WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 155, 3 July 1922, Page 11

WATERFRONT RAILWAY.

To the Editor. , ) , Sir,—Tn respect to the proposed i extension of the railway past the Ferry . Buildings in which Mr. Leyland has, i according to the "Star," toe'en elaborating, may I tie permitted to remind him that according to evtdence adduced at inquests and inquiries re perious street accidents, it is not apparently the slow-running vehicle that runs amok. Almost without exception the driver's sworn statement of speed is from four to six miles per hour. Hence it would be more consoling if Mr. Leyland assured the public that the intended speed of this new menace was to be fourteen and not four miles per hour. The time seems not far distant when the only safe place for any human toeing will be inside the gaol walls. Surely commercialism is not so keen as not to leave someone to fight the "next war" Mr. Maseey refers to.—l am, etc., ARTHUR GU-MMiNtaS. Ctahuhu, 30/6/22. (To the FiTitui-.' Sir, —Really, Mr. Editor, Mr. Leyland'a remark about "lack of vision" on the part of opponents of a level railway crossing in Auckland's principal street, across its busiest outlet for traffic on our waterfront, is too funny for words. We have had gome marvellous examples of the "vision' , of Mr. Leyland and his colleagues on the Harbour Board. There is the hideous junk store in Quay Street, which provoked such a storm of protest from every important commercial firm in the city that the Board promieed to pull it down in two years. Then we have the erection of the Ferry Building in its present position, which Mr. Leyland telte us was a mistake that can be remedied by pulling down Gladstone Buildings, on the opposite side of the road, twenty years hence. The seriee of launch piers, between the Ferry Buildings and Hobson Street wharf, one of the most creditable things the Board hae done, is now to be pulled up by the aid of the floating crane to make way for the waterfront railway. Mr. Leyland is aleo reported to have said that steamers will be berthed at Princes wharf for the discharge of coal, oil, and lumber. This is news indeed! What, then, is to be berthed at the wharf further west, on the Freeman's Bay reclamation, from which a railway is to convey coal right into the Gas Company's works? Eliminate tie Gas Company, which is the principal user of ship-borne coal in Auckland, and the petroleum stores, which can be served from this wharf, and what 13 left to console the people of Auckland city and-its marine suburbs for the atrocity which the Board, at enormous cost, proposes to inflict upon them! —I am, etc., J.G. cTo the Editor.! Sir, —One feature of this pTecious scheme has been kept in the background. It is proposed to carry the railway on a costly viaduct —with swing gates affording an opening for vessels to the timber yards—from Princes wharf to the Freexnans' Bay reclamation. Mr. Mackenzie, chairman of the Harbour stated that "the board had £0000 worth of reclaimed land there which was at preeent unlet, and this would, with the provision of necessary conveniences, become a. valuable asset to tfce board." In other ■words, the value of this land is to be inflated by connecting it with the rail»way. Presumably, coal, timber, and other rail-borne goods from the country may be delivered not merely at Princes ■wharf, but also at the timber mills and the premises of lessees on Freemans' Bay reclamation. This 13 significant of: the extent to which passenger and vehicular traffic across Queen Street and in front of the Ferry Buildings will be obstructed. Moreover, is it unreasonable to suggest that those who will benefit directly from the construction of the railway cannot be regarded as entirely disinterested and impartial judges of its necessity from a public point of view.— I am, etc., DEVONPORT RESIDENT.