THE BREAKWATER

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 73, 29 April 1929, Page 6

THE BREAKWATER

In our last arlicle on harbour matters we discnsse-d a Brcakwater harbour fully completed, togother witb mole on tlie landward side, the ! construetion of yvhich tvould involve an annual cbarge of £33,750 for interesfc and sinking fund, the latter wiping out the whole liability in a given number of years. It was then pointed out that a harbour whieh eliminated lightering to and from j the roadstead could carni that bur- j den withoufc adding a single penny to the total charges to users of the harbour as it is at present constituted. Such a harbour when completed would attract and accommodate more than the shipping whieh now uses both harbours and the roadstead, and therefore produce a eorresponding increase in legitimate revenue. A harbour is'like every other form of transport utilitv and equipment. It not only accommodates the trade that awaited its construetion, but stimulates further trade. More important still, the better condition in whieh our experts can be shipped over a wharf, as compared with double handling and lighterage, will mean gain to the eommunitv to be credited to the Breakwater harbour when completed. We may now profitably consider the generallv accepted plan of the Breakwater harbour. It requires. first, the extension of the present half finished Breakwater to the Auckland Bock. It ncxt requires an inner or landward mole. This and the Breakwater proper would enclose the whole harbour basin, an area of 15 acres, and provido an entrance permitting ships to enter on a pcrfectly safe sailing course, and re-duc-ing "range" to a minimum. In the third place it involves the erection of further wharves, with their usual adjuncts of sheds and railway facilities. Binallv, it includes deepening the entrance and swinging basin and berths. This is the form of completed Breakwater harbour recommcnded by thc Royal Commission, by the Government Engineer-in-Chicf, and by IWcssrs Cullen and Keele. The Royal Commission, after a painstaking and

! thorough consideration of fortv years of expert evidence, and six weeks taking oral evidence, and after scheduling the needs summarised above, reported (we quote verbatim), "All these features are attainable, and the attainment of ncne of them offers any great en- | gineering or practieal diffieulty, and such a harbour when provided would be a reasonable commodious | and safe and- convenient harbour | for the shipping of the port." The approximate cost of such a harbour as defined, fully completed, we set down at £450,000, This estimate was based upon a studv of four detailed estimates considered by the Royal Commission when making its report, In 1924 the Engineer-in-Chief for the Dominion gave an estimate of £400,000. When giving evidence before the Royal Commission the Engineer-in-Chief made a revised estimate on a basis, as it was described, liberal enough to avoid any risk of understatement, setting it down at£450,000. A much lower estimate than this was made by Messrs Cullen and Keele, the celebrated Australian engineers, in 1925. These placed the cost at £3f)3,0S2. Mr A. C. MacKen/.ie, tho Melbourne Harbour Trust's engineer, after a studv of all the requirements and of other engineers* reports, gave an estimate of £448,130. We take it that this completelv justifies us in setting down the total cost of the fully completed Breakwater harbour at £450,000. In the ordinarv course this work would proeeed progressively from the end of the present Breakwater, and expert opinion expressed by engineers and experienced mariners is that a progressive measure of protection and benefit would be felt in the harbour as this work is carried out. Mr A. C. MncKcnzie's estimate is £100 pcr lineal foot and if this work, as a first instalment, lx carried out over a length of 800 feei a considerable benefit to the harbour would result and behind this increased shelter further harbour work could be pufc in hand. Cost, £80,000. Mr A. C. MacKenzie estimates for a wharf 000ft. x 187ft.. with two eargo sheds 350ft, x 35ft. Tlvis wharf could be erectod within the proposed harbour aren and vessels could li'e at it in safetv and comfort at all limes except during rare storms of exceptional violence. j This wharf and the rehabilitated j Glasgow wharf could accommodate. i without delay, nll the shipping at Napier during, say, 48 to 50 weeks out of 'each year. The estimated cost of this wharf is £134,040. Dredging copld be put in hand to give the required depth at entrance, swinging basin and berths to accommodate our overseas liners nt a eost of £24,000. After the initial dredging the annual maintenance dredging would not be an ap-

prcciable additicn to our harbour expenditure. Total These threo estimates total £23S,G40 And if for salety we add for contingencies ... 11,360 We arrive at a total capital eost of £250,000 The annual cost of this outlay, at 71 per c-ent is £1S,750.