TUNNEL ROAD PROPOSAL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21973, 23 December 1936, Page 14

TUNNEL ROAD PROPOSAL

RAILWAY MANAGER’S CRITICISM t REPORT FURNISHED TO MINISTER ESTIMATED COST THOUGHT CONSERVATIVE The proposal to pierce the Port Hills to provide better road access to the port of Lyttelton has been adversely criticised by the General Manager of Railways, Mr G. H. Mackley, in a report to the Minister for Railways, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan. “The demand at the present time is not for the reconstruction of the port, but for the Government to meet the cost of providing a public road through to Lyttelton, involving the construction of a tunnel through the Port Hills,” Mr Mackley says in his report. “The estimated costs of providing his road are fixed at £480.000, but in certain quarters this figure is deemed to be a very conservative estimate indeed. “This road, if constructed, would run out of the hill in a position close to the root of No. 7 wharf, and it is held that the road in itself would be of no great service to Christchurch unless access is provided from that road to the Lyttelton wharves so that goods may be handled between the ships and the city by motors. Cost Involved “I think it is fairly obvious.” the report continues, “that if publicity were given to the very heavy cost involved in reconstructing the harbour to provide this access and the facilities demanded in connexion with the handling of the shipping goods by road, together with the extra cost the merchants would require to meet in connexion with the increased expenditure in working the port, the whole scheme would be placed out of court. In the meantime, however, pressure is being brought to bear for the construction of the road, and it is felt that once the road is constructed a very sound argument will be held for the additional expenditure on the harbour, as it can be said that the road is of no great use without the provision of the additional harbour facilities.

“I am of the opinion, that the main drive for the expenditure on y the tunnel road and the reconstruction of the Lyttelton waterfront is coming from motorists. It seems evident that once the few merchants who urge the expenditure on these works are aware of the increased charges they will be required to meet, there will be very little demand from that quarter for vehicular access to the wharves. “The master carriers do not favour the proposal, as they feel they would do better business in the present arrangement and that they will be unable to give a better service to their clients from the sheds at Lyttelton than they do at present from the sheds at Christchurch. At the present time they can keep their fingers on the movements of their vehicles; their offices are in a handy position ,to the shipping sheds, whereas if they are required to work from Lyttelton they will be out of touch with their lorries and will, no doubt, be required to provide additional' staff to supervise the loadings at the port wharves. They would, moreover, require to have all papers in order before their lorries are dispatched to Lyttelton and unless information from the port were to hand as to what cargo was available, the lorries would require to proceed to Lyttelton on the offchance of securing at least some part of the lines their clients required. Under present conditions the clearing firms concerned have a fair idea of what cargo is available in Christchurch sheds and arrange for lifting accordingly, I cannot find that any appreciable saving in time would be effected by working from sheds on the wharves at Lyttelton and in a number of cases I am quite satisfied that time would bte lost. Loss to Businesses “In the report of the Access to the Sea Commission, 1930, reference was made to the fact that no witnesses gave particulars as to the actual business lost through delays in the present condition, and it was suggested by others that in a well-ordered business a matter of two or three extra days in the transport of goods which of necessity must take from four to six weeks in transit from England should not cause serious inconvenience or expense. Unless the steamer is a direct one to Lyttelton, delays on the coast due to bad weather delaying the discharge at other ports must be expected. Some of the overseas shipping companies now load alternate ships to North and South Island ports, and the grievance which southern traders had in the past regarding the northern merchants receiving their lines earlier is no longer of much importance. It may be stated, moreover, that some considerable improvement has been effected since 1930 in the rate of discharging on to the shed floors at Christchurch. At other ports, such as Port Adelaide and Port Melbourne, situated at approximately the same distance from the city as Lyttelton is from Christchurch, the goods from the Home steamers are worked . from the ship’s side by rail to delivery sheds in the metropolis.” The idea created »in certain circles that the proposed system of working would reduce handling costs at the port is entirely wrong, Mr Mackley adds. That cost must increase considerably. Those backing the scheme claim that there will be a reduction in delays in the transfer of goods from ship to warehouse, but the railways claim that they could make delivery as quickly through their sheds as a road service could perform the work. Dismissing the allegations of damage in transit by rail in one paragraph, Mr Mackley claims that 95 per cent, of the damage to goods occurs on the ship. Time of Delivery “From time to time,” the report continues, “it has been stated that because of the rail service to Lyttelton it is necessary to have goods at the railway earlier than would be required if the same goods were run to Lyttelton by lorry, and delivered at the ship’s side. The time fixed for delivery to our sheds to ensure shipment the same day is not fixed by our service, but rather by the ship. The agents of the steamer express require to have aty goods in Lyttelton not later than the 2.20 p.m. goods train from Christchurch. whereas we would be prepared to send the goods down later if the ship would accept them. _ In the circumstances the responsibility must rest with the ship, and it is not considered that any improvement would be affected if the lorries were allowed to. run on to the wharf.” Mr Mackley says that the suggestion of a loss to Canterbury through industries being established in other centres because of direct access to the port is a fallacy. “The population of the North Island is considerably m excess of the South Island,” he says, “and it naturally follows that the majority of new businesses establish themselves in the busier areas. Business men in a large way do not consider that Christchurch suffers because of the absence of a direct road to Lyttelton. On the other hand, it is un-

derstood that the t*§ energy in Christchurch ar® g## elsewhere, and this m • ris * c jnuP balance any disability may suffer along the tines Qggsfr Any delays we may sim rolling stock being hdd of shipping are prod** with outward goods 0 which will always go d&C port by rail, and m W** <*#* stances this clami tunnel road may be wai *vet*£ Quoting figures *> r Jfgfjir periods of four weeks ea of , ley claims that 34.89 per LyttrfjS total inward traffic throug^^i was forwarded to , out**? Christchurch, and «*“ traffic the primary terbury was responsible cent. The tunnel road fore be of no benefit to _ cent, of the goods Lyttelton, the report adds. 20 per cent, of the truffle