MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 13

MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT.

TRAM AND BUS PROBLEM. EXPERIENCE IN AUCKLAND. DEFENCE OF CITY COUNCIL. [by telegraph.—special reporter.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. A reply to statements made by critics of the Auckland City Council before the Select Committee of the House of Representatives in regard to tramway and bus finance was made at the committee's sitting to-day by Mr, T. Bloodworth,, a member of the council. Since evidence was given by the Auckland City Council, said Mr. Bloodworth, certain statements had been made by Mr. A. M. Gould concerning the council's policy with regard to tramway matters which were very misleading and, in some respects, quite contrary to fact. Replying to the assertion by Mr. Gould that the council had been rnisled by erroneous figures and that these figures had misled the Cabinet, Mr. Bloodworth said the Government issued the regulations not on the experience of Auckland alone, but as a result of the Government's knowledge of what had happened in other countries, and in its desire to safeguard tho interests of the people of New Zealand. » Had Mr. Gould taken the trouble to examine the figures in the report from which he had quoted he would have found that the calculation had been based on an average fare of 2.59 d, not 2.9 d, the latter figure having been merely a typing error. The number of passengers carried in 1924 was 55,115,429. On the average annual increase it should have been 58,642,816 in 1925, and 62,395,956 in 1926. At an average fare of 2.59 d a passenger the revenue for 1926 should have been £673,356, but, as the fares were reduced in April, 1925, and it was estimated that it would cost £61,980, that amount should be deducted, leaving the revenue at £611,376, whereas the actual revenue from tramcars was £556,596. That left a loss of £54,780. Loans amounting to £475,000 had been issued since the purchase of the tramways and those brought the present loan debt up to £1 ; 725,000. The tramways undertaking was being purchased for the people out of revenue, and up to the present no rates had been collected for tramway purposes. Private omnibus proprietors had stated that they did not run at less than the tram fares. They did not pretend to offer a cheaper service, in spite of the fact that no provision was made in their revenue for the purchase of the buses for the people. Their one 1 object was profit. As a result of the inroads made into the council's revenue by bus capitation it had been necessary to curtail expenditure wherever possible. The committee adjourned until ten o'clock on Tuesday.