HUTT ROAD PIER

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 119, 17 February 1928, Page 8

HUTT ROAD PIER

A UNITED PROTEST DEPUTATION TO MINISTERS FINANCE DECIDING FACTOR A further endeavour to stay the hand of the Public Works Department from the construction of the central pillar for the new railway bridge over the Hutt Road was made yesterday, when a large deputation, representing various interests, waited on the Prime Minister (Right Hon. J. G. Coates) and tlie Minister of Public Works (Hon, K. S. Williams), urging that the decision come to be reconsidered. The Prime Minister promised to talk the matter over with his colleague, but gave no indication that an alteration in plans was contemplated. The case for the deputation, which was described as being fully representative, was stated by Mr. V. Fraser, M.P., Mr F. W. Manton (president of the executive of the Wellington Automobile Club), Sir John Luke, M.P., Air. W. H. Field, M.P., Mr. H. Toogood (North and South Island Motor Union) Mr. W. H. Bennett (a member of the Wellington City ami Suburban Highways Board), Air. AL AL I'. Luckie (Citv Council), Air. A. J. Curtis (Master ’ Carriers), Air. Wallace '(Civic League), and Mr. Buxton (Hutt Progress League). Contending that the central pier would, if erected, constitute a danger and a menace to the travelling public, the deputation asked the Government, even if a greater expenditure would be involved, to reconsider its decision. The Hutt Road, it was pointed out, was the main means of ingress to and egress from the capital citv, and with the great developments taking place in the Hutt Valley in the future it was contended that the road was destined to become a street joining two cities. It was urged, further, that carrying capacity would be reduced, and an estimate was advanced that this would be equivalent to a reduction of 5 feet in road width when saturation point was reached. No one would sell 5 feet of the Hutt Road for £lO,OOO (the amount involved in an alteration of the present design of the bridge). It was suggested that the Public Works Department might take a lesson from what happened in Auckland, where the pier for the Parnell bridge was removed, apparently as the result of public agitation. There was, it was claimed, far more traffic on the Hutt Road than passed over the bridge mentioned, and, asked a member of the deputation, why was there differentiation ? A conclusion against the construction of the pier would, it was predicted, meet with universal endorsement. “Do von want to say anything, Air. Furkert?” queried the Prime Minister of the Enginecr-in-Chiel of the Public Works Department. “I could say quite a lot and blow their arguments kite-high,” replied Air. Furkert' amidst laughter. Justifying the Expenditure. The Prime Alinister said that the question was one of money. The whole position had been carefully considered, and it had been found that •elimination of the pier and substitution of something else would entail an additional expenditure of £lO,OOO. ’1 he question then was: Could the Government justify that expenditure? It was not a question of how to spend £lO,OOO, but how to save it, and in saving it wliat difficulties were likely to be created. With the central pier there would be four-way traffic, and that would meet traffic requirements for very many years ahead. The Safest Spot. At the instigation of the Prime Alinister, Air. Furkert dealt with some of the technical aspects of the matter. It was not a question, he said, of just knocking out the central span. There was more in it than that. A suggested alternative to the pier, besides the additional expense, would not give the same satisfaction in the finish. For one thing, maintenance would be greater. Concerning the statements that the P> er would be an obstruction and a danger, Air Furkert suggested that it would be far safer to tear past the pillar at 50 miles an hour than to pass—where there was no pier—another man at 25 miles per hour, with the prospect of meeting a car travelling from the opposite direction. “You will,” he said, "be protected by that pier. I will go as far as to say that the safest place on that road will be where th* pier is. (Laughter.) . . . There will be a solid division protecting you from being struck by someone going in the opposite direction.” The Prime Alinister said he found it difficult to follow some of the arguments advanced by the deputation, since, when travelling on the Hutt Road recently, he saw a car upturned and four people crawling out from it. It was on the widest part of the road and not within half a mile of any pillar ! The Alinister of Public Works (Hon. K. S. Williams) said that the safety of the railway had to be looked at as well as the safety of the road. There was also the question of expense, and he did not regard the expenditure of £lO,OOO as a simple matter. A Subscription List? The Prime Alinister said that having listened to the representations of the deputation, he would talk the matter over with the Minister of Public Works. He did not think any new point had been raised by the deputation. He hoped when the decision was come to tliev would be given credit for taking the’ view they thought to be the right one. A member of the deputation hinted that those interested might be tble to find the money to meet the interest charges on the £lO,OOO involved in the elimination of the pier. . The Prime Alinister said l.ie thought that motorists at present contributed what reasonable people would call a good share towards the maintenance ol roads. “Supposing a large proportion of that money were found outside the Government, would you consider an alteration in tlie design of the bridge?” asked another member of the deputation. The Prime Minister (smiling) : That seems to me to be “talking,” Air. Furkert.

Mr. Furkert: It would still be a waste. The Prime Minister said that if someone offered to pay the £lO,OOO Hie answer would be “all right, if you want to spend it that way,” but the Government’s advice would be that it would be better to apply the money to the requirements of some local industry. Mr. Fmkert said the interest taken in the question was evidenced by the attendance at the public protest meeting, at which only GO persons were present. The Prime Minister: They don't care about going out at night. (Laughter.) Mr. Fraser said that hundreds would have gone to the meeting had they

known it was necessary for them to be there. Air. Furkert must not underestimate public feeling in the matter, which was particularly strong.