TAKAPUNA TANGLE.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 208, 31 August 1920, Page 4

TAKAPUNA TANGLE.

- ■ TRAM AND FERRY SERVICB, THE COMMISSIONER SITS. ' r £SOOO LOSS OX TRAMS. COVERED BY STEAMER, The Royal Commission set up to inquire into the Takapuna tramways and ferry service opened its sittings [_ the Magistrate's Court this morning. The Commission has Mr. E. C. Gotten, S.iL, as its chairman, and with him are associated Mr. Peter Barr. accountant, of Dtinedin, and Mr. Frederick Black, consulting engineer, of Wellington. The Commission is to inquire (1) whether the tram-way and ferry service is run at a loss, and if so, whether such loss is due to bad management, or causae beyond the control of the company; (2) can the Tramway Company, at the scale of fa.res mentioned in the Order-in- I Council, be run without loss by the company, so as to comply with the pro- ! visions "of such Order-in-Council; (3) I should the Takapuna Borough Council apply for amending the Order-in-Council, . authorising increased charges, what should such increased charges be? and (4) is it.expedient to bring down legislation to enable the scale of fees and charge..; which the company is at present authorised to charge, to be amended, J even if the Borough Council does not apply for an amending Order-in-Council, to what extent should such scale be increased? Mr. A. S. C. Brown appeared on behalf of the company. Mr. F. Lowrie was for the Takapuna Borough Council, and Mr. A. M. Could represented the Takapi___, Ratepayers' Association. THE COMPANY'S SIDE. Counsel for the company read a com' municatson his clients bad addressed to the Government, pointing out that the Borough Council ihad re_3ised te» permit an increase in the fares, notwithstanding the fact that the Tramwaye and Ferry Company by its service ihad effected a very considerable increase in the valuation of the borough. It wag necessary for an impartial tribunal of j disinterested parties to consider the ' whole matter. The company's attitude was that it had no control of the har» » bour and w"as open to competition, so [ that the fact of the ferry service should have nothing to do with the matter of j fares on the tramway. They realised i they -were in possession of a public ut_U ity. They had had one dividend in ten years and they wanted a fair profit ott the capital involved. He asked the co_> , mission to deal -with the matter only from the point of view of the tramways, It would be an exceedingly simple mat' ter to control the harbour ferry charges. If the company was permitted to King its tramway fares to a reasonable rate there would be no occasion to make higher boat charges than other trans' . port companies. The company had nothing to stop competition, but it was running its tramways at such a heavy load that they had to try to catch up bj| increasing the fares on the boat. EXTENSIONS SUGGESTED. On behalf of -the council, Mr. -Lowrie pointed out that the company was already making a handsome—nay a huge profit on its ferry service. A dozen tickets for the boat iad gonenrp iram.l/6 .to 4/3... The rjhysical position of the 'boroueh made the tram service useless without the ■ferry, and therefore both the tram and boat service should be considered together. He suggested that another question should be added to the order of reference. The tram service had been decreased, and the council wished to see another question. He suggested that this should be:—"Does the present service comply with the reasonable reqisirements of public convenience arid so ' as to subserve the purposes of the undertaking, and to secure to the public its full benefits? If not what seirice would fulfil these conditions?"' Mt. Gould, for the Ratepayers' Association, endorsed the points raised by Mr. Lowrie. 'He submitted that the Cc__mi_* sion would be abortive if both the services -were not taken together, and applied for a further addition to th, order of .reference inquiring whether the tram monopoly naturally made 4 ferry monopoly. £5000 LOS 3, £BGOO PRO-FIT. This was withdrawn after Mr. Browil had spoken to it. He eaid the loss on the , tramways was about £5000 annually; the balance sheet showed a profit oi -.1600, therefore it was obvious that the ferry service made a, profit of £8600, He would give all tlie figures of the' company. The chairman: -Cow, Mr. Lowrie, what is the answer you want. Counsel: The original timetaMe has been decreased. W-e want you to decide whether or not the original servis. shoi.ld be reverted to. Mr. Brown: The service is runmng - at a loss. These men are all barking up the wrong tree. The old trips that were cut out did not pay for axle grease. Therefore it is clear that they were not a great public utility. As a- matter if fact 14 of the IS daily trips at present are running at a loss Chairman: The Borough Council bathe power to permit increased fares. What then is the use of thus Comm Us ion? Xo immediate answer to this question was forthcoming, but Mr. Bro-vv-n said there was a definite body of ratepayers over there whose one object in life was to force -the companr into liquidation at 13/ in the pound. Chairman: If yott are losing £5000 a year you will be lucky to get out at IS/ in the pound. TRAMWAYS REVENUE £ 1-2,000. Answering further iirqiiiries from the Court, counsel for tlie company stated that the tramway revenue was about £1-2,000 annually, and therefore the expense was £17,0130. Chairman: Then you will want to charge double fares? Counsel: W-e *'hall want a very substantial increase. In opposition to the Boroue-h Council. Mr. Brown considered that he could show tiie service to be greater at present than merely convenient to the public, and he suggested an answer to cover not only the allegation of in.onveniei3.o to the public, but also the matter of a reduction of tha timetable. Lengthy discussion followed. Counsel for the Ratepayers' Association hinted several allegations of bad management, which he promised to reduce to writing. The Borough Council advocate also stated objections to the state of tho vehicles. The sitting then adjourned till Friday morning.