THE OPPOSITION

Evening Star, Issue 26029, 18 February 1947, Page 4

THE OPPOSITION

TROLLY BUS PROPOSALS " DUNEDIN'S BIGGEST HOAX " * or McMillan on the warpath Describing the City Council’s trolly bus proposals as “ one of the biggest hoaxes ever put across the people of Dunedin,” Cr D. G. McMillan vigorously opposed the scheme at ,'a meeting held. in the North-east Valley Town Hall last night.' He claimed that those ad* vocating the new scheme so strongly knew that It could not be carried out for the money stated, or pay the profits they forecast. # The meeting was attended by bout 60 people, and addresses were also given by Crs M. Connelly, M.L.C., and W. A. Hudson, who advocated in place of the council’s scheme a composite system of modern tram cars, trolly buses, and diesel buses. Mr C. E. Stanton Was in the chair. “ The lavish spending of ratepayers’ money for the purpose of influencing the ratepayers in "such a matter cannot be justified,” said Cr McMilhlU. “ It is wrong in principle that money should be spent in support of the proposal without it having been submitted to the council for consideration and discussion.” Their attitude in the matter had always been consistent, he went on. There might easily be merit in the trolly buses, but the common sense course to adopt would be to instal them on one route to test them first of all. Nothing was as good as its supporters claimed, and nothing was as bad as its opponents claimed it 'to be. The truth lay somewhere between the two extremes. The only reason for the council not proposing to reorganise its transport system in that way Was that, if a start were made on one route the councillors would ihave to give the whole truth about it, claimed the speaker. They would have to give a full and correct estimate of the costs. If the whole . scheme were adopted they would spend the amount of the loan, have the task half-done, and then return for more money. They need not give a detailed statement of costs. “ The costs which . are being submitted now are not only incorrect, but the Mayor and Cr McCrae know it. The ratepayers are entitled to know •all the facts,” continued Cr McMillan. .The minority ifl the council did not oppose the introduction of either the trolly buses or the Albert street extension. The latter project had been brought forward by the Rev. E. T. Cox during his term as Mayor in 1935.38, and if a Labour Council had been elected in 1938 the work would have been carried out long ago. KAIKORAI TRAMS “JUNK.” Reference to the Kaikorai cable car service as a “junk heap ” followed, and Cr McMillan asserted that the , council should never have bought it. The Tory Council had paid a substantial sum for it and it had cost a great deal in maintenance. They believed in the Albert street extension and in a sensible trial of trolly buses in conjunction with a rehabilitation of electric tram service atid the use of diesel and petrol buses. “The councillors who have'been supporting the loan have no regard for facts. They get along well at council meetings where, if anyone objects to their statements, he is ruled out of order,” went on the speaker. This was different, however. Cr Iceland was reported as saying at Anderson’s Bay that no alternative plans and specifications had been presented to the council. That was not true, as in the first place there was the report of Sir William Goodman, and' later, on January 8, 1947, the manager of the council’s transport department (Mr L. C. Greig) had submitted a detailed proposal for the rehabilitation of the tramway system as an alternative to the trollv bus scheme. “ Why was that not given to the Press?” asked Cr McMillan. “ I challenge the “Mayor and Cr McCrae to release it for publication,” he continued. That would give the ratepayers an alternative, and they should have it before the poll. “ FULL FACTS SUPPRESSED.” The recommendations of the transport manager were based on the provision that the city must be equipped with trams capable of an equal performance with the trolly buses, ihe council’s own expert, brought out from Britain,' should be the best adviser on this matter. Continuing, Ur McMillan said that the full facts had been suppressed on another question. The city engineer had been asked for a state'ment of the cost of street reconstruction to carry a full trolly bus system, and he arrived at the figure of £14*2,000. But the Transport Committee considered that too high, and cut it down to £72,000. In order to show that the trolly buses would ’produce a profit of £50,000 a year, Cr McMillan said, the committee banked on a redufction of wages and salaries of £3,000 a year in the transport department. But costs were going up, and if the tenders for the 79 trolly buses were higher than was expected a good deal more money would he involved. Neither could the system ' be run profitably unless the fares were raised and the rates increased. If the ratepayers read the loan p'roposals carefully they would realise that support for tne loan also meant approval of an increase in rates. “ We are opposed to the council asking for this blank cheque, and oppose any blanket approval being given,” concluded the speaker. “ Dunedin should be taken district by district, and the best service for .each selected. They should weigh what the people want against what could'be offered, and they cannot afford this grandiose scheme of Cr McCrae’s. If this scheme comes into operation it will cost nearer £1,500,000 than the present estimate. If the loan is voted out it will then be possible to urge an alternative system on the council, based on its own expert’s recommendation. COMPLETE CHANGE TOO EXPENSIVE. Cr Hudson explained that the speakers that night represented a substantial minority of the council. They had been invited to take the platform with the other members of the council in support of the proposals, but preferred to oppose it. They had been promised at a meeting of the council an opportunity of placing their views before the people, but this had not been forthcoming and the sponsors of the meeting had been called upon to guarantee _ the. rent of the hall and the advertising for the meeting, which,, he claimed, was not a fair .deal. He went on to say that something must be done about the Dunedin transport system in the near future. A complete change over to a trolly bus system

would be too expensive for the city, however, and those supporting the change were comparing a modern trolly bus system with an out of date tramway system, He claimed that the comparison should be between a trolly bus system and a modern tramway system. In 1 Dunedin the tramway tracks had been deliberately allowed to deteriorate for one purpose. Cr Hudson did not blame the present council for that, but there had been deliberate neglect. That had not been done in other centres, with the result that they were getting a reasonable service. Their view, supported by that of Chief-inspector Anderson, retired last year, was that the main tram system should be put in complete order and a trolly bus system tried out. If it proved successful it could then be extended over the whole city. Until the trolly buses were proved, however, they should have a composite system. The 79 trolly buses provided for would not carry the people at peak periods, and the speaker estimated that 110 buses would be a more accurate figure. But if the number of trolly buses were increased there would have to be an uncrease in fares and rates, " If you Support the loan proposal, you must be prepared to face an increase in fares and rates,” said Cr Hudson. “ The whole story is not being told by the councillors supporting the loan.” COMPOSITE SCHEME ADVOCATED. lt This is not a case of trams v. trolly buses. We are trying to evolve a scheme which will give the best transport system possible,” said Cr Connelly, He then advocated a composite System similar to those in many other parts of the world. He did not condemn the trolly buses, he said, as they had tKeir place, but Dunedin should first of all try 15 or 20 of them. Then, if they worked out successfully, the scheme could be continued, but to scrap a large transport system was quite wrong. One of the supporters of the trolly buses had claimed that they could accommodate 60 passengers, but he did not say how many could be accommodated on the trams. Cr Connelly said that in his opinion up to 100 persons could ride in a tram car at peak periods. It had also been said that the trolly buses could travel faster than the trams, but a modern tram would travel at 30 miles an hour, and whether a trolly bus would be allowed to travel in excess of that speed was questionable on account of the traffic regulations. Modern, trams were streamlined and .comfortably upholstered. Some had an 8-inch step- from the ground and were entirely different from those seen_ in Dunedin. Another factor to consider was that a tram could take a trailer, but this would be impossible with a trolly bus. “ The public should not be stampeded into voting in a certain way,” said Cr Connelly. “Some people who have been boosting the loan say that notice should be taken of the experts, yet after Sir William Goodman had estimated £330,000 to rehabilitate the trams one of the sponsors of the loan claimed iii-i. it would cost £800,000.” Not long ago the tramway manager had brought forward an alternative proposal and, although the speaker did not agree with it entirely, it had some good points. One of these was having the terminus at the railway station, where it would obtain the cream of the traffic offering in. Dunedin. The supply of electrical equipment from Britain was another problem to be considered. That country was going through a very trying period and though manufacturers had stated that they could supply equipment at a certain time this might not be possible when it came to the point. At the conclusion of the addresses a number of questions were asked by members of the audience and the following motion was then _ carried “■That a composite system is more satisfactory than a trolly bus service and the ratepayers should oppose the proposal.”