Ferry action urged

Press, 8 May 1980, Page 6

Ferry action urged

Members of the Lyttleton Harbour Board were critical of the Railways Department yesterday for not making known its plans to introduce a Wellington Lyttelton ferry ! service. Spokesmen for the Depart- ’ ment, since the idea of a 1 once-a-week service was mooted two months ago, have declined to comment further 5 except to say that the matter ’ is still under investigation j and co.uld possibily be a Sun-day-only service using one of i the existing Cook Strait pasi senger ferries. , Questions had been raised about the suitability of the old passenger ferry terminal ’ at the No 2 West jetty at Lyttelton W handling the ■ new service, said the board’s) general manager (Mr J. A. I McPhail). Both he and the board’s chief engineer (Mr J. B. Bushel!) said the existing terminal which has been maintained since the demise of the Rangatira service, in 1976, was suitable, in spite of the adjacent bulk-loading facilities at No 2 East. Mr Bushell said the bulk loading of phosphate, sulphur, soda ash, potash, and other commodities at No 2 East! had gone on before the Rangatira had been retired. I Board members criticised! not only, the Railways Department but Canterbury manufacturers and businessmen who had "rubbished” the once-a-week service. < Mr J. E. Davidson said that the time had come when the ; board’s position on the matter was made absolutely clear. “We must come out and let the public know we : fully favour this ferry ser- ■ vice. Some business people have been knocking this service before it even gets off the ground,” he said. Mr H. W. Bennett agreed, saying that the one-day service as proposed was but "one small step forward” towards an expanded service. The board’s chairman (Mr J. E. Manneririg) said the

board had been in “constant; contact” with the manage-'-ment of the Department' about the proposed service*: and that negotiations continu-!. ed day-by-.day. Mr J. Brand said that it : should be obvious to anyone that the board had maintained the passenger ferry terminal,, including the link span, in i anticipation of a new service! being introduced. He called] statements by the depart-11 ment’s management to the ef- i feet that South Islanders did

: not want the proposed serivice “diversionary tactics.” ' While many board 'members had reservations (about an every Sunday service and would prefer a more frequent one, all agreed that the initial plan would have fti'l board support. , Mr Bushell noted that, in i the long term, plans called [for the shifting of bulk-load-ling facilities to the Cashin [Quay breakwater, regardless of whether passenger ferries ■ used the adjacent wharf.