LOW-LEVEL RAILWAY.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20283, 27 August 1937, Page 9

LOW-LEVEL RAILWAY.

SUPPORT FROM FRANKTON SOLVING TRAFFIC PROBLEM It was resolved, at the annual meeting of the Frankton Citizens’ Association last evening, “that while this meeting is emphatically of opinion that Garden Place Hill should be reserved as a publlo domain, it Is also of opinion that no steps to remove the hill should be taken until the effect of sinking the railway and building a central trafflo bridge has been observed.” The motion, moved by Mr J. Treloar, was carried by a substantial majority, there being only two dissentients, of whom Mr F. A. de la Mare was one. In seconding the resolution, Mr P. Allsop said that It was not generally understood that the railway lands in Hamilton approximated 11 acres, including three acres owned by the borough at the corner of Seddon and Ward Streets. If the borough could get hold of these 11 acres, the town would have a substantial area for development, which should go a long way towards solving the parking, trafflo and related problems. “The proposition to remove Garden Place Hill will not remove the congestion In Victoria Street,” said Mr Allsop. On the other hand, he went on, if the railway scheme were carried, the elimination of the traffic problem would immediately follow. All* efforts should be bent toward securing the railway land —even £250,000 would not be too much to pay for It, he added. The Hill an "Obstacle.” In reply to Mr Allsop, Mr de la Mare spoke In defence of the Garden Place Hill removal scheme. The speaker contended that the railway lowering was a project which could not come in one year or even two. It would actually he a further embarrassment to traffic for a time. The speaker acknowledged that the removal of the hill would not solve the traffic problem entirely, but It was an obstacle whloh would have to go. and a necessary step In the town planning. “You cannot get away « from the fact that the poll on the loan was a decisive one,” said Mr G. Lafferty, "and the vote was undoubtedly against the removal of the hill.” A private syndicate could not remove the hill, since it had not the re- j qulslte powers. Some of the councillors might have been sincere In their support of the revised scheme, hut the speaker contended that these members must have been misled as to the true position. 1 The Railways Department, he continued, was sincere In Its desire to eliminate the dangers of the Victoria Street railway crossing, whereas the i removal of the hill would not eliminate these dangers. The speaker stated that lie knew that the Railways Department was favourably inclined to the lowering of the railway and he contended that if the council would give to the railway scheme half the support they had given to the schemes for removing the hill, It would not be long before work was started.