PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO ROSENEATH

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 150, 19 March 1924, Page 12

PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO ROSENEATH

ANOTHER DEPUTATION TO TRAMWAYS COMMITTEE HAWKER STREET ROUTE ADVOCATED “IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE BOTH PARTIES” A deputation of women from tho uplands of Roseneath, Oriental Bay, and Hawker Street waited on the Tramways Committee of the City Council yesterday afternoon for the purpose of replying to arguments used by the women’s deputation favouring tho inclined tramway which waited on tho council last week. Dr. Anderson (ex-Director of Education) introduced the deputation. He stated that the desire of the deputation was for the council to construct a road from Hawker Street across the Town Belt to Roseneath, ultimately linking up with Hatuitai, as a means of providing better access to Roseneath. Tho Counter-Petition, — Mrs. Blaxall stated that a large majority of residents of Roseneath and Mount Victoria were opposed to the inclined tramway, as it would only serve a few residents living in the and she reminded the committee of the 400 residents who had signed the petition against the lift. Under the circumstances she, on behalf of many residents, urged that a referendum of the residents concerned be taken, anS that, further, an independent commission of two or more persons he set up to examine the whole position and ascertain what was best to be done for the whole of the population of the district.

Mrs. Johnston, of Shannon Street, said that no narrow view should be taken of the question, but the lift to Roseneath only served one section and left Hawker Street quite out. of it. Though it had been talked of for years —she had been there 17 years—there was still no means of access, and after all it seemed that by the lift scheme they were going to pass them by, for as an aid to people on Mount A ictoria tho lift was out of the question. It did not benefit Hawker Street at all. They did not wish by their action to antagonise anyone—all they wanted to do was to meet in accord arc! find a solution of the difficult problem of providing better access to their homes on the hill. They wanted to see the greatest good for the greatest number. A good many residents of Roseneath were opposed to the lift, and so were the people of Upper Roseneath and Oriental Bay and Hawker Street. Dio route by way of Hawker Street was well worth considering as there was no route more beautiful than tnat which circled the Bay. She and others had lived, carried parcels ar.d babies, for years and years, hoping for some relief, and this lift scheme was not going to benefit them at all. Dr. Anderson referred to tho Hawker Street :oad scheme as tho late Mr. W. H. Morton’s scheme for better access to Roseneath, and he believed that if Mr. Morton were still alive ho would still hold that it was tho best scheme—if finances were not so tight. He believed that a grade of one in twelve could be obtained in Hawker Street, though over one stretch of 50 yards (opposite his own place) it was one in six. It might be sail that in taking on a route’ across the Town Belt there would be no population to feed it, but there was still plenty of land on the Evans Bay side and Palliser Road could carry a large population. Dr. Anderson concluded by calling the lift scheme “a makeshift solution” at the best, and one most likely to gain the least support. Mr. Blaxall interposed to say that several people in Roseneath had fav cured the lift only upon tho grounds that “it was better than nothing at all.’ “Equal to a Third Tunnel.” Mr. R. L. Button urged that the Hawker Street route would be equal to a third tunnel, without the cost of a tunnel, and would be a payable proposition from a commercial point of view, whereas they were sure to lose £lOOO a year on tho lift, or from £3Q,000 to £35,000 at compound interest in twenty years. It was not right to face a loss of £lOOO a year because the City Council would not take a long 'dew of the situation. The point was what was best to do for the whole of the community, not one section. Councillor JI. D. Bennett asked if the deputation was from Roseneath er Hawker Street. Dr. Anderson said it was largely from the Mount Victoria eud, though there might Le a few Roseneath icsidents present. Councillor Bennett: Supposing the Tramways Committee undertook to investigate seriously the Hawker Street route, would you have any objection to the Roseneath people having the Dr. Anderson.: It would cost £lO.OOO and if spent there tho £lO,OOO would not be available for any other project. Councillor B. G. H. Burn mentioned that the lift access wag to cost £lO 000, but Mr. Morton’s original scheme would cost £BO.OIXI, which would mean that they would have to go to the ratepayers for a loan. Cannot Please Both Parties. The chairman said that the proposals of tho deputat<>i consisted of the now road, the widening and regrading of Hawker Street, and providing a tramway. Mr. Morton had favoured the Hawker Street route up to «. point, and bad then hesitated between a tunnel or going round the Belt. He did not think the cost had ever been accurately worked out, but Councillor Burn’s figure was correct. As far as he could see there was in the Hawker Street proposal nothing detrimental to the proposed lift at Roseneath, which was also Mr. Merton’s idea. The assumption was that he (tho late Mr. Morton) went to the council with the smaller scheme, content to wait until the larger ore could be undertaken. As to taking a referendum of the whole district, where were they to start? They had got round to Hawker Street now. AV bo would say that it would not get to Roxburgh Street people, and then on to Majoribanks Street? Who would say that those people should not bo consulted? lie warned the deputation that the referendum was a dangerous weapon. I'hcy must cut their coat according to their cloth. A sum of £lO,OOO had been ear-marked for improved access to Roseneath, (not Hawker Street), and all had gone well until almost at the last moment before the work was to start the opposition broke out. Only last, week there