TUNNEL ROAD PROJECT

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25244, 24 July 1947, Page 6

TUNNEL ROAD PROJECT

FEDERATED FARMERS’ SUPPORT .

ACCESS TO LYTTELTON

On the motion of Mr R. R. Bennett, the ivorth Canterbury executive of -rideiaieu tarmers, ai a meeting yesterday, decided to support the tunnel ±pad project for access to -|_.ytteltpn, ana to asK for as hign a priority for tne scheme as was possible after the completion of emergency works. The matter was first discussed in committee. When discussion in open meeting was resumed, Mr L. R. C. Mqcxarianp that the Iwnel road scheme was out of date. To-day, much ireight and a third of the essential passengers tq or from the North Island went by air; there was also a rail link with Picton, and eight trains were frequently run on the line in one day. By the time that the Public Works Department’s 10-year plan was completed, all passengers would travel by air.

The tunnel road was not in the interests of the farming community, continued Mr Macfarlane. An enormous expense would bp involved, and only Christchurch was interested in it. The chief interest was in motoring easily to or frorti Lyttelton without needing to go over the hills. As far as the farmers were concerned, there were rni-ny more essential things than the tunnel road. As farmers, members of the executive should oppose the tunpel jroad project. Mf C. A. Inch said that in public works Canterbury had already “been left standing a bit,” and they had to be careful that they did not stand in the way of progress. Christchurch had the worst access and the worst railway station of any city in New Zealand, said Mr I. L. M. Coop. If Canterbury did not make use of £l.OOO 000 on public works such as the tunnel road, some other district would make use of it; £1.000,000 was a mere bagatelle in public works today. Manufacturers were unable now to get their goods from Lyftglton; and there wqs a shortage of railway wagpops. largely caused by congestion at Lvtteltpn. Farmers were suffering from the shortage of waggons. F a tunnej road were copstructed. another bottle-neck might result said Mr L. Spellje. Money available cnuld b.e used for an imoroved port. , r , here seemed great Do°sihiljties in the Estuary port scheme. Lyttelton had very rAPfrieted possibilities.

Mr J. If. Jeb c on contended that in the interests of Canterbury. the ejq?cut’vo sbnuj'’ suunnyt some scheme f° r " th a handling pf goods tn and f rnm Lytte’ton. Tf there w n s nothing better, it should support the tunnel project. The (Mr J. W. Earl) said that if Lvttglton wss fo fee Gapterhiirv’? port of the future, better aepess should be provided. The Estuary scheme had many limitations.