OBJECTORS OBJECT

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 57, 1 December 1926, Page 12

OBJECTORS OBJECT

KENT TERRACE CONTROVERSY THE FINDING OF MR. E. PAGE TRAVERSED “INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN CONCLUSION AND PROOF’’ The end of the controversy over the proposed proclamation of the “canal reserve” as a street is not yet. The objectors to that procedure and to the alterations proposed by the Mayor to follow such pro= clamation. do not agree that the finding of Mr. 13. Page, S.M , should be taken as final, and in support of thaf conten* tion have issued the following statement: —

There is a sporting code which demands that the defeateJ contestant accept the umpire’s decision, whether right or wrong, in a good spirit, but it is nevertheless “cricket” to appeal when the umpire unwisely essays to excuse his judgment, by giving unsound reasons for his decision. For example, no one would question the protest of a batsman given “out” by the umpire because he (the batsman) had not kicked a goal. It is on this principle that the objectors register this appeal to the final arbiter, the public. The Magistrate (Mr. E. Page) who conducted the inquiry on behalf of the Government respecting the proposed conversion into street of part of the recreation reserve between Kent and Cambridge Terraces has reported that the proposal of the City Council is, a proper one, and has recommended the Government to issue the proclamation authorising the portions of reserve shown on the plan submitted to the Attorney-General to be taken for the purpose of public streets, At the same time, the grounds which he gives for his recommendation, in the course of his report, are diametrically opposed to the conclusion reached.' This is proved by the exposition of the council’s plans and proposal as elicited at the inquiry.

The Council's Proposal. 1. It is necessary to consider what is the council’s proposal, and also what the plan referred to indicates is the conversion proposed to be undertaken. 2. The ostensible purpose of the council in converting certain portions of the reserve into street, according _ to the evidence tendered by the council’s witnesses at the inquiry (and specifically mentioned by the Magistrate himself in the course of the inquiry) is to widen Kent Terrace so as to permit south-bound vehicular traffic (apart from the north-bound trams) to travel on both the left (east) and right (west) side of the traniwavs.

3. The adjective “ostensible” is used advisedly, because the original and real object was (as disclosed by evidence given at the inquiry) not that indicated, 'but quite a different purpose, i.e., the parking of motor-cars. 4. There is ample proof of this in the fact that (quite apart from the council’s own by-laws) the provision of section 153, clause M, of the Public Works Act, 1908, provides a penalty for drivers of vehicles under such a scheme of traffic. It reads:—“Offences on Roads.—Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds who does any of the following things upon a road: . . . (ni) Does not keep any vehicle driven by him on the left or near side of the road when meeting, and on the right or off side when passing another vehicle, or does not leave a reasonable portion of the road for any vehicle, person, or animal passing him.” 5. The council’s plan, submitted at the inquiry, shows that the part of Kent and Cambridge Terraces abreast of the statue of Queen Victoria, is to be maintained at its full width, and not reduced correspondingly with the rest, and therefore proves the traffic congestion to be a bogy.

“Palpably Unsound.” 6. The council’s advocate based his “case” for the conversion of reserve to street on the palpably unsound contention that the traffic in Kent and Cambridge Terraces is so great that each of these streets requires to be widened whilst, at the satire time, there is au official parking stand for motor-c-irs along the whole length of Cambridge Terrace from the Basin Reserve to Courtenay Place (except 20 or 30 yards at each end), and “bowsers” for serving “gas” to motor-cars right on the footpath of Kent. Terrace. Verbum sat sapienti.

7 Though (from the very obvious advantage afforded by the double thoroughfare of dividing the traffic) neither th* City Council nor the objectors, nor any of the witnesses at the inquiry suggested anything but one-way traffic on either Kent or Cambridge Terrves (except the existing north-bound tramway in Kent Terrace), Mr Page reports in favour of two-way traffic in each of Kent and Cambridge Terraces

Nevertheless, Mr I’agc says the proposal of the City Council is a proper one. It is patent, therefore, that his report is not based on, or warranted bv, the evidence given at the inquiry, but on a singular opinion of his own, which cannot be endorsed by anyone with any experience of traffic management.

8. Further proof that the verdict is not based on the evidence given by witnesses at the inquiry is afforded by that paragraph iu Mr. Page’s report where he refers to the acquisition and disposition of other city reserves, which is irrelevant to the question at issue—viz.., the conversion of part of the “canal reserve” into street. (1. Another proof of the inconsistency between the conclusion and the proof is Mr. Page’s recommendation of two cross streets between Buckle Street and Vivian Street. The only reason given by the Citv Council for these was that there was to be one-way vehicular traffic only (each in Kent and Cambridge Terraces, except for the northbound tram), yet though Mr. Page thinks two-way traffic in each street will eventuate, he apparently still regards the council’s proposal to cut two cross streets only 300 ft apart out of the reserve, a proper one. 10. It was acknowledged in evidence that there had been a plan to park cars in Kent Terrace, but because the citv advocate rested his case on the strip to be taken off the reserv e m Kent Terrace as being required for south-bound traffic, Mr. Page discarded the theory of using it for parking cars, or, as one of the council’s witnesses seemed to think, for a footpath.

Traffic Dangers. 11. A large proportion of the witnesses emphasised the increased danger that would arise from allowing southbound vehicles to pass north-bound cars on the right-hand (west) side (even if it were lawful), one. responsible witness characterising it as a “death trap,” vet Mr. Page reports “But, with the tram tracks in their present position, if one-wav traffic is allowed over the whole width of Kent Terrace, I do (sic) think that the result will equal in danger the conditions at present existing. lam inclined to think that, with the increased width of both terraces, ordinary two-wav traffic in each will be found to be the more suitable and conveniJlr. Page is certainly entitled to his personal opinion, but when, a Boary of Inquiry, he ignores the very strong evidence of experienced motorists on such a point as this, his opinion is worthy of no more weight than that of the average man What, it mav be asked, is the reason for the clause in the Public Works Act above quoted, if it is not to obviate danger to human life and limb, by requiring that the rule of the road be observed ? The public can judge whether this is a reasonable requirement or not. It mav be asked. What is the opinion of the Public Works departmental engineers on this point? 12. The danger of life and would be so enormously increased bv the adoption of the alleged proposal of the Citv Council (though it is safe to assert that the conception of such a proposal would be repudiated by nearly every one of the members of the City Council, except, perhaps, the Mayor 'himself) that neither the Mayor nor the council will ever dare to put the scheme into practice; because, it they did, quite apart from their legal responsibility, they would be criminally culpable if anyone suffered fatal injury in consequence of contributory negligence through then providing such facilities for homicide. 13. A still further proof of inconsistency between Mr. Page s sons” and “conclusions” of his finding is the fact that the proclamation asked for does not embrace the widening of Kent Terrace at the site of the Oueeu Victoria Statue. The absurdity of two-way traffic on Kent Terrace, as predicted by Mr. Page, is apparent, unless the reserve is narrowed right through to Courtenay Place, which' would also involve the abolition «f the tramway siding recently put there at considerable expense How then, can the proposal of tlie City Council be regarded as a proper one?

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ■‘‘he following notes arc also supplied by the objectors as setting out information which came to light as the result of the inqury 1. That the original suggestion to convert that portion of the .reserve in Kent Terrace, south of Vivian Street, was cpupled with the plan for parking motor-cars in the space thus proThis plan was changed later (doubtless after the public interest had been aroused), and the congestion of traffic used as a stalking horse ‘°r the alleged necessity for south-bound traffic to use the proposed new strip of roadwav (on the reserve side the north-bound tram line) for. southbound vehicular traffic, but the two factors, inconsistent with the schem , ie , the “bowsers” on the footpath and the contingent kt the point of the Queen Victoria Statue, were apparently i. overio The carrying-out of this schem would result, as one .of the city councillors said in his . « inquirv, in creating a death-traP-3. The chief traffic expert of the Ci Corporation suggested that traffic would not traverse h>s new strip of street, but that 15ft. <hnwidth obtained might be used, as the alleged projected plans involved certain structural alterations n connection with the electric tramwavs it is significant that the general manager and engineer of that ment had not been consulted about the scheme. f . 5 The director of reserv-ts of the City Council is averse to the of the trees and suggested that-the loss of shelter provided by the trees and plantations would deter flowers from thriving in the garden plots. 6 Th' proposal for the destruction of ’the plantation and conversion of mrt of the recreation resene into street was not submitted to the Reserves Committee until after the public protest had been made, the chairman of the committee being opposen to the sacrifice, being unconvinced of the necessity for interfering with the reserve, and to the loss of Wellington’s only boulevard.

Trees Could Be Preserved. 7. It is unnecessary to sacrifice the trees in the reserve for the purpose of widening the (formerly) narrow, footpath (referred to by Dlr. Page in Ins report) because there IS / width of 7ft. 4in. from the edge of the kerb to the line of cabbage trees. The kerb could be set back Ift. 10in thereby giving, an ample clearance of 4ft. between the tram line and the kerb, and leaving a sft. 6in. wide footpath from the kerb to the cabbage trees. The present clearance, when constructed presumably, conformed to Public Works Department requirements, but is admittedly capable of the improvement indicated above. 8 The director of town-planning, in bis evidence at the inquiry, expressed 'be opinion that the traffic proposals were calculated to increase the risk of accident. 9 Messrs. Gerald Bell, Stuart Wilson and other experienced motorists stressed the increased risk of accidents arising from the alternation of

south-bound, north-bound, and southbound traffic in the same street m the council’s proposals, involving the re-, versal of the council’s own by-laws EX » g •■£“« i«“” "4“ S conscious tendency of the experienced motorist to draw over to the left, in case of emergency, was also instanced as likely to cause head-on collisions (the most violent and dangerous type of traffic accident) between . southbound motor-vehicles, travelling on the right, when meeting north-bound trams/ as proposed by the council s scheme. , , . _ 10 Even Mr. Page’s scheme for two-way traffic in Cambridge Terrace (as though they were separate thoroughfares) were desirable (and no one but Mr.' Page has suggested that retrograde step), it is not feasible, because it is not part of the council s scheme to widen Kent Terrace or Cambridge Terrace at the Queen Victoria Statue, hence Mr. Page’s proposal can hardly be regarded as a proper one, even if it is at variance with the City Council’s proposal, which is not only improper and insincere, but positively dangerous and vicious. 11 The original estimate of accidents in Kent Terrace, given to the Minister by a deputation, as approxt itnating one a day, on being reduced to evidence bv the police, turned out to be seven in number, reported to the police from lanuary 1 last (10t months), whereas the corresponding number of accidents in Cambridge Terrace (without tram lines) was 50 per cent, greater, or eleven. The Commissioner of Police declined to furnish comparative figures of accidents in various other streets in tne C *l2. It was illuminating, after an inquirv occupying two full days, during which the city solicitor endeavoured to justify, on behalf of the Jlayor and council, the conversion of part of the reserve into street, solely on the ground of traffic considerations, to learn from the reported words of Conncillor H. D. Bennett that it was. a “hobbv” of the Mayor’s, and, maintaining his metaphor, “we gave him rein and he broke loose,” thereby exposing a “horse of another gender to that so successfully driven by Mr. O’Shea Perhaps a modern metaphor \vould have been more apposite, e.g., “We gave him the steering-wheel and throttle, and he stepped on the . accelerator and overshot his parkingP1 Smnmed up, it would appear that the “canal reserve” was to be encroached upon and converted into a treeless and flowerless waste, at a cost of thousands of pounds, to provide facilities for parking motor-cars, and that the proposed traffic, scheme for Kent Terrace was mere camouflage. The question is: What are the councillors going to do about it? . .. ~ The obvious thing to do is to insist on one-wav traffic (both tram and vehicles) in Kent Terrace and onewav traffic (both trams and vehicles) in Cambridge Terrace, thus making the boulevard the widest and safest street in Wellington, preserving the plantations and recreation reserve. It is tramwav money that is being spent, therefore let it be spent on stafbng the north-bound tram line to Cambridge Terrace, and make a proper job of it once for all.