TUNNEL ROAD SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22072, 21 April 1937, Page 5

TUNNEL ROAD SCHEME

♦— ■ ATTITUDE OF LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD UNPBOGRESSIVE POLICY ALLEGED The opinion that in spite of the attitude of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, which he alleged was the most unrtrogressive body in Canterbury, the Linel road project would go through, ■was expressed by Mr V.,E. Hamilton, ’chairman of the Canterbury Chamber 5 I Commerce, in an address to mem'Tiers'of the Ashburton Chamber of - commerce last evening. He stressed ' +& point that the Canterbury ChamSr was pushing the proposal at the Vpnuest ot the Prime Minister, the Rt. \Mnn M. J- Savage, who had said that ST was extremely anxious to get work a major nature to absorb the unemployed in the city of Christchurch. P "lt has been noticeable that all •farmers have been against the pro- . io«al” said Mr Hamilton, who remarked that the Ashburton representative on the Lyttelton Harbour Board i •waA also vo :ed against it. He said that • the Government had about £10,000,000 ■ available to spend this year and on a • Population basis North Canterbury was entitled to £1,000,000 of that sum, but they were asking only for about 400 000 to £500,000 to be spent on a tunnel road. The money would be a • «ift from the Government. He had haen struck with the lack of -harbour, facilities at Lyttelton in comparison with other places. Progress in manufacturing at Christchurch had been held lip because of this. In Auckland, where the facilities were far ahead of Lyttelftoh there were 26,000 persons >mnloved in factories while there were only 13,0004 so employed at Christ‘chiirch. Secondary, industries . and manufacturing should be encouraged . because they meant greater population. 'To have a big consuming population ■at the door of the farming commun5, ity was better than exporting. ‘ • Mr S. L. Wright said Christchurch ; bad the right to a tunnel road which ■would give direct access to the sea. It was in keeping with modern progress. "•I Mr A. A. McDonald, .Ashburton, said ■■'that he thought it would be foolish,to ilet. pass the Government’s offer to £ad the money. He considered that the road would be a distinct advahc fage in the approach to Lyttelton. 1 I Mr H. G. Kemp, Ashburton, said that : If the tunnel road was built there ■ would be a demand for extra facilities -'involving a great expenditure at the i- port and this could be only met by increased charges. He thought the Canterbury Chamber should 1 interest it- .! self in improving the handling facilities at the Christchurch railway yard. | The opinion that a great deal of deJay occurred in the congestion at the : Christchurch goods shed was given by Mr H. Hefford, Ashburton. Mr Hamilton replied that there was ho; other port in New Zealand which r..,was served only by,, railway. He thought that motor competition at LytVtelton would do a great 1 deal of good. ; The suggestion of expenditure at the - port was a bogey. The Harbour Board .. was the most unprogreSsive body in I, Canterbury, and it wanted a shake-up. ■lt thought in terms of timber construction rather than ferro-'concrete, in ; the renewal of sheds .on • its wharves. (Why should they advocate larger sheds ;ih the city when the same sheds could jbe built on the wharves, he asked? rMr J. Roy Smith, secretary ,of the Chamber, said that, the \fear had been expressed that a rate ; ! ihight be imposed for any extra ex'•pehditure involved at the port, but it - was not freely known that the Lyttelton Harbour Board had no rating power. If however any expenditure was incurred at Lyttelton the local bodies around Christchurch would have to bear considerably more than .half the rate if any should happen to ibe necessary.