CHRISTCHURCH CANAL SCHEME.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14656, 25 January 1912, Page 4

CHRISTCHURCH CANAL SCHEME.

The report of tlie special commission of harbour experts which has utterly condemned the project of a canal for Christchuxch will be worth more than the money that has been spent on it if it puts an end to an agiiatioli which for years has been confusing and disturbing- The canal scheme has been for years a prominent issue of local politics, and more than a minor issue even of Parliamentary campaigns. Moreover a good deal of economic- uncertainty must necessarily hare obtained, while the contingency existed that Lyttelton might at no distant future be a diminished and largely discarded port, and the value of its property transferred in a great measure, to the locality between Sumner and "Woolsion which now consists largely of waste lands- It is probable that the anxieties of Lyttelton will be set at rest, and that the present generation, at least, will hear no more of the canal scheme, now that the latest commission has denounced it. The commission was composed ot harbour experts, who gave exhaustive consideration to the subject, and took voluminous evidence before preparing their report. They have come to the decision that the canal is of doubtful practicability from a working point of view, that, its cost would be prohibitive, that it would impose charges upon the business community greater than the railway rates which it was desired to avoid, that the depreciation of private and public property elsewhere would be too serious a burden to incur, and lastly, that the canal is unnecessary, since the developments of trade and shipping for the nest fifty years can be met by a reasonable expenditure on improvements to the present, port of Lyttelton. Practically the result of the commission is to confirm the conclusions of the firm of London engineers, Messrs Coode, Son, and Matthews, who reported on alternative canal and harbour extension projects in 1908. The expert of this firm reported that a canal from Sumner, with a dock at Eeatlicote. rather than at Linwood, was feasible, but not advisable. It was estimated io cost two million pounds, and the firm .'toted that it was impossible to judge the amount of dredging that, would be required to beep clear the basin. They concluded that "apart from questions of finance and general policy, the i3;iard would on the whole be best advised in adhering to Port Lyttelton for future harbour extensor.." The plan they recommended for providing this w&b the ocn-

frtruction of sin entirely- new harbour'at Gollan's Bay, between the present harbour and the toads, at a cost of £605,430. The present commission, treating the subject from an economic as well n,s_ from an engineering viewpoint, ia more pronounced as to the disadvantages of a oanfl, and evidently it sees no necessity for nonstructiiig another hiuiioi'v. IFho Board will incur no risk, and Jio unnatural expense, if it r<\fiolvos to act in accordance ivilh this report. Tho only possible fear is that the commissioners may havo under estimated the rcquirernemts of the future, but the exhaustive ovidcuoo taken, and tho statistics they have had before them as to the rato of intoreaso of the port's trade in the (past, must have reduced this possibility to a minimum.