NEWMARKET’S STOPS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 487, 17 October 1928, Page 13

NEWMARKET’S STOPS

tramway loan aspects EX-COUNCILLOR’S VIEWS The following letter concerning the jfewmarket tramway loan has been forwarded to The Sun by Mr. A. Kent. fi.ii ex-councillor, and president of the Business Promotion Society: Sir, — A few years ago a partially-blind Inmate of the Institute for the Blind, an elector of the borough, and one who has always taken a keen interest in municipal affairs, came into my office and complained bitterly about the upeeding of motor-cars in Broadway. Be stated that he had been nearly run over by a motor-car while attempting to reach a tram. He considered that with the increasing and ever-increas-ing use of the motor-car as a means of transport, all vehicles should be compelled to stop simultaneously with the tramcars and thus eliminate a very grave danger to pedestrians. I discussed the matter with my colleagues, the result being that a by-law was framed and put into operation. The by-law had the unanimous support of the Mayor, the late Christopher Leek, and every memoer of the council. The council received many congratulations not only from pedestrians, but also from owners of cars, who considered that, those using the trams as a means of travelling were entitled to just as much consideration as they were themselves. So impressed were the city authorities with the results that a similar bylaw was put into operation within the city boundaries. Onehunga and the remaining suburban bodies followed .- lit, so that u compulsory stop is gen- < al through the province to-day, and is giving satisfaction to all concerned. 1 consider it a retrograde step, and not in the best interests of the borough generally, to substitute a safety zone i.*r u compulsory stop, more especially if the zone is erected in the triangle as contemplated by the Tramway Department, at the expense to the local borough of £1,200. From this particular zone passengers, in order to reach the footpath, will have to cross a distance of from 40 feet at one end to SO feet at the other, through a volume of traffic, before they reach their destination. Y’isualise what would happen on a race day or Agricultural Show week! My personal opinion is that the present compulsory tuop opposite the station should be removed to the front of the Rialto Picture Theatre, or between there and Station Street. Another compulsory stop should be made within the vicinity of the Newmarket Hotel. This would tend to eliminate the parochialism which at present exists among the business men, and foster in its stead that spirit of co-ordination which is essential for the prosperity and development of any business centre. Newmarket, owing to its geographical position, presents wonderful possibilities possibilities which must be grasped at the psychological moment, but this will never eventuate without co-operation. Compulsory stops in these positions would relieve congestion greatly, by allowing traffic to proceed down Station Street and Morrow Street respectively. It might mean widening the former street, but as provision is already made on the town-planning map for the widening of both Station and Osborne Streets, the sooner this is accomplished the better not only from an economical point of view, but also from a development standpoint. When widened, Station Street would provide valuable and ideal sites for banks and commercial houses, while the widening of Osborne Street would be an incentive to property owners to build factories for prospective clients. I believe that most of the landowners in this street are quite willing to give the land for this object. It would also to a great extent solve the parking problem, owing to its close proximity to Broadway. Not only would such a development bring relief to the residential ratepayers through increased values, but the unemployment question as it affects Newmarket would be solved for at lea o or three years. Unskilled lab*. would be required for the wia* of the respective streets, and skilled labour would be employed as a result of the wonderful development which would naturally take place. I venture to predict that if this scheme is carried out, Newmarket will enjoy another wave of prosperity such as it experienced as a result of the activities of a united council previous to the split which took place three years ago —a split which was responsible for my forced retirement from civic life. In conclusion. I wish to urge upon ratepayers not to listen to the propaganda of interested parties, but to think out the matter in a logical manner. The vital questions are:— • Can we, as business men, allow Broadway to be converted into a speedway? Con you, as ratepayers, afford to have values in Broadway depreciate to a large extent as a result of the alteration? Are ratepayers going to allow the men whom they have elected to administer the civic affairs of their borough study the interests of motorists, or are they going to insist on them safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers, most of whom are pedestrians. If it is a hardship for motorists to stop for a few seconds until a tramcar moves on, then it is up to them from a humanitarian point of view to take an alternate route, of which there are several. Far better for ratepayers to support the Mayor in his traffic outlet via Crowhurst Street (even if it does not develop the borough) than to add another safety zone which would be a distinct menace to pedestrians in a busy thoroughfare such as Broadway.