HARBOUR VIADUCT

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 605, 6 March 1929, Page 10

HARBOUR VIADUCT

PRINCES WHARF TO WEST RECLAMATION

SCHEME TO COST £130,000

Part of the lona-mooted waterfront viaduct for giving direct communication between Prince's Wharf and the western reclamation will shortly be proceeded with by the Harbour Board. Amended plans were before the board yesterday afternoon, and although desiring a week or two more to consider the scheme members were unanimous that the project was a necessary work, and one which would - greatly add to the facilities for the j berthage of small ships, at the same time serving as a bridge across Freeman’s Bay basin. The cost i» estimated at £130,000. Explaining his scheme the engineer, Mr. D. Holderness, said the plans were ; prepared in accordance with the : board’s decision that the basin might j never be reclaimed, or in any case j would be delayed indefinitely. Previous i plans had allowed for filling in of ; Freeman’s Bay, and in view of the ; board’s intention were now modified. J The scheme now in plan provides for a structure containing a lifting-span 50ft long and 30ft wide, said Mr. Hoi- j derness. The portion of the viaduct j east of the span is shown 120 ft wide. ’ It provides for quays on the northern and southern walls, a 30ft roadway, one through line of railway and two sidings for use in conjunction with the Prince's Wharf rail traffic. This section is a solid embankment faced with concrete sheet-piles. West of the lift- ■ ing-span the viaduct would be an open pile structure 85ft wide carrying j one through railway line, and one siding, or if thought desirable, double sidings could be provided. | "Mr. E. Casey, North Island d.ivi- : sional superintendent of railways, con- ■ aiders two more sidings for working Prince’s Wharf are desirable," Mr. i Holderness continued. "If this is carj ried out it would be necessary to i widen the eastern portion by 20ft. , I Should this be carried out at the time of construction of the section the additional cost would be £7,500, but if built later the cost would be £12,000. Should the board later intend to re- j claim the basin inside the viaduct further work, estimated at £35,000, would be involved. The portion of the viaduct from Prince’s Wharf to the lift-ing-span, including two rail sidings, but not allowing for the extra sidings suggested by Mr. Casey, would cost £51,100. This could be reduced to £42*000 if the inner 25ft quay is builtin timber as a temporary measure. The berthage along both sides of the viaduct on its eastern section would just about replace the accommodation at the Albert and Fitzroy Wharves ! and the ferry tees. Although a depth i of six feet, low water, spring tide was provided, more water could be dredged. ••£ am thoroughly convinced the viaduct is absolutely necessary." said the chairman, Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, in moving that the plans be approved and that construction of the eastern section as far as the lifting-span be proceeded with. "It is wise to allow for the retention of the basin for use by small shipping. In any case no sane man would reclaim more land when the board already has sections not yet disposed of,” he said. _ , _ ”It will probably be lo years before the board will have to consider re- > clamation of the basin. Au advantage i of the scheme will be that it will pro--1 vide an alternative route for traffic to the new sit© of the vehicular ferries. Further, work will be given to valued servants of the board who are now unemployed.” . , The Hon. E. W. Alison seconded, contending that members had not yet had time to give adequate consideration to the plans. Mr. K. W. Inder moved and amendment that the matter be referred to the board-in-commit • tee, and that in the meantime members be supplied with blueprints. “This has come upon us like a thunderbolt,’ declared Mr. T. B. Clay, who seconded. After discussion, which indicated that the motion would receive little support, the mover and seconder agreed to its withdrawal. Mr. Inder's amendment deferring a decision was then carried. During the debate Mr. T. Bloodworth remarked that he had always regarded the viaduct as the first arch of the harbour bridge, and completion of the viaduct would considerably strengthen the bridge scheme.