NO MORNINGSIDE TUNNEL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 15, 18 January 1930, Page 8

NO MORNINGSIDE TUNNEL.

The decision of the Government that the Morningside. tunnel shall not be built will be a disappointment to Auckland, but most citizens wilf be, impressed by.the reasons given. Since was propounded some years ago, when Mr. Coates was Minister of Railways, it has been attractive. It offered a quicker route to the western suburbs and to the North. The detour by Newmarket has long been an irritation, and before Mr. Coates adopted the tunnel scheme the alternative of duplicating the existing line was considered. The tunnel was estimated to cost £616,000, a little more than double the duplication, and the proposal was adopted in view of its "decided advantages" and the comparative costs of the two schemes. That, however, was in 1924. Mr. Taverner took up the question when he succeeded Mr. Coates a/year ago, and caused a thorough investigation to be made of the proposal in all its bearings. He was criticised, for the delay, but his action was quite justified. Better by far that there should be delay than that the country should rush into unwarranted expenditure of such size.

The lengthy statement by the Minister that we publish to-day shows that' the main objections to the scheme are financial. The engineering difficulties he mentions are pro-, bably the least serious items on the list, but they, too, affect finance. If the tunnel could be. constructed for £600,000, no doubt the Department's attitude would be wholly favourable, but the estimate is now £2,100,000. This, it is true, includes the cost of electrifying the whole of the. Auckland suburban system—the Minister says the tunnel would have to be electrified, and it would be impossible to run one such unit in the midst of a steam system— and apparently the 1924 estimate did not embrace such a development. Two millions is a great deal of money, and even though the country obtained for it a new line shortening the route out' of Auckland to the west and the north, and the electrification of the suburban area, this could be justified only by a reasonable certainty of an adequate return. Of this the Department does not feel assured. This shortening of the route, so Mr. Taverner says, is not likely to have any influence on goods traffic, and increase, in passenger traffic would be "highly speculative." The public may find it difficult to accept these two estimates, but they are the,considered opinion of the Department's professional advisers. Over all such projects as this hangs the uncertainty of transport development. Mr. Taverner and his General Manager, Mr. Sterling, probably feel that by the time this tunnel were completed motor transport might be even more popular than it is to-day, and that it might successfully compete against even this improved railway service. The Minister has also a harbour bridge in mind. If it were built it might alter the whole situation in respect to railway traffic to the North. The Department's case seems to us to be all too strong. country cannot afford —at any-rate'at present—to spend two millions on such a work. The Minister is to be commended on the steps he has taken to reach his decision. We have repeatedly contended that thorough investigation of this kind should be applied to all railway projects. What has been done in this case should 1 be done in all.