417
There would be
many
precedents for such a
Concession in this Country. In Edinburgh where the promoters had obtained powers to constinct Their tramway by Private Bill, I saw a double line laid along a street that was only twenty
wide. This however I should add,
. two feet
n
very sxceptional and would scarcely have been sanctioned if the promoters had carried
out their undertaking by the other alternative
a Provisional Order of the Board of deade. Notwithstanding
the assertions
the hamcar.
of
drivers with whom I Conversed at Edinburgh,
it appeared to me after watching the traffic
Ra
fo hour on three separate occasions, that the traffic was inconvenienced in its Epports
to get out of the
-way Every time two tramcars
passed each other. Moreover the number of
junction lines
from
Crossovers or turnouts
(termed
one set of rails to the other, to Snable
the cars to
change
lines
Everytime they met
an obstruction, recessitated by the narrownes
the street, seemed to me objectionable
from the multiplicity of rails that intersected
the roadway. These objections however wond not exist in the case of the Hongkong thorough
for the
most part pedestrian, hence sam of opinion
: fares because, as stated, the traffic is
the tramway company may be safely allowed
to lay a double line along Queen's Road
in those parts that are thirty feet wide and
over. There is a short section of this road however, between the City Hall and the
Royal Naval Yard, which is much narrower than thirty feet, and here I think the Company should only be allowed to lay a single line.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.