CITY AND PORT.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18723, 21 June 1926, Page 10

CITY AND PORT.

TUNNEL OR NEW HARBOUR T ENGINEERING SOCIETY DEBATE. A debate was held by the Canterbury College Engineering Society on Saturday evening, the subject being "That the Problem of Communication between City and Port is best solved by the development of the Lyttelton System as against that of a Canal via Sumner." Mr C. J. Hunter introduced the subject, and described how Canterbury ' aud Christchurch had for some time been living on the successes of the past, and in real progress was doing little more than marking time. To overcome the lack of direct, speedy and efficient communication with the sea ho suggested: (1) A remodelled Lyttelton Harbour. (2) A level double track road traffic tunnel. (3) A broad highway connecting the tunnel to the City. Lyttelton and Christchurch were now handicapped by lack of yards and" ; sidings. The Government, having a monopoly of the carrying trade, was obviously to blame, and had made no attempt to improve the facilities which j were admittedly inadequate. The road ; tunnel presented no constructional difficulties whatever, as there were complete drawings of the present tunnel avail- : able, showing the material to.be en- : countered. It would bo constructed on [tlie south side of the present tunnel, and parallel to it. The spoil at the Lvttelton end would be used for re- * clamation, and it would.be unnecessary ; to-line the inside for more than 300 ft from each portal. ._ . ; The highway connecting City ana , tunnel will have to- carry, a tremendous , amount of traffic of. all classes, and at increased speeds. . It would be as : direct; as possible, utilising .existing- j highways, and of sufficient width to , permit four way traffic. "It would .be ; designed in harmony with the natural ( surroundings,' and as an... object or beauty and utility. The estimated cost of this scheme, taken out within tho last six months is: ~" £. ' Remodelling Lytteltonharbour 750,000 Road traffic tunnel ... 4 £o>WO Broad highway - 70 ' 000 £1,270,000 ] Port Christchurch. 'Mr D. M. Heicus then opened the case for Port Christchurch, and described with, the aid of a map.the proposed layout. The main reasons against the extension of Lyttelton ; harbour were the extra cost of duplicating the tunnel, electrification, etc., and. the small extent of the present harbour which necessitated budding a second pair of mole's. Reclamation on the steep foreshore would bo dangerous. The foreshore would be very narrow, making railway access awkward, and warehouse space restricted. Artificial harbours were no longer in the experimental stage, and the speaker quoted some examples, adding that • eminent engineers had declared the | Port. Christchurch scheme' quite pra'c- ! ticable. ' • ' •'• _ ■ , Mr Hercus quoted: Messrs Coode,. Son, and Mathews' report re the ■■ amount of land available, and its ac- , oessibility, contrasted with .that of Lyt- ; telton. In the light of modem knowledge the constructions recommended .in, this, design were much too heavy. In'Lyttelton goods, must be. Ed into railway trucks, the proposed scheme of unloading into motor-lorries ■ being illegal. The.adoption of this ( scheme would therefore necessitate a , change in the laws'. '' . Future extensions to Port Christ*, church would be easy and cheap, whereas extensions to. Port Lyttelton would be. increasingly difficult and expensive. At Port Christchurch Customs sorting arid b'ond stores .could be conveniently arranged,: and .built near the docks, and thus one of the chief objections to the Lyttelton scheme would be overcome. The economic question was the most important. There was sufficient volume of traffic in sight, and increased beTthing and handling, facilities would, encourage ■ trade. Traffic . from, the Panama • Canal would make Christchurch . the first port of call. New channels of trade would be opened up, especially in secondary industries. It would not be economical to-extend Lyttelton as it would eventually have,to be superseded. ' ~■,,.-, ■ The ' estimated, cost of the. scheme from the latest post-war investigation was £850,000. This report was checked by the Harbour Board's engineer. An American firm recently offered to do the job for £1,000,000j and to guarantee that the port would begin to earn revenue within six months of the start of operations; , A comparison of the estimates..showed Port. Christchurch to be the cheaper scheme. ' In subsequent discussion, 1 Dr. Thacker advocated the Port- Christchurch scheme, and Mr H. : M. Chrystall the tunnel project. Mr Chrystall had doubts about the estimate of £850,000 as : the cost of the Port Christchurch scheme. .He thought, it was probably much too low. " The motion as submitted by Mr Hunter, was carried by a narrow majority. The two leading speakers thanked Dr. Thacker and Mr Chrystall for assist- . ance given in proparing material "for the- subject of the debate.