" IMPOSSIBLE DREAM."

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 120, 23 May 1928, Page 9

" IMPOSSIBLE DREAM."

VISION OF A GREATER AUCKLAND. POWER AND TRANSPORT. INTERWOVEN SERVICES. MR. BLOODWORTH URGES ONE CONTROL. Two witnesses were before the Auckland Transport Commission this morning, Mr. P. (i. Clarke, ex-chairman of the One Tree Hill Road Board, who gave evidence for the outside local bodies, and Mr. Tom Blood worth, a former member of tho Auckland City Council, who came forward as an independent witness to advocate the metropolitan scheme. Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., chairman, was associated with Messrs. W. G. T. Goodman and A. Edward, Messrs. A. H. Johnstone and J. Stanton appeared for the Auckland City Council and Messrs. E. H. Xorthcroft, V. R. Meredith, H. M. Roperson and J. M. Melville, for the outside local bodies. Dr. E. P. Xeaie, secretary of the (Chamber of Commerce, said in evidence that he did not favour one big board to trol all matters, but preferred several boards with specialised knowledge to control particular matters, although there could be co-ordination between certain boards. The Chairman: In other words, instead of giving the council a tonic, you give it an emetic. Mr. Johnstone: You approve of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act?— Yes, I think it has justified itself and should have come before it did. I take it you agree amalgamations are desirable from the point of view of cutting down overhead expenses?— Yes, up to a certain point. Now about these boards which you favour, where are you going to get the men with the special knowledge?—l should think men with special knowledge would be sufficiently interested to offer themselves as candidates, and they could be elected.

So that is how you propose to get men with special knowledge? Now do you know how- many drainmen are on the drainage board or how many firemen are on the fire board?— No. (Laughter.) Do you suggest that the tramways department has never considered the railway to Avondale?—l have no doubt it has.

Can you see any justification for 20 boards governing the southern portion of Auckland?— No.

How do you suggest co-ordination between separate boards?—l was thinking of a co-ordinating authority; for instance, a committee.

The Chairman: And how do you gest getting that committee ?—Well, that is a question requiring further consideration.

The Chairman: But it is the root of the whole suggestion you put forward. Reginald George Clark said he had sixteen years' experience of local body work, having been chairman of the One Tree Hill Road Board for ten years. He was a sitting member of the Auckland Power Board. In a statement witness supported the formation of a transport board and opposed the absorption of the sparsely-settled outer areas in the city.

Under cross-examination by Mr. Stanton, witness agreed that the tramway undertaking should be preserved, and that a measure such as the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act was justified. Witness said that the five main utilities—power, drainage, transport, town planning and water—should be included under a single metropolitan governing body, but he did not consider it practicable to include the port and harbour services under the same control.

Mr. Tom Bloodworth, trade union secretary, said that he was a member of the City Council from 1919 to 1927 and topped the poll at the city elections in 1925, a member of the Tramways Committee for four years and one "of the council's representatives in support of the motor omnibus regulations by a Parliamentary committee. He was also a sitting member of the Auckland Harbour Board, the Power Board, a member of the executive of the Town Planning Association and a former member of the Technical College Board. Witness gave evidence on behalf of the Citizens' Committee and in support of the committee's proposals for a metropolitan board so far as the proposals affected, or were affected by (1) the City Council's proposals for "Greater Auckland" as a means of overcoming the present transport difficulties, and (2) the proposals of other local bodies for a separate transport board. Initial Mistake. Mr. Bloodworth said that the initial mistake which led to the greater part of tho present trouble occurred when the people of Auckland allowed their tramway facilities to pass into the hands of a private company, as the other cities of the Dominion where private ownership of tramways had been longer established had not been faced with eerious transport problems. "It is impossible to secure satisfactory results under the present system of control by the City Council," said Mr. Bloodworth, "and the policy of Greater Auckland, as proposed by the City Council, docs not provide a satisfactory solution of the transportation difficulties." Continuing, Mr. Bloodworth submitted that, in agreeing to tho creation of a separate and entirely independent Power Board, the City Council took a step which was fatal to its idea of Greater Auckland by the methods proposed in 1921. He considered that Greater Auckland in accordance with the council's idea would never be achieved by voluntary amalgamation, except when local authorities became embarrassed financially or otherwise, and in that case the City Council did not always want them. He did not think the Government would ever give consent to amalgamation by compulsion. If complete amalgamation came about voluntarily or by legislation, however, the council would be so overwhelmed by a mass of detail administration that it would be more impossible to give attention to larger matters than it had been in the recent past. The witness said that a transport hoard, as an integral part of the metropolitan board, offered the best means of arriving at a solution of the present difficulties. The City Council had not approved of the metropolitan proposals, and the city's attitude suggested that it hoped to re-absorb the Power Board, but witness considered that hope a vain one.

In regard to the legislative problems in the way of creating a metropolitan board, Mr. Bloodworth said that, if the board were desired b.v the council as it was desired by the other local bodies, the Government would gladly frame and pass the reqired legislation.

Dependent on Power Board. 'Greater Auckland as proposed by the City Council is a dream impossible of realisation," said Mr. Bloodworth, "and even if it were possible it would not give the desired results in transport and other 111ai matters." He added that a separate transport board would be in the same posit.oll as the council when it took over the tramway service in 1919, and would have a big undertaking on its hands, with no financial reserves and the need of immediate heavy expenditure.

Continuing, Mr. Bloodworth said that the trams were now absolutely dependent on the Power Board for motive power; the Power Board drew a big revenue from the trams; the two services were interwoven, were in a sense the same service or the same kind of service; and the area served by the Power Board was approximately the area that should be served by a transport board. Both services would belong to the same people; the same ratepayers would be security for each, controlled by the one board; economy in administration would be possible, which would be very difficult if each were controlled by a separate body. Mr. Bloodworth submitted that the difficulties in the way of adopting the suggestion that the transport services should be controlled by the Power Board were not nearly as great as those present in any other suggestion. The objections could be met and answered more easily than the objections to any other proposal except the proposal that the control of transport for the metropolitan area should remain with the City Council, or that the whole difficulty would be overcome by 'adding to the worries of the present City Council those of all the other local bodies in the metropolitan area. (Proceeding.)