TUNNEL ROAD BILL

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27734, 11 August 1955, Page 9

TUNNEL ROAD BILL

Harbour Board Defers Decision SOME OPPOSITION TO TOLL The Lyttelton Harbour Board yesterday deferred for a month consideration of the ChristchurchLyttelton Road Tunnel Bill. The secretary (Mr A. L. Burk) reported on the bill, and said it merited the full support of the board; but several members said the board should take no action to support the bill or seek representation on the proposed tunnel road authority. A provision to limit the authority to a specified term seejned to have some merit, said Mr Burk. It was highly probable that the tunnel would have to be taken over by the Government sooner or later, and that would be a logical step, as the work could only be regarded as part of the national reading system. It was proposed to levy tolls for the use of the tunnel, which would be constructed by borrowed money guaranteed by the Government, said Mr Burk, but it was extremely doubtful whether the revenue from that source would be sufficient to meet all capital and maintenance charges. “The tunnel road has always been regarded as a national corollary to port development,” Mr Burk said. “With the board promoting legislation for a development scheme involving road and rail access, the road becomes a necessity if the optimum of efficiency in port operations is to be attained. “If. the objectors to the harbour board legislation are successful in blocking the Harbour Board Empowering Bill, the probability of the Tunnel Road Bill becoming law will be seriously jeopardised,” he said. “Should this eventuate, the economic development of Canterbury, and indeed of the South Island,' could be retarded indefinitely.” Commenting that the authority was to be a local authority for the purposes of the Harbours Act, as well as other acts, Mr Burk said it was not clear why the provision was made. If the tunnel road was to be regarded as a “harbour work,” then it appeared reasonable that the board should have representation on ** the authority. Doubtless, the board would be consulted by the Ministry of Works on the work to be done, but it was desirable that there should be a provision in the bill to ensure proper co-ordination of the work. It was a matter for the Minister of Works to decide who should be represented on the authority, said Mr Ri. T. McMillan. “I think the harbour board should keep out of it,” he said. “The tunnel road has been , like Topsy,” said Mr F. W. Freeman. “Noone wanted it, no-one owned it; yet now we want representation.” “Toll an Imposition” “The authority should never be created,” said Mr J. Halligan. “The! work should have been undertaken by ; the Ministry of Works. To ask the people of Canterbury to pay a toll for something they justly deserve is an imposition. At the port we have made provision for the biggest ships that trade to New Zealand. That is more than can be said about the roading system. The road the lorries have to travel over was made for horses and drays. “We have fast traffic moving at a very slow rate. Fifty trucks were used last week, and they were like a mule train. It is up to the Ministry to see that the roading is kept up to cope with road transport. “When you take into consideration the wasted man-hours put in by truck drivers in going to and fro over the hill, petrol, tyres, and wear and tear, it would pay the cost of a road,” Mr Halligan said. . w “We should not support this bill.” he said. “We want the tunnel road, but we do not want a toll. It is a national undertaking.” . ... “We should not get involved m this at all—by representation or by supporting or opposing it,” said Mr P. J. Mowat. i The board adopted Mr Mowat s suggestion. seconded by Mr McMillan, that action be deferred until the next meeting.