TUNNEL ROAD ROUTES

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27909, 5 March 1956, Page 16

TUNNEL ROAD ROUTES

Sir, —Messrs Royds and Lush are to be commended for advocating a detailed engineering investigation of all possible routes for the tunnel road. They have not recommended a new route, but indicated an alternative which most civil engineers will agree has obvious merits. It certainly shows greater breadth of vision. The costing of such proposals is not the responsibility of your contributors. Such a suggestion clearly indicates that adequate investigations have not been made. Otherwise comparative facts of possible routes would be available. It is hard to believe that for a project of this importance comparative schemes and costs are not available. I am a firm supporter of the tunnel road, as, I am sure. Messrs Royds and Lush are, but as professional engineers of ability and integrity they ask for all aspects involved to be considered so that the best possible route is selected, politics and red herrings notwithstanding.—Yours, etc., PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. March 4, 1956.

Sir, —The Canterbury pioneers had wonderful foresight, but had they known what Christchurch would be 100 years later, Christchurch might be where now stands Rangiora. The city is hemmed in by hills and sea and in between is the Dominion’s biggest residential area. Through it, already well covered by roads, the Lyttelton tunnel road committee want a highway. If they foresee what Canterbury will be in another 100 years, they would run the tunnel and the highway along the route <via the open spaces) suggested by Messrs Royds and Lush, whose informative articles in “The Press” deserve the Government's fullest consideration. This in spite of Mr Freeman’s herrings! Choose a site best suited to the future industrial expansion of Christchurch upon advice of overseas engineers with world reputations, regardless of cost. —Yours, etc., March 3, 1956. LOOK AHEAD.