TUNNEL ROAD SCHEME.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17624, 29 November 1922, Page 10

TUNNEL ROAD SCHEME.

QUESTION REVIVED. - DISCUSSED BY CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION. The tunnel road scheme W* *»«■* at a meeting of the Christchurdh CiU.ens and Ratepayers' night, and it was decided to ask the e^uWetosetupa^ialeomnnttee to report on the matter. The question was introduced by Mr J. R. Hayward, who. alter dealing with the history t>f the scheme, said : The advantages to the community on the completion of the road and tunnel are too numerous to mention, but it ! would give the city free access to its I port ana woula enable mowr tr»mo to carry practical all Kooos ana passeii£rt tJ ana n-oui tue port, union more una tvxuu greater emcaency LaWowy wan at present. Anotner great point in lavour ot w» scluunei* Wat it would inane the city and the port one city, and would give an Miuieuse acreage ot practically waste land tor tne building of extensive lactones and warehouses. It would also Rive the Christchurch electrical undertaking great scope for electric jomes, the cheapest mode of locomotion at present. The city of Christchurch. would; also enjoy a wider outlook and would bo ot greater importance as a city immediately the work was completed. Auck- j land and Wellington have full control ol j their ports, and have, progressed splendidlv. but in my opinion the progress of Chr'istchurch and Canterbury is going to be stultified and delayed' as long as the sole control of our port, and our only communication with it, is in the hands of a hide-bound Government Department. At present./if goods had to be shipped from Lyttelton it was necessary to get them to the railway sheds by 10 a.m., to be loaded on special trucks to rim to the steamer's side. By tbi? TY>op..ns the h"" 1- of reci'ving goods could be extended by four hours. Mr H. Holland said the greatest difficulty to be faced was to get legislation put "through to allow" access to the wharves. He believed that really the Lyttelton Harbour Board had no right of access to its own wharves. One of the great causes of congestion at Lyttelton was that the Eailway Department insisted on running trains of about 80 trucks in length through the tunnel, thus blocking the Christchurch and Lyttelton yards. He considered that the Department was much to blame for the condition of the new ferry wharf. The Harbour Board had pre vided electric capstans to save wear and tear on the wharf, yet the De-, partinent preferred to use horses to pull trucks about, the'; horses V steel shoes being responsible for ripping'up the planking. The Department would not provide the necessary ropes for use on the capstans. Mr F. Hobbs moved: "That the executive be asked to consider the question of setting up a special committee to consider and report on the best means of overcoming the disadvantages under which it is claimed the city suffers in its working communication with its seaport, Lyttelton." The motion was seconded by Mr ■Agar. Mr H. J; Ranger said he was strongly in favour of the scheme. Christchurch was extremely well favoured with regard to the development of the factories, yet it was badly hampered through the lack of transport facilities through the tunnel.. Conditions had, changed considerably inside two years • at. Lyttelton. There were people at. that -time who • were convinced- that . there was 'hot room at' Lyttelton fo» motor traffic to bp'erate. However, the 1 reclamation of seventy acres of land at Lyttelton was proceeding Satisfactorily, and in a short space of time he felt sure that there would be room there for three double docks capable .of accommodating the largest type of cargo steamers that came to the Dominion. He had no hesitation in stating that the Hiley railway scheme was : how, sadly out of date, even although it was only about eight years old. He : considered that,-if the-tunnel scheme could be reasonably carried through the future would justify, it > ■ ■ . Mr A. Manhir'e doubt** »f the Association should take ( up tne scheme, as many of its subscribers were not tunnelites. ' ■ Mr R. M., Macdonald endorsed Mr Manlrire's remarks. He thought, however, that a road tunnel would to »oome, but not at present. Mr A. McKellar and Mr O. Anderson supported Mr Hobbs's motion. Sir Flesher expressed himself as being a great believer in the Port Christchurch scheme. It would be better, in his opinion, to put the million odd pounds that the tunnel road scheme would cost into the Port Oliristchurch scheme. After a|l, the matter was a city matter, as it was the city merchant* who would benefit by the tunnel scheme. The whole question was one of cost. "Would j£ pay the city to in cur such a cost?

Mr Hayward, in reply, said that Lyttelton was looked on ae being one of the safest harbours in the world. About one .and l a half millions had been spent on the harbour. Would it v pay to go ahead with the Pert Christehurch scheme —a problematical scheme —and scrap a perfectly sound proposition like LytteJton? It wcvuld cost only an additional half-million to put the tunnel through the hills. As for the argument that the country people were opposed to the tunnel scheme, the speaker knew lots of such people who were prepared to support it. The bigger the triTde was to grow in CLiristcliurch, the greater would- the difficulties become with the Railway Department. "With motor-lorries being allowed to go to a ship's side to pick up or put out goods one complete handling would be saved. The motion was then put to the meeting and carried unanimously.