WESTERN ACCESS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 128, 4 June 1929, Page 11

WESTERN ACCESS

CABLE TRAM PROPOSAL

COMMISSION'S -REFERENCE

The following statement regarding access to the Western Suburds was made to "The Post" to-day by the president of the Northland Progressive Assbeiation (Mr. S. E. Lambert) and the president of the Karori Progressive Association (Mr. W, Simm).

■"The Post" has been, very generous in.permitting the use of its columns in connection with the much-discussed question of access to the Western Suburbs, and it was not our intention to pursue the matter further in the meantime, but certain statements made in Mr. E. G. Pileher's last letter compel us to. ask further indulgence. We are not concerned that Mr. Pilcher, by some means best known to himself, has become convinced.that we have "Signally -failed to convince your readers," nor are. we inclined to pay any attention to his "near enough" estimate in regard to his previous statement as to the respective patronage of train and bus, for we have already proved, from the official figures, that in, respect of the traffic' from, the Western Suburbs the preponderance in favour of the tram is over 5 to 1. Mr. Pilcher is also welcome to any satisfaction he may obtain from his idea that the Ciic League,: or any one apart from ourselves, had any connection whatever with our statement.

We now come to the main point ia Mr. Pilcher's letter, which deals with the report, of the Expert Commission. He says, "Generally, the report of the Access Commission is approved by all," but be it noted that particularly it is not wholly approved by Mr. Pilcher because it plaeeß-the Bowen street proposition (in Mr. Pilcher's opinion "an extravagant and useless proposal") in the forefront of its recommendations as a work of primary importance, and beyond a brief reference, in an annex, setting out a list of proposals upon which evidence was given, makes no reference whatever to a cable tram from Willis street to The Terrace. This will no doubt come as a surprise to many of your readers, especially as Mr, Pilcher, who has persistently advo.cated this latter route as. part of his scheme for western access, now makes a statement which-undoubtedly will lead the public to believe,..unless they are disillusioned, that the Commission places this ,scheme "practically second" on its list of - recommendations. Those who have taken any interest in the subject can have no doubt as to the route Mr.. Pileher advocates, and this was made quite clear 'when the deputation waited on the Mayor, when, in answer to the Mayor's question, Mr. Pilcher agreed that the route he advo^ cated provided for a cable tram from Willis street.'to The Terrace. Mr. Pilcher imagines that we have "failed to observe" a certain paragraph in the report of the Access Commission. In reply we may say that not only are we fully aware of j the „existence of this paragraph in .the report, but we, are equally as well aware that it has nb: reference whatever to the suggested cable tram to The Terrace, upon which Mr, Pilcher; has set. his. mind, but which the residents of Norithland: and iKarori regard as quite unsuitable to their requirements. ! • ■■..-■

The paragraph referred to is as follows (page 23 of report): '*Tbe ideal would bo to provide a tramway with its city terminal well to the south of tho oxisting one, and in close proximity to Willig street." After quoting this paragraph, Mr. Pilcher does on to say, "It is this ideal that we desire tho council to consider carefully."- Now what are the facts? The report of the Commission sums up the results of. its work as follows (see page 23): —

After,;a most careful - review ; and investigation 'of the proposals already outlined, the ■■ Commission desires to recommend, the following progressive scheme of development as the best means of giving access to the Western Suburb for tramway and vehicular services:—

(1) Bowen street proposal. (New road, details given.)

(2) Widening of Tinakori road, Glenmore road, and Chaytor street to .the Cemetery, to provide for double tramway track from tho city.

(3) The acquisition of tho ' Kclburn Cable Tramway for the purpose of instituting and co-ordinating through' services by cable car and omnibus to Kelburn Extension, Highbury, and other suburbs of high elevation not at present provided with any means of passenger transport, with a view to subsequently (when the present cable car proves inadequate to meet the development in passenger traffic) duplicating the existing tramway or, constructing a, new cable tramway from Willis street to the present Kelburn terminus, the actual choice to be determined by the then existing conditions in the city itself. (4) Norway street route, (Details given.)

(We have quoted reeomendation No. 3 in full for obvious reasons.) It will be observed that recommendation No. 2 is in reality an integral part of the scheme to provide a double tramway track from the city to Karori. We are, therefore/ in agreement with Mr. Pilcher that recommendation No. 3 .is second on the list. Now let us see what is the. intention: of this, recommendation. Clearly it is that the city should acquire the present Kelburn Cable Tramway for a specific purpose, viz., f' Of instituting and coordinating through services by cable car and omnibus to K!elburn Extension, Taitville, Highbury, and other suburbs of high elevation, not at presen^ provided with, any means of passenger transport." The intention is abundantly clear and requires no further elaboration. As a second string to its bow in this connection the Commission then' suggests ".when the present cable car proyes inadequate", duplicating, the existing tramway or constructing a new cable tramway from Willis street to the present Kelburn terminus. Observe that there is no mention here of Mr. Pilcher's route. . ' . ,

After detailing recommendation No. 4 (Norway street route), the report goes on to state: —"The Commission recommends that the above works be proceded with in the order named, subject to the proviso named in connection with No. 3." Clearly this proviso means that there is no necessity for a second cable tramway to Kelburn (not The Terrace) until the present cable tramway has proved inadequate. So much for Mr. Pileher'a contention Ijhat it is practically second "on tho list"!

It is necessary now to revert to the paragraph quoted by Mr.' Pilcher. This paragraph occurs on page 19 of the Commission's report. Mr. Pilcher takes it from itß context and while quoting that part which deals with the city terminal "in close proximity to Willis street," carefully refrains from mentioning the paragraph which follows. We quote from the report, page. 19: "The Kelburn terminal should be at some convenient point on Upland road from which bus services could.be operated to those portions of the Western Suburbs to which access cannot be conveniently given by tramway services." The report then goes on to detail two proposals; each of which provides for a tunnel under The Terrace, terminating at Kelburn, and a third proposal for a cable tramway from Ghuznoo street to. the vicinity of Grove road, Kolburn.

We think that the foregoing statement should make the facts perfectly clear, and we leavo your readers to judge whether the Commission placed

the cable tramway advocated by Mr Plleher or any other now cable tram■way, for that matter, ''practically second on its list of recommendations."