TUNNEL ROAD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18218, 31 October 1924, Page 11

TUNNEL ROAD.

CHAMBER DISAPPROVES SCHEME. EVANS PASS ROUTE FAVOURED. Tho proposal to build a tunnel road to Lyticltou, via Mt. Pleasant, which emanated from Mr Hobday, was considered by the. Canterbury Chamber of Commerce and referred to a. speeial committee for report. At last night's meeting of the. Council, of the Chamber the committee presented a. very full report, in which it expressed the opinion that the improvement of the Evans Pass road was preferable lo Mr Hobday's scheme as heing tho most practicable method for some years to come, of providing an alternative means of access to the port. Alternative Schemes. The scheme suggested by Mr Hobday as being worthy of further investigation is, briefly, as follows:—A road via Heathcote (distance eight miles from the Post Office, Christchurch, to tho Post Office, Lyttelton, as against seven miles as the crow flies), with a tunnel through tho hill, part way up, approximately 46 chains in length, the month of which on the Christchurch aido wonld be 350 feet above sea-level, and on tho Lyttelton side 300 feet abovo sea-level: approached by 84 chains of new road (from Hills road), with a piclient of 1 in 16, and 72 chains of lew road on the Lyttelton side, with a gradient of 1 in 15. ..fie committee referred to the report nado upon tho proposal by Mr F. Langoein, Resident Public Works Engineer, aid also surveyed other proposals which lad been made at various times, induding thaL of a tunnel road running parallel with the present railway tunmi (proposed by the Tunnel Road League), and also the improvement of the Evan 3 Pass road connecting Suniler with Lyttelton.. The alterations tfhich would'be required to the wharves at the port in the event of either of the tunnel proposals being undertaken wo.considered. The estimated cost of Mr Hobday's scheme was £226,760, and of the Tunnel Road League's scheme £750,000. Tho cost of alteration to Wharves'(common to both schrmes) was £654,500, thus making the total cost of the former proposal £881,200, and of the latter £1,404,500. The committee asked: Was .the expenditure of one M,the other amounts likely to bring ajfc adequate return to the community'? Alter-examining this question and admitting the convenience to be gained by both passenger and goods transport, the Teport stated: "Wo think, however,, that at present the community of North Canterbury would not ho justified in purchasing these conveniences at, the high cost of a tunnel road, especially since reforms on the railway, long overdue, could sceurc them. If there were a good road competing with this railway line, tho Railway Department would probably not hesitate to carry out the necessary reforms at once."

the committee dealt briefly with the canal scheme, and stated that "the_ reasons for the Commission's decision that it is not in the interests of the city and district that any artificial harbour should be constructed outside Port Lyttelton aro just as'potent now. if not more so, than they were in 1912. The next alternative considered by the committee was the improvement of the Evans Pass road, and the report stated: "The Resident Engineer, Mr F. Langbein, has surveyed this road, and mentions that tho present road £om Sumner to Evaus Pass «\ as steep as 1 in *" .lUplaces. He suggests that by doing ajwy with the existing road and grading down on a 1 iu 15 grade fr " m Efcms Pass to Sumner (near tho line 4t Captain Thomas's road), a much less <&Stly scheme than Colonel Hobday s Jftralts. He considers that a two-way *tfnl 21 feet in width, metalled to a *Mth of 13 feet, with a grade of 1 in 15, is possible." The total estimated «Wt of the work was £16.000, or £II,OOO Ipth a 16 feet road--width. The Committee's Finding. "Mve consider that at the present we, aud for some, years to come, the 3*provement of the road to Lyttelton, f. Sumner, over Evans Pass, is tnc st practicable method of providing . ..ristclmrch with a reasonably good means of access to 'the concluded tho report. It i* smparablv cheaper than any o£ tiie nieaiis suggested, but in a tnneot W&S would be adequate to carry a TO) proportion of the goods,_ aud aJ. tste passengers, required. \\ ltli this ?mc wo consider it would not, at preV be nceessarv to couple the larger _ eme of enlarging the wharves iu or- % to provide access to them by road wicles. ?/- M We found these opinions, br>wf**, on the assumption that the elcctafication of Ihc railway to Lyttelton. ** the duplication of the tunuel wj. ■* be long dclavcd. An improvement *"» railway facilities to the Tort is imperatively necessary, and is ouly 'bare 3««tice to the eitv of Christehurch. The cost of the Evans rasa *°old be comparatively small, and, its ••womplishment would be no bar to .« *** ambitious tunnel road scheme m

at loot of && colunm-i

tho future, if and when circumstances justified it, as Sumner would eventually require, adequate access to Lyttelton. The cost of construction and maintenaucc of the Evans Pass road, which has been declared a main highway, could be met as follows: The Main Highways Act provides that, the Highways Board may contribute up to .£1 per :tl for construction, and ill per £2 for maintenance. The difficulty here would be to get local bodies like* the Sumner and Lyttelton Borough Couueils to »e responsible for half tho construction aud two-thirds of the maintenance. The city of Christehurch would have no legal responsibility for the road, but would probably, by agreement, make contributions toward it. Probably th-j most equitable method of meeting (he expenditure would be for the Government to take over the road, as is done in other parts of the Dominion iu similar circumstances. "

The report was adopted, and :x vote of thanks was accorded the committee fur its work in preparing the report. It was also decided that the committee at a later stage go into the question of the best, means (o be adopted to got the recommendations carried out after (be engineer of the Public "Works Department, had submitted his report on the survey of the road.