The Press THURSDAY, JULY l9, 1951, Harbour and Tunnel

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26477, 19 July 1951, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, JULY l9, 1951, Harbour and Tunnel

The account given by the chairman (Mr F. W. Freeman) of the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s plans for the future development of the port was as interesting as it was necessary for the information of the public. It is doubtful, however, whether it will fully serve the purpose which “The Press” had in mind when it suggested recently that, to assist the campaign for an early start on the tunnel road, the board should make known the nature of its plans for the ultimate development’ of the port and the approximate time-table of the separate stages in the work. For Mr Freeman's statement makes it clear that the board has not yet a clear sight of its course beyond the first stage—which is to open an enlarged steamer-express wharf to road transport by means of an elevated roadway from Norwich quay across the railway yard. It is “ hoped ” that this work, costing £ 250,000, will be done “ within two “or three years". This, of course, is only the beginning, although a useful beginning, of the very big task of opening the Lyttelton wharves generally to road transport, which is the main reason and the best justification of the tunnel road. Mr Freeman suggests that the first elevated roadway—two or three more at intervals round the waterfront are “ envisaged ” in the harbour development programme—will serve not only the steamer-express wharf but also neighbouring wharves; but this, presumably, will not be until the board has widened these wharves, built goods sheds on them, widened the breastwork and re-routed the railway tracks, a process which eventually will be necessary over the whole of the main wharf system of the present inner harbour. It is, admittedly, a longterm task, and one that cannot be rushed. Nevertheless, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Lyttelton Harbour Board would have a better chance of getting the tunnel built soon if the board itself could state more definitely which wharves could be opened to the tunnel road traffic, and when. It is clear from Mr Freeman’s statement that the plans for this part of the port development scheme are now taking firm shape; and if the Harbour Board is unable at the moment to set a time-table for their execution it should certainly not be long before it can do so. The same eannot be said of the board’s plans for the enlargement of the port to provide additional berthage and more room for the handling of big ships. Over many years different plans have come before the board, have been accepted “in principle", and modified from time to time. Now, it seems, the board is recasting completely the latest of these development schemes, which was put forward in 1945. The board, according to ’Mr Freeman, is now “ inclined to favour ” a new scheme produced by the chief engineer; and it is this scheme, presumably, whieh will be submitted to tests at 'a hydraulic research station in England. The result of the tests will not be known for two years; and until they are known the board will make no decision about a final development plan for the port. Time spent in thorough investigation and preparation is nearly always time well spent, especially in major engineering works. It may well prove so in this case. But there will necessarily be some disappointment that a project of undoubted importance to the province, which the public had believed to be in an advanced planning stage, is in fact relegated to an indefinite future. The puttie can justly complain that the board has not taken it sufficiently into its confidence. The new development proposals, according to Mr Freeman, have been before the board for some 15 months; they would not have been made public even now if this newspaper had not asked for information about the progress of the plans whieh they have replaced or may replace. It is not a sufficient explanation to say that the board considers these new plans to be no more than “preliminary “ investigation! . , . still subject to “model tests before adoption". The public is just as Interested in the board’s exploratory work as in its final schemes; and it would be helped to confidence In the final decisions if it had some knowledge of the work and the discussions which lead to them. The practice of the whole board sitting in private as a port development committee may have certain advantages; but at least one great and obvious disadvantage has been made apparent by Mr Freeman’s statement.