PARNELL RAILWAY BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 85, 9 April 1906, Page 5

PARNELL RAILWAY BRIDGE.

DEPUTATION TO MINISTER FOR

RAILWAYS.

: A deputation waited on the Hon. Albert Pitt, Acting-Minister for Railways, this morning in connection with? the widening of the Parnell Railway Bridge. The deputation,, which was introduced by Mr F. E. Baume, included ! Messrs A. M. Myers (Mayor of Auckland),, J. Fitt (Mayor of ParnelHvE. W. Burton (Chairman One-Tree Hill Road Board). Alfred Kidd, C. H. Poole, F. Lawrv.' MLHJi/s, Hon. W. Beehan, M.LCj Messrs M» Casey, H M. Smeeton> A. E. Glover. J. Hutchison, GKnight (Auckland City Council), and J. Sexton, assistant Town Clerk- . .In introducing the deputation, Mr . Baume said that the time had come to do away with or minimise the danger i arising from the piers in. the middle of the road. The Department proposed to -increase the width of the piers by 14ft, and when this became known it was felt, that steps should be taken to bring before the government the need for removing the danger. Local feeling was strongly behind the deputation,, and he urged that the span bridge should be constructed.

Mr Myers said that the matter was important, and one in. which there was a great feeling that the Government had been ill-advised in their action. He

had received an apology for absence from the Hon. E. Mi|Jehelson chairman of the Remuera Road Board, who expressed the opinion that the work should be done on the lines suggested by the Auckland City Council, the whole cost being borne by "the Government. If the piers were not removed there would, he believed, be many accidents, and probably loss of life. If the Minister proved obdurate he suggested that hals a loaf should be accepted, and that the pier nearest the harbour should be removed, leaving the other standing. Mr Myers stated that the City Council did hot agree with the latter position of the letter, they wanted the whole loaf. The Department had admitted the necessity for removing these piers. The"Hon. Pitt: No. I don't admit that.

Mr Myers pointed out that the Department had offered to pay two-thirds of the cost of removing the piers. The original proposal" of the Government would place the roadway in a much worse position. He quoted from the. correspondence which had passed between the Auckland and the Department on the matter, referring to the letter from Sir Joseph Ward seating that as the danger arose from $he great rate at which the trams cavne down Alpha-road,' the Railway Department did not consider themselves called upon to remove a danger which was, not of their making. Mr Myers 6aid that if it was going to be contended that a city like Auckland was not to allow the introduction of electric tramways it meant good-bye to progress. The Act-ing-Minister had agreed to subsidise the erection of a one-span bridge, conditional on the lucal bodies paying the remainder of the Tpiers. To tais the local bodies had objected, considering that the matter was one for the Government. Sir Joseph Ward had said, in Auckland in October that in the duplication of the line it was not a question of cost, and since there was serious danger here the- Governmentj should recognise its responsibility. He (considered that the proper shoulders should take the responsibility, the Government should be the last body to

construct anything dangerous to the public life. As to the suggestion that the local bodies should subsidise, Mr Myers asked if there was a precedent under like circumstances for this re-

quest; if there was, why not ask the people of Parnell to contribute to the

cost of the whole bridge? The, traffic under the bridge in a few years would be enormous. The danger had been re-

cognised by Ministers. Mr Mills had recognised that it would increase the danger to life to increase the width of

the piers, owing to the difficult angle at which carts had to be driven, especially as the view each way was obstructed. He pointed out that there would have been a request for the removal of the piers even had there been no. proposal to widen them.

Mr- John Fitt said that 40 years ago, when v the bridge was constructed, it wa3

made of wood, and it "was then necessary to have the present piers, but with

1 steel there "was no such necessity. The j piers were not put in the best position,

but at equal distances apart.

Mr. F. Lawry, M.H.R., said that the circumstances of 40 years ago did notapply to-day. He felt assured that the Minister would not -only be consulting the wishes of the people, but the safety of the public, if he agreed to the request. What did a trumpery £500

matter to the Government. Sir Joseph Ward said that they were going to have a complete job, but unless the piers were removed the job "would not only be incomplete, but would be positively dangerous.

Sir. Alf. Kidd, M-HJR., believed that

the Minister would agree with what had been said as to the. danger of witlening the piers; it only seemed a question as to who was to pay„ " He pointed out that when the bridge was first built the

• road was not an important one, but | now it was the main eastern outlet.from i . the city. The bridge had caused severe | accidents already, and to increase the buttresses would be to increase the liability. There was a-j general feeling here that the piers should be and he believed that the Minister's common sense would endorse that. Mr. C. H. Poole, M.H.R., expressed the hope that the Minister would catch the spirit of the deputation and would authorise the removal of the piers. The work was a permanent one, and as the piers would have to be removed sooner or later, it was best that, it should be done in the first cost. In replying, the Minister said that it was impossible not to catch the spirit of the deputation, which was that the Government should be called upon to bear the whole cost of the work, Mr Myers had certainly made the best, if not a little more than the best of the position. He recognised that in works which the Government themselves constructed danger should- be eliminated. In this case the acute danger was not brought about by the Government, it was almost entirely. brought about by the corporation allowing a double line of tram track under the bridge. The rails monopolised the whole of the available, 'roadway. If ithe tramway had been laid down by the Government then they would admit that the danger had been cahsed by them, and would rembve it. He pointed out that Mr MDJS was the onlr Minister who had expressed an, opinion in favour of removing the-piers, and he had only had the one side before bi— tj not- having immediate-access to the files, etc. Regarding what Sip Joseph

Ed oat that sa: recently as January the Minister lor Railways had absolutely declined to accede to tieir request,fore it v -could not b>6 said that SLc Joseph had recognised that it was the! duty of. the Goremmeitt to.' eoiitribiita the whole cost of removing the danger. He thought that the danger was riofe so acute as represented. He referred to the action taken by Mr Coom, en-giaeer-io-cMef of the Railways. Department, and said that Mr Coom had pointed out that one footpath TV33 loft -wide and the other 9ft. If "both, -were made 9ft and the traffic regulated to eitiiec Iside- oi the the eentire not being used, he believed that the danger -would: he minimised. Of course there wa3 al- \ ■ways the danger from drunken and: careless drivers, but that coaild not be avoided. He hoped tnat after consideration; they would see that his offer; of £500 was a fair one, and. that they, ■would accept it. He did not quite understand, what Mr Mitchelson. proposed and -what the effect of removing one pier would ; be. That -would mean a bridge of two* spans, and he would have the proposal' referred to the: general -manager and the engineer.-in-chief. He would also submit the matter to- other members of the Cabinet, and take their opinion oxt what ■■ should be further than that he. was not prepared to- go. He- was. not convinced that it was not the duty of the local bodies to contribute. They had placed the clanger these., and they, should assist to. remove it. As to precedents, he stated that the-Government; •was constantly contributing to the cosfc of bridges, roads etc The corporation had made a concession to- private company creating a danger—any danger which, existed before wa3 very .small indeed, and he really could not. see that this was a case where the Government should jiear the whole .cost of the work* : He would consult cabinet and the departmental officers with a view to hay- • ing a decision arrived at as early as possible. . r : Ifr. Baume thanked the Minister off . behalf- of the deputation, and; regretted ! that they had not succeeded in maMng \ a moB9 favourable impcesaon. TheY; could only hope that in reconsideration ibe would" see Ms,way to grajit their wishes. Mr. Myers reminded the Minister that the local'bodies did not agree with the. suggestion of Mr. Hitehelson;. They . were pleased at any rate that -the: I Slinister would consider the matter. I They would not hesitate ta J shonlder the ' burden did they believe they were re- ," sponsible, but they did not think so. ' He believed that more ths Minister: J went into the matter the more-lie would realise the gravity of the position. lie r question of £500 was. not worthy of tbe " : consideraiioa" of a- progressive Govern- ' ment when human, life was. at stake. 1 The Minister pointed out that he had J taken a. grave responsibility ia consent- \ ing to bear two-thrrds of the cost, wheit f\ Sir Joseph Ward had absolutely refused : t& contribute anything. He hoped they; ' Would consider tie offer carefully before* ' declining'it. \,