Plans For Harbour Viaduct Approved

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 617, 20 March 1929, Page 1

Plans For Harbour Viaduct Approved

TO COST £130,000

SOLID WALL OR FREE ACCESS?

The plans of the proposed viaduct to connect the Western and Prince’s Wharves were yesterday approved by the Auckland Harbour Board.

When the recommendation of the board-in-committee, “that the plans be approved and the work of constructing the eastern portion as far as the lifting span be authorised for this year,” came before the board, Mr. T. Bloodworth moved an amendment to have the words "as a pile construction” inserted after “eastern portion” in the board-in-committee’s recommendation.

“One of my reasons for moving thus,” said Mr. Bioodworth, “is that a pile construction will make it difficult for any future board to fill in the basin. If the viaduct is constructed solid it will be a very big temptation for future boards to fill in the bay,” he said. “We ought to have free access to the water and a pile structure would be more in harmony with the structures we now have.” Another reason was that a viaduct on piles could be constructed in eight months, while it would take 12 months to build a solid embankment. Mr. C. G. Macindoe. who seconded Mr. Bloodwarth’s amendment, agreed that a solid construction might make it easy for a future board to reclaim the basin. The chairman, Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, said there had been two plans before the committee. What Mr. Bloodworth’s amendment amounted to was the adoption of the other plan. In effect, it was now proposed to adopt plan 2 in preference to the plan which had been approved by the board-in-committee. “It is not for us to attempt to influence the actions of future boards,” concluded the chairman. “The board should do sound work itself. For the type of viaduct Mr. Bioodworth suggests £7,000 extra would be required, which I think is very bad finance.” On being put to the meeting, Mr. Bloodworth's amendment was defeated.

“DISCUSSED FOR YEARS” Mr. W. E. Inder then moved that the matter should be referred back to the board-in-committee, as members did not appear to be clear on the proposal. He questioned whether the board had gone into the matter of replacing thti old Albert Street Wharf with a pile construction. “I do not think members have given sufficient consideration to the financial position,” said Mr. T. B. Clay. “We have taken a leap in the dark.” He urged that the position in regard to the property-holders in Freeman’s Bay should be considered. If the width was reduced to 100 ft. it would make a wonderful difference in expense. Mr. Bloodworth said the board had been discussing the scheme for years. He had been on the board for six years, and had heard the proposal discussed two or three times every year. It was about time some definite decision was reached. Mr. Inder’s amendment was lost, and then the board adopted the recommendation of the board-in-commit-tee. Mr. Inder recorded his vote against the recommendation. The viaduct, which is to cost £130,000, will run from the foot of Prince’s Wharf to the north-east corner of the Freeman’s Bay reclamation, thus providing by road and rail a continuation of Quay Street, which now runs to a dead end at the old vehicular ferry tee. It will consist of two portions of different widths, separated by a lifting-span near the centre to allow the passage of vessels to and from the Freeman’s Bay basin. The eastern portion, which is that authorised f or_ this year, will be 520 ft. long, the width being 120 ft., and this will provide for quays on the northern and southern faces, a 30ft. roadway, a through line of railway, and two sidings for use in conjunction with the rail traffic from Prince’s Wharf. This section will be a solid structure with reinforced concrete piles. The western portion will be an open pile structure 850 ft. long and 85ft. wide, carrying a line of railway to join the lines on the north wall and one siding. The 30ft. roadway will be continued and will turn into Jellicoe Street.