The Wanganui Chronicle SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1927. THE RIDGWAY STREET EXTENSION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19864, 11 June 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1927. THE RIDGWAY STREET EXTENSION

A matter of first importance to Wanganui is to be discussed at the City Council’s meeting on Tuesday next, when a decision is to be come to whether to abandon the proposed extension of Ridgway Street across the railway line and its continuation to the Guyton Street extension, or to proceed with the work under authority already existing. There are several points in favour of the scheme and really only one upon which valid objection to it can be raised. That is on the question whether the extension of Ridgway Street is premature or not. That the day must arrive when it will be necessary, in order to relieve traffic conditions in Victoria Avenue and Guyton Street, there can be no doubt. The contention may perhaps be raised that those conditions are not sufficiently congested at the present to justify Ridgway Street being carried across the railway and beyond on the lines indicated. The answer to that is largely a matter of individual opinion and any traffic tallies taken to settle the argument will probably have little effect upon preconceived ideas. It is obvious enough to an unprejudiced observer, however, that while conditions in the streets referred to have scarcely yet reached the point of congestion, those thoroughfares are, nevertheless, carrying such an increasing volume of traffic as to indicate that the day of overcrowding is by no means far ahead. Indeed, it may safely enough be asserted that already there are in the course of a year many times of exceptional traffic when the need for more channels for it to pass through is very apparent. The conclusion, therefore, is that, whatever difference of opinion there be with regard to immediate needs, there can be none as to the necessity of relief in the not distant future, and that that relief can only be effected by extending Ridgway Street in order to give an additional route for traffic. REASONS AGAINST DELAY Should the work, therefore, wait upon congestion, or should time be taken by the forelock? Under ordinary circumstances, perhaps a waiting policy would provide the answer. There are, however, certain factors in the situation which justify the Council in going ahead with the work and in not entertaining the suggestion that it be either deferred or abandoned. They are that sanction already exists for the expenditure involved, that a considerable sum has already been spent in preliminary construction, and that the extension will provide work for a large number of men who are at present badly in need of employment. The first and last of these factors are linked together in that loan money authorised to be raised for the relief of unemployment is available for use in the prosecution of the Ridgway Street work. Should it be decided not to proceed under this authority, then, when the time arrives for the extension, as it inevitably will, the sanction of the ratepayers must be sought in the usual way to the accompaniment of the customary legal and flotation costs and the expense of a poll, to say nothing of the revival of controversy that is sure to ensue. Under such circumstances it would surely be a quite unnecessary proceeding to reject an opportunity already provided and to discard one loan only to go to the expense of seeking a problematical sanction for the raising of another. The fact that as large a sum as £l2OO has already been spent on the first instalment of the work, namely, the construction of the portion of Ridgway Street between its old terminus and the railway, is a very strong argument for carrying it to a conclusion. It would be a disastrous policy for any local body to adopt to begin works, spend money on them, and then leave them unfinished. The only reason which could be advanced in favour of such a course would be clear proof that the finishing of a job meant throwing good money after bad, and that it meant a future yearly expenditure greater than the finances could bear. Those considerations do not apply to the case under notice. Indeed the fact that there is general agreement that this extension will be necessary before very long is the best argument against putting Ridgway StSreet in the category of an unfinished job. OTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The last-mentioned aspect of the matter, it may here be remarked, raises the question of continuity of policy. While there must always be differences of opinion and while it may sometimes be necessary for a public body to reverse a glaringly -mistaken decision, it is, nevertheless, an accepted principle that the proper and business-like course for the members is, as far as possible, to carry on the works policy of their predecessors. It will be understood, of course, that this argument does not apply to matters of administrative detail; these must depend upon the views of the Council’s personnel from time to time. But, in the matter of public works involving the expenditure of large sums of money, the effect of breaking the continuity of policy is so obvious, that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that public bodies run the risks incurred in abandoning works already begun. Reverting to the Ridgway Street question, one or two other points in favour of its extension may also be noted. The overbridge to cross the railway will provide passage for vehicular and pedestrian, as well as tramway traffic. No one needs to be told the immense boom this will be to the large number who have at- present to use the risky, if not dangerous Guyton Street level crossing. Then, there cannot fail to be a great saving in the wear and tear suffered by the tramways on account of the present Guyton Street overbridge with its continuous sharp curves. In the present state of the tramway finances every item of saving counts, and this is certainly something to be taken into consideration in connection with the matter under notice. Viewing the matter strictly as one of cold business, it might be argued that the question of unemployment should not enter into it. But considering that the money now available for the extension of Ridgway Street is sanctioned as part of a scheme for unemployment relief, the claim of workless men to consideration cannot be ignored even from the business point of view. There is no need to labour this point, however; the desire to assist the men out of work is so strong that this aspect of the matter will no doubt be fully considered. On all grounds, therefore, it must be admitted that the justification for proceeding with the work now, instead of at some unspecified future time, is so evident that its abandonment could only be regarded as a failure to appreciate the circumstances, not to say the necessities, of the situation.