RUNCIMAN.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 2, Issue 103, 20 June 1913, Page 4

RUNCIMAN.

The Railway Station.

Some tin.c somsbtily signing him.elf "Progress" wrote to cur Auckland moir.ing co-temporary suppo ting the proposal to shift the Runciman railway station some ciistancj nearer Pukekche way. To this letter Mr ft'ark Ballard, of Rumanian, has written

"Permit rre, as one if the chief promr.t'.i*3 of the petitions to the Hnii. W. F. Massey against the rtmoval of the Runciman railway station, to point out to your correspondent, who writes under the nom de plunrb "Progress," a few facts he forgets to mention. In the first phce ha asserts that the petitiu'i did not by my means express the tentinr.ent3 of all thosa who usa the s aticn. Well, I feel sure if a vote were taken t:-morrow we would easily claim 75 per cent, in favour of its retention. I quite agree with him that the fecilitics for handling the heavy gcods traffic ar,d live stock are quiti inadequate, but by mcvirg the present goods shed and st ck yard a few chains farther en the difficulty will be considerably remedied. Net being in any way versed in en(?irceriiig, I am quite s tisfied ti leave that part to the Railway Departmen?, who I am th roughly convinced will easily suritount that slight difficulty. The propesed new site further south might be considered but fcr it 3 out-of-the-way positicn. r I hen, again, 'Prugress' Edmits the'e would te about a mile of read to acquire, which, together with the cost of forming, metalling, and fencing would amount to much ths same as the present site alterations Again, as the majority of the heavy goods traffic goes along tha Great South road, which abuts the present site, it wuuld be a very poor proposition to depart from the position we now hold to have to pay cartage, extra on one mile and a-half over a partly urimetalled road, besides paying increased railway freight and fares. May I ask 'Progress' who are the farmers who would transact their business at Drury? Very few, I am sure. That extra mile each way means much to the back settlers wfco have to came, say, eight or ten mil.s to Runciman. In conclusion, 1 may S3y I have a teply to the petition from the Hon. W. F. Massey that there is no intention tf moving the Runciman station wore than about 30 yards or 40 yards, acd perhaps r.ct even that distance."

Another correspondent writes:— " 'Progress' states that the petition forwarded to Mr Massey against ths removal of the station did not by any msans express the sentiments of all who use this sUtion. This is true as far as 'Progress' goes, but he forgot to add that many more would have signed the petition had time permitted to call on them, lhe overhead b;idge Wiiil not be an expensive undertaking at the crossing north of the s'.ation, as it is understood tha Railway Depattment proposes to reduce the grade just at this spot by making a deep cutting, whether the station is shifted or not. It is also absurd for 'Progress' to expect IC'OO people lo travel a mile and a-half further and pay more freight and far.s when the station is already lirmly established in the most convenient spot. 'Progress 1 also states that land will have to be acquired at considerable expense, hi order to duplicate the side line. I understand that land was offered free within a few chains of the prssent site by the well-known firm of A. Buckland and Sons, and here is ample room to construct an up-to-date station. 'Progress' describes the proposed new site as an ideal one. Ic may be f.r'Progress,' but not for the great majority of tha users of the station, as new atid costly rosds would have ti be opened up, and also on account of the out-of-way locality."