TRAMWAY LOAN PROPOSAL

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26025, 31 January 1950, Page 6

TRAMWAY LOAN PROPOSAL

LEADING ARTICLE CRITICISED CHAIRMAN’S ATTACK ON “THE PRESS” fit is rather remarkable that the editor of ‘The Press’ has to come to the defence of the Loans Board,” said the chairman of the Christchurch Tramway Beard (Mr J. E. Jones) commenting at a meeting of the board yesterday on a leading article in “The Press” yesterday entitled “Tramway Loan.” The article said that the Local Government Loans Board was justified in refusing to reconsider the Tramway Board’s application for approval of its proposal for a loan of £532.000 for trolley-buses on the Sumner and New Brighton routes, and their accommodation.

Neither the Loans Board nor the editor of “The Press” knew whether the City Council would take over the Tramway Board on April 1, said Mr Jones. The new Government might have different ideas on that issue.

The article said that the board’s plan represented only part of a scheme, but it would be part of a scheme only for the meantime, said Mr Jones. In its correspondence with the Loans Board the Tramway Board had said that the main arterial routes would be given consideration.

The Loans Board and the editor of “The Press” were denying the electors, through their representatives, the right to carry out a policy for which the hoard was elected. If the board’s scheme was carried out it would cost “far more than the last board’s complete scheme,” the article had said. ‘‘He's guessing again.” said Mr Jones. Mr C. C. Holland: Your scheme meant paying more than a third of the amount of our loan for two tracks. Mr Jones: Instead of the £1,350.000 the old board was going for it would have been £2:000,000, with increased costs of all kinds. This figure was challenged by Mr Holland, who said that sales tax, for one item, would be lower than had been estimated. “A Private War” Mr Jones was quoting a passage from the article which read: “He (Mr Jones) is certainly mistaken in believing that the future policy of the tramway system in Christchurch is not the concern of the Loans Board,” when he was interrupted by Mr F. L. Brandt. “Is this a private war between you and the editor, or between the board and the editor?” he asked. “We have got to the stage where we are dictated to by vested interests and representatives of other local bodies," replied Mr Jones. “The Loans Board’s and the editor’s action is a complete denial of the democratic rights of the electors. “The City Council has a proposal for a £120,000 loan for reserves: what I would like to know is, which would get priority, transport or the reserves?" concluded Mr Jones. “If ever there has been an unfortunate board it is this one,” said Mr R. T. Newman. “Ever since we had a Labour majority on the board, at least m the first few months, we have been the object of ridicule by the editors of the two newspapers.” The Labour members of the board had been accused of being “men without a policy.” but it was rather strange that their policy got them a majority on the board.

Mr Newman outlined the board’s scheme to put trolley-buses on the Sumner and New Brighton routes. We would be left with only 30 miles ctf track, instead of 48, to maintain. We cpuld throw aside the old trailers and scrap the older trams,” he said. Mr Newman claimed that if the Citizens’ Association’s plan to replace trams with Diesel buses had been put into operation the board would have had to buy fuel from dollar areas. “Only * Partial Plan”

“I will admit our plan is only a partial one, but we believe we can get the extra passengers by a partial modernisation, so why should we go to the expense of replacing all the trams?” asked Mr Newman.

“If the City. Council takes over the tramways in April it will have six months’ life before the next election; if the Loans Board is consistent how «an it justify granting the council a loan after it has refused us one? It cannot logically give the council a loan until the new council is elected in November.” Mr H. A. C. North said that at the last election of the board Labour candidates could quite easily have supported the old board’s loan proposal, but urged that the loan be used to buy trolley-buses instead of Diesel buses. “If the life of this board is extended the only way out of this impasse is to resign an J go to the electors again purely on the merits of your proposal and ours,” said Mr North. The Labour candidates’ proposal at the last election was merely to buy 40 trolleybuses; if there was another election and the electors knew the buses were only for two routes he was sure they would vote against it. If Labour again gained a majority on the board, with a policy of buses for a limited area and lower fares, he was prepared to accept the position. A new transport system would have brought more people to Christchurch and would have resulted in more workers leaving their cars and cycles at home to travel on the public transport. Mr North said. It was now obvious that the Citizens’ Association plan would have to be used. Mr Jones: The people gave you the answer to that, not us. “Position Misrepresented”

Mr North: They gave you the answer because you and your colleagues misrepresented the position. Mr Holland said that the Losns Board’s reference to “a partial plan” was overlooked every time this discussion arose. It was not fair to imply that the Loans Board was dictating to local bodies. At his request the correspondence between the Tramway Board and the Loans Board was read. “It appears to be only a partial scheme to serve only a limited area,” said a letter from the Loans Board on September 20 of last year. This view was refuted in subsequent letters from the Tramway Board, said Mr G. Manning. “When i the newspapers of New Zealand sup-

port the Labour Party it is time we took stock of ourselves,” he continued. “I have been in New Zealand 40 years and I have never known a capitalist paper support a Labour measure.” Mr Holland: Perhaps you have never been right

Mr Manning: They support the policy of the people from whom they get their revenue.

Mr N. R. Forbes said he would not vilify the editor of “The Press.” He had a job to do and he was paid for it. The editor and the Loans Board both considered the board’s scheme a partial job. “but a child learns to toddle before it walks.” When he was asked during the election campaign where the trolley-buses would be used he had replied that each road wofild be taken under observation and the board would decide what type of vehicle was to go on it. The general manager of the board (Mr J. F. Fardell) had decided that the two seaside routes were the worst. The board decided then that these two routes would be the first for trolleybuses. Papanui-Cashmere Route I

Mr Forbes questioned the statement In the leading article that the board’s scheme was inadequate “because it covers only two of the 11 routes, all of which need to be replaced now or will need to be replaced in a very few years ” Mr Fardell, in a report on the condition of the various lines, had said that there was a 20-year life in the major part of the PapanuiCashmere line.

Mr Holland, quoting from the same report, said that Mr Fardell estimated that £120.674 would have to be spent n ? xt six years on this Hne. •• discussion, which arose when Jones moved that a report on the board’s further application for approval of the board’s £532.000 loan proposal be received, then lapsed.