LYTTELTON CAN BE IMPROVED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17878, 21 June 1926, Page 4

LYTTELTON CAN BE IMPROVED.

VARSITY ENGINEERS DEBATE CANAL SCHEME. “ That the problem of communication between city and port is best solved by the development of the Lyttelton system as against that of a canal via Sumner,” was the subject of debate by the Canterbury College Engineering Society on Saturday night. Mr C. J. Hunter, who introduced the subject, described how Canterburv and Christchurch had for some time’ been living on the successes of the past, and in real progress doing little more than marking time. To overcome the lack of direct, speedy and efficient communication with the sea he submitted: (1) A remodelled Lyttelton Harbour; (2) A level double track road traffic tunnel; (3) A broad highway connect ing the tunnel to the city. The estimated cost of this scheme, taken out within the last six months, was: Remodelling harbour, £750,000; road traffic .tunnel, £450,000; broad highway, £70,000; total £1,270,000. Mr Hunter concluded by reading an extract from the report of the Christchurch Canal Commission, January, 1912: “We have come to the deliberate conclusion that it is not in the interests of the city and district that any artificial harbour should be constructed outside Port Lyttelton.” Mr D. M. Hercus opened the case for Port Christchurch, and described in detail the proposed lay-out. The main reasons against the extension of Lyttelton Harbour, he pointed out, were the extra cost of duplicating the tunnel, electrification, etc., and the ; small extent of the present harbour, which necessitated building a second pair of moles. Reclamation on the steep foreshore would be dangerous, as instanced in the collapse of the waterfront in San Francisco during a big earthquake. The foreshore would be very narrow, making railway access awkward and warehouse space re stricted. Artificial harbours were no longer in the experimental stage, and the speaker quoted some examples, and added that eminent engineers had declared the Port Christchurch scheme quite practicable. The estimated cost of the scheme from the latest post-war investigation was £850,000. This report was checked by the Harbour Board’s engineer. An American firm recently offered to do the job for £1,000,000, and to guarantee that the Port would begin to earn revenue within six months of the start of operations. A comparison of the estimates showed Port Christchurch to be the cheaper scheme. Mr S. R. Watson: Should the new Port Christchurch be decided upon, it may prove to be a bad harbour, and Canterbury maj- not get even the small percentage of trade she gets now. Port Christchurch would also bring into the “City Beautiful” an unsightly area. With regard to finance it is unlikely that the Government would burden itself with another loan, so Christchurch would have to raise the money herself. The result would be that the same revenue would be derived from Port Christchurch as is now obtained from Lyttelton, and there would be the interest and sinking fund on the loan to be paid. Mr H. M. Nimmo: Lyttelton is saddled with a debt of £1,000,000, and if Port Christchurch is buijt this debt will have to be taken over and added to the cost of building the new harbour. Mr J. Nicholson said that an appreciable area would naturally be reclaimed behind the moles of Port Christchurch by the littoral drift. This area would be suitably situated for warehouses, and would be very valuable. A large sum towards paying off the cost of the new harbour could be obtained by the sale or rent of this land and of land artificially reclaimed from the estuary. Dr Thacker congratulated both the leading speakers, and added that all the speakers had brought forward a new point for consideration. The point raised by Mr Nicholson about the land natural!}’' reclaimed behind the moles was a new one to him, and was an important consideration. There was no question, he continued, about artificial harbours being satisfactory, and pointed out the value of reclaimed land, giving as an illustration the Exhibition site at Logan Park, Dunedin. Many of the greatest ports were on rivers, e.g. Brisbane; Melbourne; Perth, where the Swan River coul<T once be crossed on foot; Durban, which whs almost identical with the proposed Port Christchurch : London, which was a river port, had an entrance much more dangerous than that to Port Christchurch would be. The ideal city port of Seattle was formed by washing down practically a whole mountain to reclaim land. The artificial harbour of Los Angeles was a serious rival to San Francisco, which had an excellent natural harbour. The Manchester Ship < anal was causing the great port ot Liverpool to lose an enormous amount of freight, which now went direct to Manchester. The Lyttelton Harbour debt of £1,000.000 was covered by a sinking fund, and would cause no addition to the cost of building Port Christchurch harbour. Mr ChrystaH doubted whether there had been any post-war estimates made for Port Christchurch, and said he considered £850.000 to be rather low. Former estimates were in the region of £2,000.000. The example quoted of Richborough as an artificial harbour was inapt, as the cost of this work was about £15,000.000, and it was built only as a war exigency. The motion by Mr C. J. Hunter was put before the meeting and was carried by a slight majorityThe two leading speakers thanked Dr Thacker and Mr ChrystaH for the great assistance given in preparing material for the matter under debate.