7

fl—3s

Association submitted that as the Auckland harbour bridge would be part of the main highway system the cost should be either subsidized or contributed to by the Main Highway Board. The association advocated a toll bridge on the basis of the user paying ; it also proposed that a special local authority should be set up, with power to raise the necessary funds by bond or debenture issue guaranteed by the State, This virtually means that the Government would build the bridge. The sites favoured by the Bridge Association were (1) from Beaumont Street to Shoal Bay, with causeways across Shoal Bay to Northcote, Bayswater, and thence to Stanley Point; and (2) from Jellicoe Street to Northcote. The association did not favour site No. 3, from Point Erin to Northcote, nor that from Point Erin to Birkenhead. The position of the Auckland Harbour Board in respect to the proposed bridge was clearly set out by the Chairman and officials of the Board, and was to the effect that the Board was not antagonistic towards the construction of a bridge, provided that it did not in any way prevent or interfere with the fullest development of the port, or involve the Board in any expense. At the present time, apart from the sugar-refinery at Chelsea, there were no important works beyond the Western Wharf, but, looking to the future, it was likely that this portion of the harbour would be utilized, and the erection of any structure that would in any way interfere with the free passage of large vessels to and from the upper reaches of the harbour would be strongly opposed by the Board. The Harbourmaster showed very clearly, with the aid of a large-scale map and model, that a serious objection to|the|manoeuvring of large vessels in the vicinity of the Western and other main wharves would be caused, on flood tide during easterly weather, by the construction of a bridge on site No. lor site No. 2. No objection, however, would be raised by him to a bridge from Stokes Point, Northcote, on a line 195° to Ponsonby, provided that a vertical clearance of 150 ft. for a width of 800 ft. over the navigable channel was given. He added that there was now a considerable amount of large shipping up the harbour to Chelsea, and that there was ample deep water between Northcote and Kauri Point for some two miles in length and for 1,600 ft. in width, which area was most valuable for anchorage and for future wharf accommodation, and that any bridge which now or in the future restricted or endangered navigation would impair the progress and expansion of the port, and would act detrimentally to the whole province. The Treasurer and Accountant to the Board produced a statement showing that the capital cost of the ferry wharves was £155,951, and that of the breakwater at the Western Boat-harbour was £51,360. The Engineer to the Board stated that while the principal harbour-works planned for the near future did not extend west of Freeman's Bay Reclamation, the Board would be lacking in appreciation of its responsibilities if it allowed this waterway to be shut off by a bridge of short span and inadequate vertical clearance. It was impossible to say what developments would take place in fifty or a hundred years, and he was of the opinion, speaking generally, but subject to revision for any particular site, that a bridge across the harbour between Kauri Point and North Head should have a clear span over the full width of the channel defined from the 5-fathom lines, and a clear headway of 150 ft. over the middle 800 ft. of this span. He submitted that the present ferry service was capable of meeting the requirements of the North Shore boroughs, and that the cost of a bridge which would be acceptable from the harbour standpoint would make it impracticable for many years to come. If causeways were built across Shoal Bay and Ngataringa Bay, about 2,000 ft. to 2,500 ft. of openings would be needed, with a clearance of 7 ft. above high-water mark. The Secretary and Superintendent of the Harbour Board pointed out the value of the deep water in, the harbour, part of which would be cut off by the proposed bridge, and stressed the desirability of in no way hampering the access of shipping thereto. He also submitted copies of correspondence which had passed between the Marine Department and the Harbour Board in days gone by, touching the undesirability of diminishing the flow of the tide by any extensive reclamation. The Engineer to the Waitemata County Council stated that the vehicular ferry service was inadequate for the summer traffic, that there was no all-night service, and that the ferry charges were too high. The cost of bringing the rural waste land into production was about £10 per acre, and he estimated that the provision of a