low water, is as follows: £ s. d. £ s. d. Plant, including cranes and •dredges . . 152,000 0 0 Preliminary ex-, penses . 11,750 0 0 North taole, with staging . 168,000 0 0 South mole . . 16,340 0 0 Training wall in Sumnsr Bay . 7,048 0 0 R e c lalnation walls to contain dredgings 3,575 0 0 Dredging— P; esent bar to open sea ' . ‘ 15,667 0 0 Present bar to • high - water 1 mark . . 139,176 0 0 High - water mark to port 103,649 0 0 Pert 70 acres, 30it deep . 155,458 0 0 • 413,808 0 0 Wharfage . . 130.000 0 0 Sheds . . . 37,500 0 0 ‘ Rails . . . 6,000 0 0 Cranage outfit . 30,000 .0 0 375,021 0 0 Contingencies, etc. . , . 97,502 0 0 V 1,072,'523 0 0 Lend resumption . . . 379,528 0 0 Total .... £1,452,051 0 0

OTHER SUBJECTS. Tho report goes into other details, showing the proposed system of construction, sand travel 1 , and the sea-hed at Sumner. It is stated that a comparison of recent soundings with those on the Admiralty chart, dated 1849, indicates a condition, of stability in the natural conditions of tho sea-bed at the site of the' proposed entrance. The material out of the dredged channel from tho entrance to high-water mark could be dealt with bv a suction dredge, which oould dredge and discharge the spoil over tho reclamation banka in one operation. The material in the channel from high-water mark to the port, near Linwood, oould also be removed by suction dredges. It is not expected that the upper "part of the channel and the canal proper, would maintain their depths without continuous dredging in some part or another, and Mr Williams has assumed that in tho project for a port at Linwood a emu of £15,000 a year would be necessary to provide for that, and that £IO,OOO w&ild be necessary in connection with a port near tho Heatheote Bridge. He cannot see any special benefit in attempting to make use of the Canal Reserve.

Any smaller canal than one suitable for the largest vessels does not seem to him to be worth discussing.

He points out many directions in which savings would almost certainly bo effected in tho actual execution of tho works.

The value of the contingent reclamations has nob been taken into account. In the case of Proposal 3 A the area reclaimed would be about 800 acres, while in the case of Proposal 3 B tho whole of the estuary, except the ship channel and necesary channels for the Avon and Heathoote Rivero, would be reclaimed, au area of 1477 acres. A great deal of the land would not be very valuablertor some years at least, bub those portions facing tho channel would be a valuable asset immediately. He estimates the annual working cost of Proposal '3 A, with a port near the Heathoote Bridge, at £106,237, and the annual cost of working a port near Wilson’s Road at £144,589. These estimates are based on the cost of working the present harbour.. Mr Williams does not consider it necessary to discuss the various sources of revenue, but he shows at what date sufficient revenue could be collected to meet the necessary yearly cost without excessive charges. He has prepared a table, which shows that, taking a conservative view, based on the average increase for the last twenty-three years, and on a working basis equal to 5d per ton, the canal scheme would be financial in the year 1917; at 4s 6d per ton, - in 1923; and on a basis of 4s per ton, in 1931; dr, taking the optimistic view of trade expansion based on tho average rate of increase for the last eleven years, it would become financial in 1910 at 5® per ton; in 1913 at 4s 6d per ton; in 1917 at 4s per ton; and in 1921 at 3s 6d per ton. It also indicates that a port near Heathoote Bridge would be a financial success to-day by reducing the total charges from 7s per ton to 5s per ton; that in 1907 the charges would be reduced to 4s 6d per ton; and that if the work were com-

menced now, by tho time it was finished the charges would be reduced to 4s per ton. A diagram and two large plans are submitted with the report. A SHORT DISCUSSION. The chairman of the Board (Mr F. H. Barns), in his report, said that the report was an exceedingly able and exhaustive one. The subject was of great importance; and in order to afford members more time to make themselves conversant with the many details embraced |in the report and the general bearings of the case, he moved that consideration of the report should be postponed until after tho Board’s annual adjourned meeting, to be held in February, when the financial position of the Board would be placed before members. Mr A. Kaye seconded the motion.- He said that all members would agree that tho rex>ort had been compiled with much care. It certainly reflected great credit on the engineer. The information supplied was exceedingly full, and was placed before members in such a simple way that “he who runs may read ”'and understand it. The question was, perhaps, tho, largest that had come before the Board, as it meant a complete tion of the present system. He thought with the chairman that the report should be published, so that the public should have an opportunity of considering the full details. By postponing discussion, there would probably be obtained an expression of opinion from a largo number of people, and members would be giving' themselves more time for thought and to see what steps should be taken.*

Mr Kaye was continuing, when Mr Webb asked if the whole subject was to be considered then, as if that was the case he had a great deal to say. Mr Kaye said that ho was only discussing the motion. There was no hurry in the matter. The point that seemed to him to be prominent was that the canal was feasible, but members would bear in mind that the original motion convoyed the idea that after data had been obtained the proposal should be submitted to some very high authority, the highest that could be found in the world, to confirm or otherwise the opinions expressed in the report. He thought that the details supplied thoroughly justified the Board in taking the step adopted. It had been felt for many yeans that there was doubt as to whether anything could be done .The report stated that proposal came quite within the Board’s scope, and whatever the result was the Board had been very wise in obtaining so much very useful data. In reply to Mr I. Gibbs, the chairman said that the engineer had stated that he would not like to undertake the work unless £SOO was placed 'at his disposal. The cost would be £462. In reply to Mr J. Richardson, the chairman said that he did not think the opinion of an outside expert would be obtained until after the Board_ had come to some decision. Expert opinion could not be obtained in time for the adjourned meeting. Mr R. Moore agreed with that, saying that members, in the meantime, could form some opinion as to whether the work, was feasible, and .as to whether further steps should be taken. The chairman said\ he certainly thought that it would be better to take the whole discussion at the meeting in February. Mr Moore said ho was satisfied that the expenditure in obtaining the ref .art was justified. Mr Webb said that members should have time to think over the matter, not so much from a Lyttelton point of view, as a Canterbury point of view. Ho thought that it must be in the minds of members of the Board to close up Lyttelton harbour.

Members: No, no. Mr Webb maintained that the Board was entrusted with making Lyttelton harbour, not with making a canal to Christchurch. Members had gone out of their way to endeavour to kill Lyttelton harbour. Members: No, no. Mr Webb: They have gone out of their way to kill Lyttelton and establish a competitive harbour. Mr G. J. Smith: There is not a single member of the Board who wants to destroy-Lyttelton. ' The motion was carried.