FOR MOVING TRAFFIC

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 123, 20 November 1931, Page 8

FOR MOVING TRAFFIC

One of llic points made by the Chief Traffic Inspector in his address to the Town Planning Institute was thai the right lo park lor an indefinite time was a fallacy. The streets were intended for the movement of traffic. This is a problem that will sooner or later call for more definite rulings in Wellington. So far the Council has not placed the car owner under any great disabilities. It has limited his parking times in certain streets, but has not , taken action which would make private garaging of cars in the city area essential. In lime this, will ,be necessary, for gradually the side-streets of the inner city area are becoming busier. Each year sees the space which may be left for stationary cars reduced. Even now die Council is faced with four courses: (1) More expensive streetwidening (which it cannot entertain for the benefit of car owners); (2) blockage of main streets and even alternative routes by stationary cars; (3) removal of trams from maip streets; (4) further restrictions on parking. The third course would be expensive and against the general public interest, for it would inconvenience tram travellers and disturb tramway revenue. Further blockage of streets merely postpones oneproblem and makes several new ones. The only wise course is to survey the whole parking business, in die light of the principle laid down by the Chief Traffic Inspector.