TAKAPUNA TRANSPORT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 261, 3 November 1926, Page 12

TAKAPUNA TRANSPORT.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I understand that the primary object of the Takapuna Borough Council in holding meetings during their recent campaign, was to acquaint the electors with the opinions obtained from the expert reports secured by them. The fact that the councillors were divided in their opinion proves that the reports could be viewed from two points at least, why, therefore, were the electors permitted to hear only those councillors who were so plainly in favour of the proposal. In view of the further poll to be held, I would suggest that on future occasions the full council will attend, and any member who desires to do so, be permitted to address the electors. There are always two sides to a question, and those who profess to believe there is only one to this matter, might be reminded of the old saying, "That there are none so blind as those who won't see."—l am, etc., C. V. HALL. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. John Guiniven, in Monday's "Star," most ungenerously blames the Mayor for bitterness displayed, when he well knows that, at the outset, the Mayor invited the three associations, Milford, Takapuna and Bayswater, to appoint representatives to attend meetings with the council to consider, reports, etc., and decide whether the matter was worth proceeding with. The Milford and Takapuna Associations refused to appoint representatives. The Mayor then invited all those present from Milford and Takapuna to attend. At all meetings of the council, all sides of the question were openly discussed, and every facility given for any possible objector to air his views. This cannot be said of the Takapuna and Milford Associations. The Mayor and council, without any possible personal gain to themselves, have given residents and ratepayers an opportunity in the most open manner to decide for themselves whether Takapuna is to be adequately provided with transport, untrammelled by private company control.—l am, etc., CHARDES P. LOCK.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent, C. 0. Platts, joins issue with you in your use of the term "bitterness" in connection with the opposition to municipal control in this matter. I have some diffidence in making a statement from my company's point of view, hut I think the time has come when the third party should be heard. We have heard the exposition by the Mayor and councillors of their policy, and have marked the vim and vehemence of the gentlemen in opposition. As a preliminary, on behalf of my co-directors, I desire firstly to state that we are, I trust, honourable men engaged, I am sure, in carrying on a lawful public utility. That being so, the astonishing degree of bitterness of the anti-council party is at least to be deprecated. It is constantly suggested that what is good enough for the socalled "astute" and "keen men of business" to sell is not good enough for the borough to buy. This is a complete fallacy, as calm consideration of the following facts will amply convince any business man or woman who can impartially consider the position. The costliness of steam traction upset the calculations of the men who founded the company. The war was a factor which had a devastating effect on the relation of the cost of production to the cost of eale of transport service. It was not till the year 1923-24 that a substantial profit (after 14 years) was made, and the company's position seemed secure, resting on the progress and prosperity for which its services were entirely responsible. Then the borough decided to lay down beside the tramway an opposition track. Naturally opposition developed, and, in common with tramway undertakings throughout the country, the company's business ceased to be profitable. The Government took action, but prior to the passing of the recent legislation the Mayor and councillors were farseeing enough to secure an option, at a price which, given an absolute control of transport, was a remarkably good bargain. Now Farliment has naturally and properly placed the control of the transit problem for Takapuna alone where it naturally and properly belongs, in the hands of the people of Takapuna, acting through their elected representatives, the Mayor and council. The Takapuna Borough Council, seeing its foresight justified, took up the option, and if it comes to the conclusion, which circumstances force upon it, that a tramway system serving the whole borough all the time at cheap rates is the mainstay of the district, it will eliminate wasteful competition and take control on behalf of its people of the business of transport. I can in all sincerity assure Mr. Platts and the people who share his doubts on the prospect of the tram and ferry service paying, that my directors and myself envy the borough its opportunity. The suggestion that the joint service will make a loss is quite insupportable. With an absolute monopoly, for such beyond argument it has, and the money to electrify its system, the council will enjoy an expanding business, that will immediately pay, and will make larger contributions to the rates or increased reductions to travelling charges as the years go by. My company, as a private concern, could not rely on any such monopoly. The better it did, the more insistent would be the cry against a monopoly. Nor is there any prospect of capitalists embarking money for the electrification of a private system. That, sir, is an absolute and complete answer to the inquiry as to why we want to selL The dominant factor of the problem in Takapuna is the peak load. It is. admittedly costly to put down the only possible means of properly, cheaply and satisfactorily handling the peak load, viz., electric traction, but as it must be handled, the best and also the cheapest method, electric traction, has wisely been decided on. The beauty of the position is that the borough will have the extremely ferry system to support the tramway (which no competing bus system would have), and must be in a better position accordingly than any l itfb.ar jcarrieg <*oul<Li_w A q Qg Qg fflgti

Mr. Platts must remember that £75,000 is ample for the electrification. This. ™ added to the purchase price of £65,000. 2 makes a total of £140,000- £35,000 is therefore for reserves, purchase of opposition buses, and extensions which a certain rapid expansion -of - population and traffic wiU make inevitable in the J, near future. I regret taking so much O space, and do not desire to further con- |J tribute to newspaper correspondence. O but if Mr. Platts or anyone sharing his I qualms will do mc the honour of inter- , viewing mc, I will endeavour to afford them such further information as they J may desire. In conclusion, I desire to ; remind ratepayers that the anti-council ;■ J party have pressed their views upon a m Select Committee of Parliament, upon I g Parliament itself, and upon the electors j ! of Takapuna, and on all three occasions those views have been decisively repudiated.—l am, etc., ' A. ST. CLAIR BROWN. |