PETONE RAMP

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 28, 1 August 1930, Page 4

PETONE RAMP

CITY COUNCIL'S VIEW

SHOULD WAIT A YEAR

' Tlie City Council decided. Jast ovening not to support the Petono Borough Council ja tho promotion of a Bill empowering the Minister of Railways to erect a ramp and ovcrbridgo at the Petono lovel crossing at the present time, the view taken being that the question should be deferred until tho finances of the country are less difficult. Bather curiously, though the ramp question has been discussed time after time by tho council in one way and another, no vote ha.s over been taken as to whether tho council considers that a ramp is necessary and no vote upon that point w s taken last night Tho main provisions of the Bill are in regard to giving power to the Minister of Bailways "to construct over the railway on and adjacent to the Hutt road at the existing foreshore crossing at Petono such bridge or ramp as is in his opinion necessary to carry the vehicular and pedestrian traffic over the railway at that point." It is proposed that two-thirds of the east of the bridge or ramp shall be found by the Minister and the remaining • third by the Petone, Lower Hutt, Eastbourne, and Upper Hutt Borough Councils, the Wellington City Council, the Johnsonville Town Board, and the, Hutt and Malcara County Councils. The amounts payable by the local bodies arc to be apportioned by agreement, or if no agreement is reached by a. Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General under the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1908. It is proposed that the local authorities may raise loans by special order, without taking a poll of the ratepayers^ Tho. Bill had been promoted, said tho Mayor, Mr. G. A. Troup, by the Potone Borough Council, not by tho City Council, and the question was whether the City Council should now lend its support. . There was a good deal to be said for the proposal in regard to the safety of the crossing, but a good deal could be said against i.' in view of the tightness of money, and a doubt whether the Bailway Department at this stage would construct it The cost of tho work would be between £55,000 and £60,000, and it was proposed that tho work should be carried out by tho Bailway Department. An estimate of tho cost had been provided by the Department. The allocation of the cost was to be determined amicably if possible, and failing that by arbitration. "I am not convinced tliat we have to pass this Bill at the present time," said Mr. Troup, '"in fact, with the financial stringency that obtains throughout the community, I think the matter might very well stand over for some time." He moved that tho matter, he delayed for a year or until the finances of the Dominion recover. Councillor Gaudin said that he did not think that the council would be ■justified in asking the citizens just now tff.find £12,000 or £14,000- as the city's share, of the cost. . He did not think that the ramp would bring about v 'much groater safety. Councillor Mitchell said he had supported the ramp proposal from the first, and ho still thought that it would I jconie a necessity. Still, in_ view of the pTesont financial position, he thought that it might bo deferred for a year. . • SHOULD NOT BE TURNED DOWN. Councillor Luckic said that he did not like to see- tho' council, after having ■supported the proposal right through, now turning down another local body. The Mayor' replied that the council had not taken any vote on the subject. Councillor Luekie remarked that Mr. Troup had headed deputations to the Government asking tjjat the ramp should-be built. Tes said Mr. Troup, but the deputations asked that the Government should provide the ramp? they had no objection to the Government finding the money for the ramp. : Councillor Luekie said that apart altogether from.the question of safety, the delay to road traffic was in. the aggregate1 serious enough to warrant full consideration. Ho did not think that the Bill-should be deferred. _ The whole past action of the council had shown that councillors considered the ramp necessary. Tho proposed basis of finance, whereby the Government would, find two-thirds of the cost, was, to his mind, very fair and reasonable and tho most that the local bodies could expect. The Bill should have- the support of the council. On a vote being taken the Mayor's motion that the council should recommend deferring the Bill for the year was carried, Councillor Luekie alone voting against it.