THE PARNELL TUNNEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 135, 8 June 1911, Page 4

THE PARNELL TUNNEL.

As a great many people here expected, the "Minister of Railways haa-decided. that the duplication of the Parnell tunnel is not absolutely necessary, and that he will not undertake it. When we say that we expected this refusal, we do not mean to suggest that we have ever had any doubt about the necessity for this duplication But we have learned by long and bitter experience that it i_ extremely difficult to secure recognition of Auckland's just claims in regard to public works expenditure;-— nd Mr. Millar's unfortunate "—treat" to withhold our urgently needed goods sheds unless we fell in with his views about tie tunnel, has produced a sinister impression hero that it wall take a great deal of diplomatic tact to efface. After hearing what Mr. MiUar -had to cay about the tunnel, the people of Auckland, recognising that' the committee was not likely to be quite unanimous, anticipated that the Minister would seize upon any plausible pretext to find a way out of the difficulty. The ptea that because only seven out of ten member, of the committee recommended the duplication, therefore Government -is not obliged to go on with _»c work, is a poor enough quibble; for Sir Joseph Ward, wihen he made his compact with us, never " made it a condition that the committee must be absolutely unanimous. However, any excuse is good enough for a Mini_ter who is anxious to evade a p—.in public duty, and Mr. Miliar has ' been quite equal to the occasion. Wo may point out, however,. thai) when tbe , Minister alleges that the duplication would cost a large sum of money, he gives us no estimate to go upon, and he carefully avoids criticising the estimates already offered •by competent Auckland contractors and engineers. Considering that £30,000 would probably be the maximum cost of the duplication—ahout one-fifth of the cost of one single tunnel on the Mosgiel duplication—Mr. Millar does well to steer clear of figures. But the Departmental standard of expenditure in the North has always been remarkably economical; and as Mr. Millar has explained that he means to spend the magnificent sum of £7000 in enlarging our goods sheds, we

presume that he expects us to bo thoroughly satisfied. Seven thousand pounds!—a sum that many a merchant in Auckland would not hesitate to expend in improving his own warehouse, is regarded by-the llinister for Railways as adequate provision for relieving the tremendous congestion of traffic at the most heavily-worked railway terminus in the Dominion! And when we ask for £30,000 beyond this to provide traffic facilities exactly similar to what has cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds, with infinitely less excuse, on, Southern lines, we are warned that if we make so much fuss about the tunnel we may lose the JE 7000 goods sheds vote as well! The other day Mr. Poole, fresh from a visit to the Sonth, expressed his astonishment that enormous sums are being expended on public works- there, while the .North is denied the commonest and most necessary facilities to cope with its phenomenal expansion and development. Nothing of that sort can surprise us now. We can only hope, that out representatives will take all these matters seriously to heart, and that before the next session opens they will concert some effective means of laying our claims convincingly before Parliament and Government.