A TIMBER WHARF.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 October 1922, Page 4

A TIMBER WHARF.

At its meeting on Saturday, the New Plymouth Harbor Board decided to build the new wharf in timber instead of ferro-concrete, as had been previously resolved. Since the previous estimates were considered, there has been a considerable drop in the price of timber and other material, making the difference in cost between timber and concrete much greater than formerly. A timber wharf is estimated to cost £BO,OOO, and the other £125,000 —a difference of £45,000. There will be a saving in time of 18 months by building in timber. The consulting engineer reported in favor of the change, which was supported by the harbormaster, chiefly on the ground of the saving in time effected by building in timber, and the need for giving relief at -the earliest moment to the congestion at the port. The chairman showed that whilst the board had sufficient money in hand and authorised to build the wharf in timber and carry on the breakwater extension and dredging, it would be £75,000 short if the wharf were built in concrete, with the consequent longer period that would need to be provided for in connection with the breakwater and dredging. He was loth to start a work without having the money in sight., It wa.s also pointed out that the saving effected in the relative cost of the two structures would, at compound interest, pay for the wooden wharf in 12 years, and that it could then be scrapped and another wharf in concrete built, if deemed advisable. The chairman and those supporting him submitted a very strong case. All the same, many will regret that a -permanent work forming part of the harbor improvement is not to -be constructed in permanent material. If the conditions were different, we would be inclined to favor incurring the heavier expense, feeling perfectly confident that the ratepayers when appealed to would authorise a further loan for the purpose; but the fact must be acknowledged that, unless extra accommodation is given in the near future, the trade of the port may sustain a serious setback. The port cannot handle the business that is at present offering, boats having to be diverted or compelled to wait in the stream; and the trade growing at the rapid rate it is, the position in the immediate future .may prove most acute. The delay occasioned by building in concrete might well prove ruinous at this stage of the development of the port’s trade. Besides, the sooner another wharf is erected the better and safer will it be for the port. There has never been an accident there, thanks to the experience and efficiency of the harbormaster; but any element of risk that may be run would be completely removed by the erection of the new wharf. The saving

of some £45,000 in cash is another very important -consideration in these days of comparatively dear money. Though concrete is undoubtedly the better material, it has to be borne in mind, as was pointed out by a member of the Board, that wharves in many of the important -ports, such as Wellington and Sydney, are built in timber, and have fulfilled requirements for many years. It would seem that the board had no option but to choose the timber structure. We trust, now they have come ■to a final decision, no time will be lost in pushing on -with the work.