HIGHER FERRY DUES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18685, 15 April 1924, Page 11

HIGHER FERRY DUES.

OPENING OF COMMISSION. ■ ~ CASE FOR HARBOUR BOARD. CHARGES FOR MAINTENANCE (QUESTION OP THE BURDEN. The taking of evidence on the subject of the increased wharfage charges imposed on ferry boats was commenced yesterday- - Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., is the commissioner appointed to inquire into the mat-' ter.

Mr. R. McVeagh, who appeared for' , the Auckland Harbour Board, said it would be very unfair if the extra cost involved in the upkeep of the ferry wharves was not placed upon the users, but passed on to shipping which did not use the ferry wharves, the consumers of goods and the public generally. \ Detailed figures, on which the increases are bused, were given by Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, chairman of the board. The total revenue from the ferry wharves had been From passenger boats, £2980 a year; vehicular boats, £360; and goods wharfage, not paid by the ferry companies, £1100, making a total of £4440. To arrive at the amount .necessary for the board to receive so that no loss was thrown on the working, the following figures had .to be considered:—lnterest at 5. per cent, on the capital cost, £99,503, £4975; average annual maintenance, £5462; depreciation at 3J per cent*, £3731; making a total of £14.168. The board, however, sought a return of only £9600, the increases being £2380 from passenger boats, £1080 from vehicular boats, and £1100 from tolls. In seeking this return the board did not ask for depreciation, but only interest at 5 per cent, on the capital cost and cost of maintenance. -\ -','.■••■: .:■'.

" Absolut* Justice to All." Mr. McVeagh: On what principle Sid tie ' board proceed in, framing these charges Cm the principle of absolute equal justice to all, _ Mr. vEndean, -who appeared far the Devonport and Takapuna Perry Companies: Your board would regard the ferries as a public utility, serving a great public need —Yes. And your board considers >It should bear some of. the burden of the maintenance of the ferry wharves -Not in; the least. But the Ferry Company has been so lightly treated in the past that the board did not want to all at once make it pay the whole cost of- maintenance ~ « :'.., ~. '~.. .:...,;,-,> •-. ' Did riot some members of .the■,.bearer consider you should shoulder some of thti co3t?—Tuat all: depended upon what influence was brought to bear .'a the past. You must' remember that we tret 15 per cent, revenue from the other wharves and we lest £9000 on the ferry wharves. Do ill your other undertakings pay?— Ye 3; all the wharves. '."".'*' ''""

What-about the railway ?—That is « public necessity. : , ■■ k , v >'■'-" : ■'-"' ■"' '■ "'-i So is the ferry. Regarding this char.:* to bring in 5 per cent., is it not tr»je that you are only paying 4£ per cent on this money expended on ferry i wharves? Cn some of it : but some -of tie 'loans have to < bo renewed next year. ; Also, son.e of this expenditure has come out of the beard's revenue. ' ; ''\/ ' . . .■- _-.v -. • • ; for Victoria Whwf. Witness said the board would sw<n b« put to the expense of rebuilding the Victoria Wharf, which would cost - £50,000. - •• * .....-,-.- • Mr. '• Endeari:' But the '■■ board put that forward in . 1914.—1 .am making; provision ■ for it in the next loan. That is definite. . ; Do you propose to further increase the ferry charges when that work is done?— : No; ;': I; am ;of opinion that these chargr / will bo equitable for another 10 years. Mr. Gould/ who appeared for the Waitemata Chamber of >Commerce:; I suppose you willadmit that these ferry charges % mean a .V. very,, serious thing for the northern boroughs -Yes. ' V ' , , And that the creation of ; these boroughs v is due to cheap ferry fares ?—-It has 'been a help. ; -Did not v Takapuna spring up as » result of cheap ferry / fares?—As ) a/rewnlt of the Harbour Board. building '» wharf at Bayswat-er. ;■ ', ;; '.■,.. i„«.-..,- ~:■ ■ -..■■■•• -.:.■ ,« t? Arid I cheap ?ftsrry ■ fares Yes; ■ but the North?. Shore would develop with ; higher '■ fares—with reasonable fares. Epsom- and other suburbs have gone ahead. Auckland is growing. The passir'g on of our increased/charges;. in ; - lares ./ would. • riot) amount to lid ; per head of those;who'use the ferries. ■■<: Are. not ' North Shore prepertv value* very sensitive to ferry. charges?—No; that is all nonsense. Values are sound. , "Could Justify Higher Disss.'* * : .

."■ Witness ; said the Harbour Board could ; ';': justify charges higher ; than those proposed, but- it would forego any v farther y;;, demand, letting it 'go as a contribution to ;* tie ferries as .a, public utility. • ' : ;' T ' - *■**'■■ The i Commissioner observed that if ths O Harbour y Board justified ' its figures, ha::; would have to fix. the ■ charges .on,, the basis ? r of cost of ■ maintenance and interest, with- .-:■-■% out any precognition, of the "concession" allowed by ? the ■ board " to, the ferries in "■ the recognition of their virtue.as a public utility. : He would ask Mr. Mackenzie il the /charges / for/ ferry accommodation ;//■ could be Kept separate in •"- the ; books of the board, so that I they -j' could /be/ pub- /'"..; lished annually, or hall-yearly, together with ! the cost of maintenance and interest,;; so that the users and the public generally could see: how the charges worked out. // Mr. 11. B. Burnett, i secretary to thi board, said that in 1922 the fertvohargej} : werei. yielding £1000 per annum less thai ' the. actual cost of '.-. maintenance l and;'' interest. The new scale of charges had beeiJ drawn up to prevent this. The average or/ the ."years/ 1919, 1920, and 1921 formed the basis ,of the annual cost' of mainteni I ance. ' -' i '"* ' •-:."/" ■'///?.''..--/"•''• I Average of Expenditure. \ Mr. Stanton, who appeared for the nor* them Woughs, submitted that, consider*/ ing the life of a wooden wharf/; whicl| was not ! ;repaired ■in ; the meantime, would " be 10 : years, a fair average of expenditure ; should extend over that period. ./-:•,' Witness: The war years were abnormal y Mr. Stanton: So were the post-wal years. With the abnormal times we hav<>y/ passed through even more than 10 yeart •// would be a ' fair average on which to bas< the claims. < " ''«''»' Mr. Burnett Maintenance as well? at repair work is in question. Further questions by .Mr.; Stanton ahoy Mr. Eiadean drew a' protest from Mr.'-/;;: McVeagh on the ground of irrelevance. - „ The income that the board would re- : ceive from the new by-law was estimated // by Mr. Mortimer, secretary to the Devon* ; . port Ferry Company, as £7525 5s per an- £ t num.- ......'-;. ,- , '••'-_■ y >-,y«. ,:; ; 'y

Tidie Deflectors and "Navigition . ; r ■ Mr. Endean' then > called two witnesses, Captain J. G. Poole and Captain W. E, Tyc, employed by the Davenport ■. Ferrj ' Company, to prove that the tide deflector} • were; to blame ..for damage done to ' th« y 5 wharves by 'ferry ; : boats. s The companiel : had ;• to pay.: for : the ; damage.; .Both a witi p nesses 'stated that navigation in the har» hour .was greatly influenced by the effect ;>; on the; tides of ; the tide /deflectors* SThej -7. stated that the tides could-. not now; j b* «. depended on, and the set would chang* even '■'- in one '-■ trip. Before the deflector!-:v had "been v built Jit was possible" to ; l steel the ferry st aamers ,' alongside the wharvesffon the, northern shore of , the harbour. with ease. Now it was necessary to ap--1 proach ; them at a greater speed and socss "y times the "easels would ■ crash into tb« .wharves. : damage''was' done ■■ not ; only t«... the ,! wharves!' but, also, to the, boats. t The inquhy was adjourned until day.