PORT S PROBESS.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 October 1922, Page 6

PORT S PROBESS.

THE NEW WHARF. DISCUSSION BY BOARD. TO BE BUILT OF WOOD. SAVING OF TIME AND MONEY. The New Plymouth Harbor Board decided on Saturday, at a special meeting, that the new wharf, which it is proposed to build at the breakwater, shall be constructed of wood instead of ferroconcrete, as was previously decided. The main argument advanced in favor of the wooden structure was that a considerable saving of time would be effected, thus making the port available for the larger ocean-going steamers at an earlier date than would be possible if the work were to be carried out in ferro-concrete. This saving of time was assessed at about eighteen months, while a further argument advanced was that there was insufficient money in sight to enable the board to finish a concrete job without further appealing to Parliament and the ratepayers, when there would be a risk that the board would be left with a half finished job on its hands. Those present were Messrs. C. E. Bellringer (chairman), E. Maxwell, C. McGuinness, D. Hughes, Newton King, C. H. Burgess, J. McCluggage, J. S. Connett and C. A. Wilkinson. Reports from Mr J. Blair Mason, the board’s consulting engineer, Captain W. Waller (harbormaster), and Mr. G. W. B. Lowson (resident engineer), were before the board, the experts named also being in attendance at the meeting. HARBORMASTER’S REPORT. Captain Waller’s report stated:— “At the outset I need hardly remind you that we have outgrown our berthage capacity, as is well known to the Board. New Plymouth is the great distributing port of the Weeit Coast for coal, case oil, manures, and, in the near future, for Australian semi-tropical fruits. It should be the policy of everyone in this district to realise the importance of the harbor, which should, of all other works, have the pre-emi-nence. The rapid expansion of trade in this district necessitates the immediate completion of the breakwater extension and the erection of a new wharf. Con-

siderable inconvenience has been experienced during the past twelve months through steamships of the larger class having to remain at anchor owing to the congestion at the wharf until a berth was vacant. The immediate pressing need of the port demands a new wharf, and in my opinion this need could best be met by the speedy construction of a wharf in timber. Such a wharf could be erected much more quickly than one of concrete, thus sooner relieving the congestion so that shipping will not be so much inconvenienced as in the past. There will be the need for a considerable time of the use of explosives, as at present, in deepening the bottom. This will, if the wharf is constructed of timber, enable blasting operations to be carried out close alongside without damage to the structure. If erected in concrete, there would be the dangetvqf the work being disturbed during construction. ‘ The alignment of the new wharf will allow for future wharf development and provide safe berthage for steamers. Any swell coming in will be met head on, while the fact of the wharf being further away from the commotion sometimes experienced immediately alongside ,the breakwater will enable the vessels to lie much easier during westerly gales fit spring tides. The width of the proposed new wharf (seventy feet) will enable it to be utilised for rail and tractor traffic. It its quite immaterial to me, so far as berthing ships is concerned, whether the structure is built of timber or concrete.

“The expansion and development of the harbor should be contemporaneous with the growth of trade, and I venture to predict that the port of New Plymouth. owing to its geographical position, its proximity to Sydney and other Australian ports, and its immunity from off-lying dangers, has an assured future as the first port of call for passenger and mail steamers in the inter-colonial trade.” RESIDENT ENGINEER’S REPORT. Mr. Lowson’s report dealt with the question of the time required to construct Wharves of timber or of ferroconcrete.’ He said: “If built of timber, the time taken will depend more or less directly upon the plant used and the number of men employed on the job. Pile-driving would be .carried out with two traversing derricks on the overhead system, and pneumatic drills would assist the gangs coming up behind with the caps, stringers, etc. The plant required is inconsiderable, and would be easily enough procured or constructed. The pile shoes and general ironwork would be built up at our own workshop, so that, provided labor was available, there appears no reason why the consulting engineers’ estimate of fifteen months should be exceeded, this period to commence when all the materials were to hand and the work propertly started. The only part of the work which might not be completed up to time would be the diagonals and lower walings, which are fixed* in position at spring tides. Th s portion of the work might, therefore, be delayed through choppy seas, but otherwise the job is very straight-forward, and unaffected by influences other than those experienced on any shore work. “If the wharf is built of reinforced concrete, the time taken for its erection would be somewhat longer, the construction being rendered rather slower even than that of the usual concrete wharf owing to the difficulties experienced that are inseparable from a breakwater port such as New Plymouth. Roughly speaking, it would be at least a two ami a half years’ job from the time pile-driving actually commences. “As regards the estimated life of the wharf, a timber wharf should last at least twelve years without extensive repairs, while a concrete one would last indefinitely. At the same time, although we cannot see anything at present to justify the idea of obsolescence, it is not always considered advisable, in estimating the permanence of a concrete wharf, to allow it a commercial life of much more than forty years. The

permanent structures and those of a temporary nature on the assumption that the former will have a commercial life of a much longer period, say 100 years, is shown by the rarity of wharves which, in a progressive port, have been in use for such a length of time without outliving their economic usefulness. Nevertheless, one generally feels more justified in placing sheds and other equipment of an elaborate nature on a concrete wharf when such are /e--quired, knowing that there is little likelihood of their being later disturbed through repairs necessary to the substructure.

“The question is asked, if the wha v f is constructed of timber, will there 'be sufficient water to bring an overseas boat alongside within eighteen months from date? We believe that the dredging will be sufficiently advanced within that time to permit of this being done with ease. There would be some difficulty, however, in providing a berth on the eastern side of the wharf within that time, and I am afraid that practically 1 no dredging will have been done towards that end in the time allowed.” COMPARISONS OF COSTS AND TIME. Mr. Blair Mason’s report stated:— “Owing to the recent drop in the price of iron-bark timber and piles, and the early delivery that can now be obtained, which was not possible last year, we think it advisable that the board review the question of constructing the first portion of the proposed new wharf in concrete, seeing the urgency which exists for increased berthage, and that a timber wharf can now be more cheaply and quickly erected. "The portion of the concrete wharf which we have been instructed to go on with is a section 800 feet long by 90 feet wide, the estimated cost of which we have approximately set down at £125,000, and the time to complete ready for the accommodation of vessels at three years. By the substitution of timber, wharfage of the same length of 800 feet, but 18 feet narrower, can be built at an estimated cost of £BO,OOO, and should be completed in 15 months from the date of commencing the work. This is rendered possible by the drop in prices of materials required in timber construction by nearly 50 per cent, over those of last year, and also by the ability that exists to get delivery of hardwood timber within three to four months. A timber wharf can be built with iron-lbark or turpentine piles, hewn ironbark beams, and brush-box decking that will last for many years. It should hot require large repairs for at least twelve years. The expected repairs and renewals within that period would be practically confined to the lower walings and the fender piles, and should not exceed £5OOO in cost during the first twelve years.

“Financial.—The difference in cost between the concrete and timber constructions is estimated to be not less than £45,000, which, worked out at compound interest of 6 per cent., and deducting £5OO per annum for repairs after the third year, amounts to £83,900 at the end of the twelfth year, so that the cost of the wharf can be written off within twelve years. Taking the loan money available for the board’s works, after deducting commitments at £150,000, the position might be shown as follows:

LOAN MONEY AVAILABLE. Credit £150,000. CONCRETE WHARF. Estimate to build, three years. £ Estimate of cost 125,000 Dredging, three years 45,000 Breakwater, three years 45,000 £215,000 Contingencies, say reclamation 10,000 .£225,000 Debit, £75,000. TIMBER WHARF. Estimate to build, years. .£ Estimate of cost 80,000 Dredging, say 1£ years 22,500 Breakwater, 14 years 22,500 Contingencies, say reclamation 5,000 flotation expenses and interest 5,000 £135,000 Credit, £15,000. “When the latter sum is expended, there will be accommodation for the largest vessels estimated within one and a quarter years from, date of starting the wharf works, still leaving a sum of £15,000 for further works. The greater time required to complete a wharf in concrete, combined with the greater cost, would entail an expenditure of £225,000, or £75,0.00 in excess of the available loan money b*efore the benefit of the additional berthage for vessels could be attained. “It'should be noted that in the construction of a timber wharf the completed portion of the wharf can be used for shipping. In building a concrete wharf the work must set for three months before traffic could be. permitted, while owing to the amount of gear necessary’ and the space needed for gravel dumps, concrete mixing plant, timber boxing, steel, etc., a large deck surface is necessary. “Tenders. —It is advised that the board call for tenders for piles, and necessary timber, muntz-metal, etc., which, if the wharf is done iby contract, can be handed over to the contractor. Delivery can be expected at three months, but allowing four months and six weeks to get out a plan and call for tenders, the first of the timber could be'- to hand within four and a half months (at three months delivery), or five and a half months (at four months delivery) from date of obtaining the board’s sanction Calculating from the date of the board meeting (October 7), the first lot of timber could be to hand at the end of February, or at four months delivery at the end of March. MEETING PRESSING NEED.

“Further Wharf Extension. —As already noted, the wharfage under consideration is the first instalment of a larger structure, but which we do not for I one moment contemplate will be finished in wood, but will be of concrete. With the early provision for an increased shipping trade, for accommodating the largest vessels, the pressing need of the port will be met for the time being, and with growing revenues will no doubt enalble the board to finance and raise a sum that will allow the future extension to be in concrete and on a scale which will lessen the cost per unit area as compared with the cost of constructing a part only at a time. “We have felt it our duty, knowing lhe circumstances under which the board are working, to place the position before that the disability that

the port is suffering from for lack of additional berthage may be early and economically removed.” CHAIRMAN EXPLAINS POSITION. In his opening remarks, Mr. Bellringer said that it would be as well if he gave a resume of what had taken place when the board discussed the matter in committee at its (ast meeting. The matter had come up as a result of several interviews he had had with the board’s engineer with regard to the new wharf, for the construction of which they had not had an estimate until now. From what he saw then he realised it seriously affected the question of finance, and opened up a big matter. The board had decided that it was of such magnitude that it had .decided to act. The more he had gone into the matter the more he had been impressed with the fact that anything they did would have great effect on the development of the wharves. If they decided on a concrete wharf they would have to go to Parliament and ask for new powers to raise a loan, and also go to the ratepayers again. They had to decide whether they should start a work which they had not sufficient funds to complete. • On the question of time, Mr. Bellringer continued, the engineers had said that the ferro-concrete wharf would take three years to build, while a wooden one could be erected in eighteen months, just half the time. They had, therefore, to decide, also, whether the board could take upon themselves the great responsibility of delaying the completion of the port for another eighteen months. The urgency of the provision of wharf accommodation was fully realised by the whole of the board, but they had been up against it in the matter of labor, materials, etc. The wooden wharf would be 18ft narrower than the concrete one, but neither would be wide enough for them to erect sheds, so that point would not seriously affect the position. Were they prepared to go on with the construction of a concrete wharf, realising that/they must have a further loan before it was completed, and were they prepared, to keep the port without the services of the new wharf for a further eighteen months, during which time there was also the further point that the board would be losing revenue while the concrete wharf was under construction? He then called on Mr. King to move in accordance with his notice of motion.

Mr. King moved: “That all previous motions with reference to the construction of a ferro-concrete wharf be rescinded. ’ Speaking to the motion, he said that, as Mr. Bellringer had put it, the question of finance came in. They would not have sufficient money to complete the wharf in concrete without going to the ratepayers for an additional loan. He would not like bo do that. He would like to see the wharf completed to take the largest ocean boats in the world. The discussion would not have come up had it not been for the fact that there had been a big fall in the price of timber during the past few months, and it seemed to him that it would be in the best interests of the board /to build the new wharf in wood There was also the great question of time. They could not afford to wait three years before getting a wharf to take the big boats. They knew what congestion there had been during the past twelve months, and he considered they must have a wharf before they could get rid of it. For that reason the new wharf should be built in wood; at a later date another one could be built of ferro-concrete. LOAN EXPENDITURE.

At this stage the reports, as above, were read. Referring to an abstract he had prepared with regard to loan monies, Mr. Bellringer said that of the £300,000 loan, £200,000 had been raised, of which £60,000 remained unexpended on September 30. From this sum had to be deducted commitments in respect to steam shovel, £5000; reinforcing steel, £1000; flotation expenses, say. £3000; and first year’s interest, £6000; a total of £15,000. If they decided to build in wood, they could easily dispose of the reinforcing steel, while he also added that the £lOO,OOO not yet raised would be required in the near future. Referring to dredging, he mentioned that exceptionally good work had been done by tlie dredge during the past three weeks. The dredge had got through a crust and had reached soft soil, and was making great progress on the wharf cut. They were down to 33 feet for 170 ft, and to 30ft for the remaining 680 ft, and if they could put in another cut of 33ft fc for the whole length, there would be ample accommodation for ships of the Athenic and Corinthic class. With reference to the other side of the wharf, it was never intended to dredge to any great depth. It might be necessary to build the other side of the wharf in ferro-concrete almost as soon as the wooden wharf was completed. If the trade of the port was such that there was a demand for extra wharves, they would have to get a new dredge, which could do the work more quickly and economically. The Paritutu was doing good work, and was a credit to her builders, but she was not large enough. He thought that the trade of the port would develop to such an extent that they would be compelled to go to the ratepayers for extra money to proceed with the erection of new wharves.

A note in the abstract stated that the present loan expenditure for dredging extension and Uvner ordinary work averaged £3OOO per month. In seconding the motion, Mr. McCluggage said that the fact that, in twelve years, the saving at compound interest would wipe out the whole of the amount was a great consideration as far as the board was concerned, but the biggest factor was that they would have the wharf within eighteen months. If they had to wait for three fears it would put the port back twenty-five years. ADVERSE CRITICS. Mr. Wilkinson said he would oppose tlie motion, because he considered it a retrograde step. It was three yeans since the loan had been authorised, and they had done nothing with regard to > the new wharf. Now there was a plan to build a wharf in eighteen months at the saving in time, according to one of the engineers, of about fifteen months. There was the further suggestion that they were to build the wharf in wood and another alongside in concrete. He had seen a wooden wharf at Opunake—half of it had gone into the sea. ,The wharf at the breakwater to-day wag in need of constant repair. A concrete wharf would be a permanent job when it was completed an.d a great advantage to the port. The bbard, as soon as it raised Xhe loan of £300,000, had never known its own mind. He must take.his share pi the responsibilitv. Thev should

have raised the money and gone right ahead with the work. He was not keen on going to the ratepayers, but was not afraid of going to them for money for the concrete wharf. The harbor* was the biggest, public work in the province, and the biggest job which had ever been tackled in the district, and they should go in for it in a. big way. Occasionally they had the spectacle of a Home liner »ying outside. That was only to be expected when they had only one wharf. Eighteen months was neither here nor there in a big work like this.

Mr. Connett said the proposition was a very complex one, and, in some respects, had a good deal to commend it. He paid a tribute to the work of Captain Waller, whose opinion carried a great deal of weight. He was in favor of the concrete work because it was ingrained into them that it was to be work of a permanent nature. They had also to consider the possibility of erecting sheds to get away from the present methods of handling cargo, which had been so much trouble to the district. They would be able to erect sheds on a concrete wharf, but they would not be able to erect permanent sheds on the wooden wharf, and that was an objection right away. If they built part of the concrete wharf and said they hoped to have sheds built on it similar to those on the larger wharves, with facilities for traffic and rails, they would be better served. With regard to the breakwater extensions, they had estimates of what the work would cdst, but some of them had misgivings as to what the total would ibe. Mr. Hughes said he first of all wanted to disabuse them of any idea that the people of his district were opposed to harbor extensions. He had always gone to them in favor of extensions, and had been elected on that programme. He did not think it would be a good thing to go in for a concrete wharf and get into debt over it. SOLVING THE PROBLEM. ! Speaking in favor of the motion, Mr. Bellringer urged the desirability of having the wharf as soon as possible, so that they could ship all the dairy produce of the province direct. They had the promise that if they provided wharf accommodation the big boats would come to the port, and it was apparent that if they went in for a concrete wharf it would mean a delay of at least twelve months. In the meantime, that would hold up the progress of the port. He thought that during the next four or five years there was going to,be a development of trade at the port that would astonish them. He did not think they would get money for the completion of the concrete wharf if the wharf was barely one-third completed" and not wide enough to put sheds on it. If they could put a boat like the Athenic alongside the wharf they would have solved the problem., and they would have a united district behind them. Regarding timber, the position was materially changed from what it was two years ago. Prices were down 50 to 60 per cent., and they could get almost immediate delivery. He hoped that the time for delays was passed. The steam shovel was coming, and they would be able to tackle the harbor works more expeditiously. They would have enough money to complete the job, and not have to commit the next board to having to go to the ratepayers for mole money. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS. Mr. Burgess said that the chairman had bad to cudgel his brains in order to meet their present financial commitments, and yet they were being asked to pay another £45,000 for a concrete wharf from which they would get no return. He did not agree with Mr. Wilkinson that it would be a wise thing to go to the ratepayers after they had started the job and ask for more money. It was not good business to half finish a job and then say they wanted £lOO,000 to finish it. They had had difficulties in the past in getting money, and had very little to show. Suppose they took that £45,000; where were they ! going to get the money to equip the wharves? As they knewi there was an agitation against the smaller ports, and it was up to the board to get something done. The wharves in Wellington Were made of wood, and there was nothing makeshift about them. Thc.y had also to look at the matter from the harbormaster’s point of view. If they had an accid. nt it would doom the harbor for all time.

Mr. Maxwell agreed that It would be most unbusinesslike to Mart a work if they had not sufficient funds to complete it. The greater part of the work they had in the water, and could not be seen. He was not prepared to be a party to committing the board to the expenditure of £75,000, at least, beyond their resources. In 1924, if the new wharf was completed, they could go to Parliament and the ratepayers without any fear. Delay in completing the wharf would affect their revenue, while there would be an increase as

soon ag it was ready. It was proposed that the wooden wharf should be 72ft. wide, and the concrete one 240 ft wide, so that there would be ample accommodation on the latter for sheds without going on to the wooden wharf. Air. McGuinness advocated concrete, which, he said, was greatly favored elsewhere in the district. WOOD NOT A MAKESHIFT. In his reply Mr. King said he would like to point out that although it was a wooden wharf, it was not a makeshift. Wharves were being built of wood in Sydney. Until they got the largest steamers to take their dairy produce they could not get the whole of the trade here. Directly they had the extra 800 feet on the breakwater, the shipping companies would come with their biggest boats, and when they did they would take the whole of the dairy produce of the province from the port. Probably in the future they would find it necessary to ship more by the big boats in order to have more regular discharges in London than was possible under the present methods of shipping by the ordinary cargo steamers. He was sure there would be a fortnightly trade. Air. Wilki-nson had said that they had gone to sleep for three years since the loan was raised and now they were in a great hurry to go on with the work. He thought they would agree with him that the board had had to adopt a go-slow policy because of th§ expense it would have been to build a concrete or wooden wharf .during the past few years. The ratepayers would agree that it would not have been wise to have gone on with the work owing to tlie large expense, but steel, cement,

arid timber had since mine down very materially. They had no doubt- that concrete was best, but they must have a wharf, and a wooden structure could be tlie more quickly provided. After Mr. King had replied, the motion was put and carried by 6 to 3, those in favor being Messrs. Bellringer, King, Burgess, McCluggage, Hughes and Maxwell. Those against were Messrs. Connett, Wilkinson and McGuinness. The motion was put and carried by 0 to 3, those in favor being Messrs. Bellringer, King, Burgess, McCluggage, Hughes and Maxwell. Those against) were Messrs. Connett, Wilkinson and AlcGuinness.