The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1926. CHIEFLY A LONG HOLE THROUGH A HILL

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12458, 28 May 1926, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1926. CHIEFLY A LONG HOLE THROUGH A HILL

Citizens, and ratepayers in especial, will not read the report of the Northland Tunnel Commission with much relish. If the Commission’s proceedings are sound, it amounts to this: the work has been sadly bungled from beginning to end. The report is exceedingly voluminous. It reads, for the most part, like a pronouncement which ought to be taken seriously. In essence, it is as sweeping an indictment of administrative methods as we have read for many a day. Work was actually commenced on the tunnel enterprise on July 25th, 1923. There was trouble at the outset, as the document reveals. Toward the end of 1924, the engineer-in-chief of the Public Works Department declined to report on the tunnel, on the ground that he had no “official knowledge” of it ... a pretty state of affairs, truly. The tunnel was completed in August, 1925. The Order-in-Council applied for was not granted, owing to the “allegedly unsatisfactory nature” of the work. The Commission states that it has “no hesitation in saying that an open cutting should have been adopted in place of a tunnel.” In support of that declaration it gives reasons which appear to be sound. It animadverts on the fact that no complete set of plans was available after the work was ordered: an almost incredible omission on the part of somebody which had disabling consequences. The Seatoun tunnel is circular in section; the Karori one is “somewhat circular.” Both have stood the test twenty years or longer, though the Karori tunnel is in faulty ground. Yet a different design was adopted for Northland. Shall we call it misplaced inspiration, or what? The section in the report titled “Organisation of Work” makes rather painful reading. We leave it for the public to digest at its leisure. In a most circumstantial way, the Commission leads us to its unequivocal conclusion that “the "whole of the work was carried out in an inefficient and unworkmanlike manner.” Once again, reasons for that conclusion are appended. Summing up, the Commission finds that the tunnel is faulty in construction throughout, and it names those it regards as responsible for the blundering. It condemns the design as defective and out of date, and asserts that the supervision generally is not in accordance with engineering practice. It adds the opinion that some method of strengthening the tunnel will have to be devised before it can be considered suitable for public use. This may cost another £4600. Still, as the ill-starred venture has run the city into between and already, what does another thousand or two matter? The council can always put up the rates! There have been tunnels and tunnels and tunnels, but if we can believe this Commission of ours, the Northland example is chiefly a long hole through a hill.