BRIDGE CONTROVERSY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 690, 15 June 1929, Page 13

BRIDGE CONTROVERSY

PRESIDENT’S REPLY TO , MR. ALISON INCREASED TRAFFIC “I am sure that all supporters of the Harbour Bridge movement will be glad to hear that the Hon. E. W. Alison has at last come out in the open as an opponent of the bridge,” says Mr. R. H. Greville, president of the Harbour Bridge Association, commenting on the statement made by the Hon. E. W. Alison at the annual meeting of the Devonport Ferry Company. “Especially so,” says Mr. Greville, “because, as the result of a deputation which waited on Mr. Alison and Mr. Harris at the residence of the former at Takapuna, some two years ago. a statement was freely circulated that Mr. Alison was in favour of the bridge. The statement made by Mr. Alison that the bridge is premature is made by an adversely interested party, and little weight can therefore be attached to it. Similar arguments were raised at the time of the construction of the Grafton Bridge, which within 15 years was hopelessly out of To rely on figures (as he does) which are as old as 1921. only goes to show that the honourable gentleman is not conversant with the vast increase in motor traffic which has occurred in the intervening eight years. In 1921 the number of motor-cars registered in Auckland and suburbs was 2,243, while in 1929 it is in the vicinity of 25,000, i.e., the number has increased 11 times, and is still rapidly increas“ln the corresponding period the population of Greater Auckland has increased from 157,750 to 205,135, and that of the four North Shore boroughs from 17,223 to 22,665, to say nothing of the vast increase of population in the Takapuna and Birkenhead ridings of the Waitemata County. “The association has no intention of asking any ratepayers ‘to saddle themselves with excessive taxation,’ as Mr. Alison suggests would happen. Nor does my association advocate that the Government should build the bridge out of the Consolidated Fund, and so place fresh burdens on the shoulders of the general taxpayers. I am quite sure that if any of my committee thought for one moment that this would be the effect, they would not be in the movement. “What we do say is that we might just as well pay tolls and have a bridge available night and day, than pay tolls or their equivalent to a ferry company, however good its service may be. Wo believe in the principle of the user paying, and this can be easily effected by means of atoll. “Finally, to rely on figures of 1921 is an anachronism: something hopelessly out of date.”