KENT TERRACE TROUBLES

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 55, 29 November 1926, Page 10

KENT TERRACE TROUBLES

NEW DIFFICULTIES RAISED DANGER MAY BE INCREASED Doubt whether the proposed widening of Kent Terrace will improve it as a traffic street is expressed in a statement on the subject by Councillor Aston. Councillor Aston suggests, further, that if the new strip of roadway is used by moving vehicles, either lor two-way or one-way traffic, it will be dangerous, since tramcars travel in both directions in that thoroughfare. “With the granting of the proclamation and expected removal of the injunction, the work in connection with the reserve between Kent and Cambridge Terraces will be proceeded with, and some review and comment may therefore be permitted,” states Councillor Aston ‘I may be somewhat more dense than my colleagues, for I frankly admit that when the matter was brought before the council for the first time it was not possible to realise the extent of the undertaking as I now know it. In formally approving of the proposal to improve Kent and Cambridge Terraces I was under the impression that the working details of the scheme would be subject to review bv the members of Reserves and Works Committee prior to the job being commenced. Within a dav or two I communicated with His Worship the Mavor, asking that the council should be called together to consider the nature and extent of the work to be carried out. I am satisfied that had this course been taken much of the trouble and delay that has arisen might have been avoided. “However, it is necessary to deal with the position as we now find it, more particularly in regard to the traffic problem. ••Wrong, If Not Criminal, Thing.”

“I honestly believe that while we have two-way tram traffic, and we permit this lane between tram rail and reserve to be used as proposed for motor traffic, we are doing a wrong, it not a criminal, thing. “ When the motorist reaches the Basin Reserve he has again to swing across the rails to the proper side—the lett. The comment oi the Commissioner is significant, wherein lie say’s: ‘With the tram tracks in their present position, ti one-way traffic is ailowea over the whole width oi Kent Terrace, 1 do liimk that the result will equal in danger the conditions at present existing. "His suggestion oi two-way trarnc in both Kent and Cambridge terraces would not lessen the danger, but rathel tend to increase it, unless it applied to trams and motor traffic tor both thoroughfares. This would mean taking ap one tram line in Kent Terrace and constructing new lines in Cambridge Terrace, a very costly undertaking, with added traffic complications at Courtenay Place. “it must not be overlooked that from the Basin Reserve to Courtenay Place will call for special care and watchfulness on the part of tramway motormeu, who under present conditions have a most exacting time. “1 can fully endorse the view put forward bi Councillor Thompson that traffic reiiel could be obtained by developing Buckle Street, lory Street, Taranaki Street, and making a new thoroughiare through Nelson and Lloyd Streets; it would be posjble to take it through to Elizabeth Street, thus creating a new thoroughiaTe parallel to Kent Terrace. Is Expenditure Justified? “In view oi present happenings we may well ask, are we fully justified ill this expenditure, when in a few years it is more than probable the whole of the reserve will be destroyed, and train tracks placed in the centre of this thoroughfare ? Great attention should be given over to the development as main highways ol Taranaki Street, Wallace Street, John Street, as relief for both inward and outward traffic. At the present time a large number use this street in preference to Adelaide Road and Cambridge Terrace. Use of New Road Area. “At present Kent Terrace provides for double tram tracks, with space or roadwav on the left for vehicular traffic. Apart from trams, it is used as a one-wav street The council scheme is to take 12 feet off the reserve and make it into street. Just for what purpose is this extra width of street required? Certainly not for pedestrians or for citv-bound motor traffic, which now travels via Cambridge Terrace. It can only be nsed, therefore, for (a) parking motor-cars, or (b) for ordinary traffic purposes, such as now obtain over the existing thoroughfare. Can anvone imagine what the result will . ..be by allowing outward-bound motor traffic to’use what may be termed a lane between tram and reserve ? The rule of. the road throughout New Zealand is ‘keep to the left. ’ Here we purpose to allow vehicles to go to the right, and that in the face of oncoming tram traffic. “It has been pointed out to me that section 153 of the Public Works Act savs, in effect, that any person who drives any vehicle meeting another and who fails to keep to the left, or near side, is liable to a penalty of £5. I anticipate we shall be clever enough to get over this trine bv deciding' that a tramcar is not a vehicle. When giving my evidence in the Court I stated that, in my opinion, this Kent Terrace proposal would prove a death-trap, and I pointerl out where I saw the danger. Assuming a motorist proceeding towards the Basin Reserve with several other cars and lorries ahead of him, also south-bound tramcars, finding the procession too slow, he endeavours to ‘cut in,' and accordingly swings over to the right in order to get past some of the other cars. At the moment of crossing, a citv-bound tramcar, which has been hidden from view by the traffic ahead, crashes into him. Argument was advanced during the Court proceedings that any motorist knowing there was this danger, and deliberately took the risk, would be a fool. That mav be all right at n point, but I contend it does not relieve the council, or any public body, of responsibility to make the thoroughfare as safe as is humanly possible.’