Western Access

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 253, 22 July 1936, Page 11

Western Access

Sir, —The report of the Access Oommission of 1928 is a very important document because it illustrates how a few enthusiastic supporters of a scheme can bring pressure on a selected body of experts to recomcnd a particular scheme, even though the experts may not concur First, let us examine what the commis sion had to bear in mind in making its report: The directness of route in relation to the centre of the city. The city area was not defined. The average citizen considers that the business area extends from Government Buildings to Courtenay Place. So the General Post Office is not the centre of thia area. 1 agree with the late Mr. Morton that Perrett’s corner is the centre. Next, the routes were to be co-ordinated and to provide for. k suiitable connections between the various suburbs for all kinds of traffic. In reading the report this aspect is uppermost in the minds of the commission all the time. On page 9, dealing with the eastern access, the commission was largely influenced by the necessity for providing a direct route enabling quick means of transit to the business centre of the city and to the railway station, and also to the area known as Te Aro Flat “The commission considers that the re quirements in this connection would be best met by the construction of a tunnel, capable <of accommodating both trams and motor vehicles, debouching on the western side near the Basin Reserve, and thereby giving easy communication to the Te Aro Flat, and to the western suburbs via Buckle Street (when that street is extended to Willis Street), and also via Courtenay Place to the Poet Office, business centre, and to the railway station.” Therefore the commission planned the Hataitai tunnel to fit in with the Norway Street route, and this fact is apparent throughout the report. On page 15 of the report, dealing with the western access, it states: "It is apparent that owing to the natural configuration of the country lying between the city and the western suburbs, access between the city and these suburbs can only be effectively secured by two routes on reasonable grades, namely, one to the north via Glenmore Road, and one to the couth via Aro Street. The commission has had regard to the necessity for provision of convenient connections to the railway station, to the business and shopping areas, and to the Te Aro Flat area and the districts lying to the south and east thereof. This, again, stresses its anxiety of the need of the Norway Street route. On page 16 of the report concerning the Bowen Street route, the commission states: “This route (Bowen Street) does not, however, provide a direct connection front the western suburbs to the Te Aro district, except via existing routes through the city, and some additional means of access will ultimately be necessary. To meet this position two routes suggest themselves, namely, via Raron Road and via Norway Street.” Obviously, it is damning the Bowen Street route with faint praise. On page 24 the commission states the cause for this, when recommending the Bowen Street route. “The commission has been advised that the City Council has already undertaken the work outline" in recommendation No. ’2.” Mr. Troup had already started the Svdney Street job and the widening of Glenmore Road and Tinakori Road, and laying the double tracks through to the cemetery So the commission was forced to recommend the Howen. Street route and this fact prejudices this part of the report. On page IS. concerning the Norway Street route, the commission states: “This route (Norway Street! would be suitable for all classes of vehicular traffic, and would be well adapted for tramwav traffic if and when required.” On page 22 the commission attempted to follow out clause 2 of its agenda paper, which stated: “The routes to be co-ordi-nated so as to give ae far as possible the most direct communication with the city proper and at the same time provide, for suitable connection between the various suburbs for the purpose of all kinds of traffic.” The commission had under its consideration proposals submitted by the town planning department for 'he widening and extension of Buckle Street westward to Willis Street to connect with Aro Street for the purpose of providing direct means of communication from the eastern to western suburb", or vice versa. The route- would provide an intercommunica* ing link, having the advantage of avoiding the necessity for through traffic passing along the more congested portions of the city. The commission stated this was not the main part and so no estimates were prepared. “At the. same time the commission is of the opinion that provision of a direct route between the east ern and western suburbs would present distinct advantages, and would recom mend steps to be taken to acquire ths necessary land so that the work can be carried out as soon as the necessity arises. Clause 3 of the agenda asked the commission to provide for access to the sub urbs of high elevation. The recommends tion of the purchase of the Kelburn cable cars does not meet the needs of Taitvil'e and Highbury. The Norway Street route would assist these suburbs to some degree and with a subway into the Glen it would assist the western part of Kelburn. Why purchase the cable cars when they are already doing the necessary work providing access’ for Kelburn? To get the full value and this commission’s findings we have to take the report as a who!-* and in doing so we cannot help realising that the City of Wellington has to put in the Norway Street route sooner or later. Therefore, I maintain, why waste monev over other access routes until this Norway Street route is comp’eted. I have left out the considernt’on of the political aspect of the question, which in niv oninion is the underlying demand for the Bowen Street route. The average Knrori resident is not aslrng for it and is against the spending of thousands o f pounds for the sake of saving four minutes. —I am, etc., L. G. AUSTIN. Wellington, July 20.