WARNING AGAINST HASTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 842, 10 December 1929, Page 1

WARNING AGAINST HASTE

Bridge and Traffic Plans

LOCAL BODIES NOT READY

EVIDENCE submitted to the Harbour Bridge Commission . this morning bj the Town Planning Association contained advice to avoid precipitancy in selecting a bridge site. The association was anxious for consideration of the plans by local bodies to formulate traffic outlets in already congested areas. The traffic point of view was also a main consideration of the City Council.

The commission consists of Messrs, j Marchbanks, engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board, chairman, Mr. F. W. Furkert, engineer-in-chief to the Public Works Department, and Captain C. MacDonald, of Dunedin, retired shipmaster. Mr. S. J. Elliott, solicitor for the Rodney Council, and Mr. G. A. Green, organiser to the New Zealand Institute of Horticulture, gave evidence yesterday afternoon regarding developments in the Lower North, which they considered would be hastened considerably by the erection of a bridge. Two tally clerks employed by the Harbour Bridge Association reported checking 1,342 vehicles handled by the ferry on one day in November. It was calculated that the waiting timo aggregated 252 hours—an average wait of 11.3 minutes a vehicle. Major L. M. Isitt. officer in charge of the Hobsonville Air Base, said the proposed bridge would not be a serious inconvenience to aircraft. A bridge across the river at Hobsonville would not be as much an obstruction as the existing electric-power line. Mr. John Hislop, Deputy-Mayor of Devonport, and Mr. G. Falla, a member of the Waitemata Chamber of Commerce, were critical of the value of a bridge at the present time. An exhaustive and authentic report of experience with a bridge scheme in Vancouver was submitted by Mr. V. R. Meredith, on behalf of tbe Bridge Inquiry Protection Association. Mr. Meredith said that the ratepayers whom he represented objected to bridging if it involved rating, more expensive or inconvenient transport, or interference with the port. Referring to the Shoal Bay site, Mr. Meredith said that to turn the Waitemata virtually into a tidal port for the convenience chiefly of pleasureseeking motorists and landowners with vacant sections to sell, was unthinkable. Mr. Meredith submitted that traffic frequency on an Auckland bridge conld not equal Vancouver figures unless the tolls were approximately the same. He considered that financing by tolls was impossible. On behalf of the Auckland Town Planning Association, the chairman, Mr. W. J. Holdsworth, presented a statement giving the association’s views. The points considered by the association were: the fixing of a bridge site on the statutory and regional planning schemes of the local authorities concerned. (2) The location, the nature and the width of traffic approaches to the' bridge and a recommendation with regard to the cost. f 3) Methods of finance. 14) The necessity for building a bridge. “We would strongly urge upon the Commission the desirability of considering the obligations imposed upon local authorities by the Town Planning Act of 1926 and the Amending Act of 1929,” said the statement. “We would emphasise that the bridge site, apart from its regional aspect, would materially affect the statutory schemes to be prepared by the immediately contiguous local authorities, so much so that the fixing of the site may tend to bend the plans to fit the bridge, instead of the bridge fitting the plans. It is within the knowledge of the association that the statutory planning schemes on both sides of the harbour are not sufficiently advanced for local authorities to determine definitely important aspects of their town plans. IMPOSING A BURDEN “Unless the significance of the bridge is studied In its relation to its feeding system of traffic routes, we are of opinion that the definite fixing at this stage of the bridgehead and before the preparation of full civic surveys, will most likely impose an impossible burden on the City Counc il at least, in connection with reconstructing the present traffic routes and Providing new ones. This aspect becomes particularly pressing should a terminal be selected in tbe vicinity of industrial and shipping areas in Freeman’s Bay. As a link In a definite road system, it appears necess*ry that the terminal should be Placed so through arterial traffic can be by-passed away from the congested < -’>ty area and vet allow city-bound fralfic to connect bv short and direct routes. “The association considers the cost of construction and reconstruction of new and old traffic routes should be included in the total cost of the bridge. ‘The present street system on the southern shores has not been designed J° with the traffic situation likely '“arise with the erection of a bridge, without adequate steps the couges'on existing at well known points will become Intensified and consequent --onomic loss will develop. Tbe bridge H an integral part of the regional Plan.” SPECULATION e as -Delation urged the placing 1 ’ feralga on,lt. in the event of a i that the structure was war- , * -i. under Government control. “I ' ."ices on the N n th Shore un- : ' - •uld be enhanced, and the iu i suggested the Inclusion of 'hbs in the bridge legislation - - ent :i "orgy of speculation.'’ in r Deletion ptided its opinion tbe t|--j uftuaaatu'j- for the

full development of the Auckland region. To some extent it would facilitate industrial development, but the association said it was desirable, from the economic aspect, that such development should not take place before the available areas on the southern shores better served with public utilities were more fully used. A considerable advantage was likely to result from the lowering of freight charges to the farming community. Increased production would benefit Auckland. By providing an essential link in the arterial system, the bridge would be immensely important to the North, but the requirements of the harbour were yet paramount to all others. precipitan6y feared In evidence, Mr. G. V. Blake, chairman of the technical committee of the Town Pla»uing Association, said it was highly necessary, in selecting the bridge terminal, to consider traflSc outlet schemes in view among local authorities. “We should like the local bodies to be allowed to develop their own traffic proposals before the site is fixed,” he said. There is a sal to make Nelson Street a main traffic route, through Karangahape Road, by tunnel, to Newton gully, and then by a curve into New North Road, tapping Dominion Road, and, by another curve, to Great North Road. There is a scheme for the Ponsonby district, and there is the question of linking with the waterfront roadway. “Fixing the bridge site at this stage does not give the local bodies alternatives on which to act. There is a possibility of undue haste.” Mr. Blake said that, where a bridge scheme involving £BOO,OOO to £1,000,000 was contemplated, the association claimed it would be precipitate to go ahead with a scheme, without consideration of the traffic proposals in view among the local bodies. At the present stage, what would be the best site could not be picked. Bottleneck traffic routes, such as at Newmarket, would have to be considered when the traffic routes to the bridge were fixed. The association itself was seeking to determine the best leads, not only in the districts contiguous to the bridge sites, but to outer points of Auckland. Mr. Blake considered 60 feet to be the minimum safe width of a bridge. A suggestion that full consideration should be given to a tunnel scheme, if a decision were made to provide a traffic lane across the harbour, was advanced by Mr. D. Harkness, lecturer in civil engineering at the University College. Witness estimated that 5,000 vehicles daily, at a toll equal to the present ferry costs, were needed to make the bridge an economic proposition, but he admitted to Mr. G. P. Finlay, counsel for the Harbour Bridge Association, that he had no definite traffic basis on which* to work. “CITY NOT HOSTILE” “The City Council is not hostile to the bridge and would welcome it in the event of its being justified economically,” said the City Solicitor, Mr. J. Stanton, in introducing the City Council’s views. “The City’s control on the harbour shore is from the Whau to the Tamaki, and its 'main concern is the effect of the bridge on traffic distribution and regulation. The City does not think the erection of a bridge will bring any considerable increase in values on the southern shore, or any great ecomonic advantage. Settlement on the northern side would be accelerated probably at some expense to the southern side.” (Continued on Page 9.)