A TUNNEL ROAD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16902, 29 November 1922, Page 4

A TUNNEL ROAD.

DISCUSSED BY CITIZENS’ ASSOCIATION.

The tunnel road scheme was discussed at a meeting of the Christchurch Citizens and Ratepayers’ Association last night, and it was decided to ask the executive to set up a special committee to repoifc on the rnotietThe question was introduced by Mr ,J. R. Hayward, who, after dealing with the history of the scheme, said the advantages to the community on the completion of the road and tunnel were too numerous to mention, but it would give the city free access to its port and would enable motor traffic to carry practically all goods and passengers to and from the port much more j expeditiously and with greater effici- , ency and economy than at present. Another great point in favour of the scheme was that it would make the city and the port one city, and would give an immense acreage of practically waste land for the ‘building of extensive factories ai.d warehouses. It would id so give the < hristchurch electrical undertaking great scope for electric lorries. The city of Christchurch would also enjoy a wider outlook and would be of greater importance as a city immediately the work was completed. Auckland and Wellington had full control of their ports, and had progressed splendidly, but. in his opinion the pro. gross of Christchurch and Canterbury was going to be stultified and delayed as lona 1 as the sc-le control of our port, and our only communication with it, was in the hands of a hide-bound Government Department. Mr H. Holland said the greatest difficulty to he faced was to get legislation put through to allow access to the wharves. He believed that reallv the I.y ttelton Harbour Board had no'right of access to ts own wharves. One of the great causes of congestion at Lyttelton was that the Railway Department insisted on running trains of about eighty trucks in length through the tunnel, thus blocking the Christchurch and Lyttelton yards. He considered that the Department was much to blame for the condition of the new ferry wharf. The Harbour .Board had provided electric capstans to save wear and tear on the wharf, yet the Department preferred to use horses to pull trucks about, the horses* steel shoes being responsible for ripping up the planking. The Department would not provide ’ he necessary ropes for uso on the capstans.

Mr F. Hobbs moved: “That the exe cutive be asked to consider the question of setting up a special committee to consider and report on the best means of overcoming the disadvantages under which it is claimed the city suffers in its working communication with its seaport, Lyttelton.” The motion was seconded by Mr Agar. , Mr H. J. Ranger said he was strongly in favour of the scheme. Christchurch was extremely well favoured with regard to the development of the factories. yet it was badly hampered through the tunnel. Conditions had changed considerably inside two years through the lack of transport facilities at Lyttelton. There were people at that time who were convinced that there was not room at Lyttelton for motor traffic to operate. However, reclamation of seventy acres of land was proceeding satisfactorily, and in a short space of time he felt sure that there would be room there for three double docks capable of accommodating the largest type of cargo steamers that came to the Dominion. He had no hesitation in stating that the Hiley railway scheme was now sadly out of date, even although ,it was only about eight years old. He considered that if the tunnel scheme could be reasonably carried through the future would justify it. Mr W. A. Manhire doubted if the association should take up the scheme, as many of its subscribers were not tun-

Mr R. M. Macdonald endorsed Mr Manhire's remarks. He thought, however. that a road tunnel would have to come, but not at present. Mr A. M’Kellar and Mr O. Anderson supported Mr Hobbs’s motion. Mr Plesher expressed himself as being a great believer in the Port Christchurch scheme. It would be better, in his opinion, to put the million odd pounds that the tunnel road scheme would cost into the Port Christchurch scheme. After all, the matter was a city matter, as it was the .city merchants who would benefit by the tunnel scheme. The whole question was one if cost. Would it pay the city to incur such a cost? Mr Hayward, in reply, said that Lyttelton was looked on as being one of the safest harbours in the world. About one and a half millions had been spent on the harbour. Would it pay to go ahead with the Port Christchurch scheme—a problematical scheme—and scrap a perfectly sound proposition like Lyttelton? It would cost only an additional half-million to put the tunnel through the hills. As for the argument that the country people were opposed to the tunnel scheme, the speaker knew lots of such people who were prepared to support it. The bigger the trade was to grow in Christchurch, the greater would the difficulties become with the Railway Department. With motor-lorries being allowed to go to a ship’s side to pick up or put out goods one complete handling would be saved. The motion was then put to the meeting and carried unanimously