“WOULD DEFEAT ITS OWN ENDS.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18805, 6 July 1929, Page 2

“WOULD DEFEAT ITS OWN ENDS.”

PROPOSAL TO WIDEN “ BOTTLENECK ” MEETS WITH OPPOSITION. “The ‘Bottle-neck’ at the bank corner may be dangerous owing to congestion of traffic at the present time, but if it is widened it will become more dangerous. Because it is narrow, it prevents a great deal of traffic from passing through the Square. If the proposal to widen it is gone on with, it will be found that all motorists not using this thoroughfare now will consider that they have been given an open invitation to use it in the future. For this reason, there will be a tremendous congestion at the corner, and the widening scheme will have defeated its own ends.” These views were expressed by Mr C. E. Jones, a prominent city business man, who was interviewed by a “ Star ” reporter this morning. Mr Jones opposes the widening scheme for two reasons, unnecessary expenditure and impracticability. He said he considered that there were any number of alternative schemes to the one of widening the “ bottle-neck,” and many of them could be adopted at considerably less than the sum of money which would have to be expended on the scheme under consideration.

“For instance,” he said, “an outlet could be made for pedestrians only, or for motorists only, on the east side of the Bank of New Zealand. The old buildings adjoining the Bank 6f New Zealand in Hereford Street could be purchased for about a quarter of the cost that the eighteen-foot strip of land could be obtained from the Bank of New Zealand. If it were considered that it was not expedient to make a thoroughfare for pedestrians, or for motor traffic alone, then the difficulty, if there were one, could be obviated by the erection of an overhead bridge. Several prominent men in the town have agreed with me on this point." Another Proposal. Another scheme which Mr Jones advanced, which he considered would do away with the danger to pedestrians, at the “bottle-neck” was to allow the trams and motor-traffic to have the road to themselves. “At present,” he continued, “pedestrians are in the habit of crossing Colombo Street from all directions. This causes them to be in danger continually. The erection of a hand-rail on the road side of the footpaths from Barnett’s corner to Hereford Street on the west side, and from the tram shelter to Hereford Street on the east side, would keep the pedestrians off the road and permit them to cross only by means of the paths that are marked out for them.” One-way traffic was another means by which the danger of the bottle-neck could be done away. The widening of the “bottle-neck” could at best only prove a temporary expedient because traffic would increase with the years, and if the “bottle-neck” were widened by two chains the time would come when it would be found to be still too narrow. He was of opinion that the ratepayers would not consider a proposal to expend the amount of money which would be entailed in the council’s present scheme.