TAKAPUNA TRAMWAY PURCHASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19460, 16 October 1926, Page 10

TAKAPUNA TRAMWAY PURCHASE

Sir, —In reply to Mr. Blampied, let me point out that here again is the same silly attempt to bluff the public. Some years ago peak loads and congestion of traffic in Milford and Bayswater were a real nightmare and I well remember how they were dealt with. People were herded together for hours waiting for trams and the weakest were invariably stranded until all hours of the night. Let me call this to mind to Mr. Blampied, and a few others who are conveniently trying to forget the experience of people in those days, and I venture to say they would be ashamed to advocate a return to them. Not on isolated occasions but practically every fine week-end, this is what used to happen—and I defy anyone to refute what I say. At the top of Milford Road there were hundreds waiting for the tram, and when it did come it never, to my knowledge, cleared the congestion, with the result that only the young and agile were able to get away, and women and children missed one, two, three, and even four trams to Bayswater, because they could not fight their way in. The same thing would happen to-day if opposition did not exist. Since the advent of the yellow buses, and I am speaking with inside knowledge, they have never been up to their capacity unless the trams had broken down, which iis a common occurrence, and even then the extra was easily coped with. Coming to Mr. Blampied's bugbear, "1500 people wishing to travel from Takapuna to Auckland on "the two busiest consecutive trips," otherwise 3000 people wishing to leave Takapuna in 40 minut«s, his idea of people's judgment is surely on a very low estimate. Possibly 3000 people would wish to leave Takapuna and perhaps even more lhan that if the tram stunt is carried. Mr. Gould is speaking, not as an advocate of the yellow buses, but as an intelligent opponent of the wild scheme of some members of the Borough Council. Re the guarantee asked from Mr. Gould that fares will not be raised. The owners of the U.S.M. Co. have lodged their signed guarantee with A. Harris, Esq., M.P., and ratepayers have only ta compare past efforts of the trams with the service rendered to-day by the yellow buses to arrive at a sane solution next Friday. , B. E. Williams.

Sir, —I am a ratepayer in Takapuna, residing at Bayswater Point. I do not nse either trams* or buses and one boat per hour will suit all my requirements. I purchased my house, not for speculation, but for a permanent residence. My only personal interest in the tramway purchase is to see that rates are likely to be reduced, or at least not increased. The Takapuna Ratepayers' Association, who claim to be representing ratepayers, have so far only allowed speakers at their meetings; who are against the proposal of purchase; no ratepayer in favour of the purchase has so far been allowed to speak from their platform. I claim, therefore, that they do | not represent the .ratepayers. Multitudin- ! ous figures and complicated calculations have been put forward, which only befog the issue. It appears to me that the future of Takapuna depends absolutely on its transport facilities. Trams and buses cannot live together; this has been proved all over the world. Buses alone cannot economically carry the peak load to Takapuna ; even if they could to-day, they could not possibly do so in a very few years' time, when the population of Takapuna should be doubled. To-day's summer peak load would require at least 30 bnses. Imagine all these passing and repassing one another along the one main road, let alone 60 buses in say three years' time, with increased population. We must all admit that electric tram or train service is essential. It would obviously be difficult for any private company to raise mjney for electrification without reasonable assurance of sole right of road. This cannot be obtained by any private concern. The present council may give it. during their term of office, but the next council may reverse the position. A municipallv-ovmed transport system would, however, enjoy sole right of road and ensure maximum loads and minimum fares. Takapuna people cannot get to Auckland at any less than cost price. A private company must show profits and cannot deliver them at cost price. Under municipal Control ratepayers travel at cost price. Should there be a profit the rates or fares are reduced. Should there be a loss the cost is paid out of rates, so obviously, they get there at cost price. It is not proposed that the present council should run the trams, but an independent transport board, duly elected by the ratepayers and under their control. Most unbiased people will, I think, agree to that. The council suggests as probable cost for electric power per year £3500; the opposition say £6500. I will, therefore, accept £6500 as electric costs for power per year. I have it on the best authority that last year's coal bill for the tram company for trams alone was over £BOOO, showing £ISOO advantage for electricity, ' Other running costs, you must agree, are enormously less for electricity. A municipal concern is exempt from income tax, which is all in favour of municipal ownership.

Last year the ferry company lost £4OOO with 40 per cent, of traffic diverted via Devonport. It is claimed that if this 40 per cent, were added, it would have made £22,000 difference to the ferry company, which would have shown £IB,OOO profit for the year instead of £4OOO loss. It is also claimed that the extra load could have been carried at practically no further cost to the company; but assuming £2OOO extra cost for extra load, they would thee have £16,000 profit for last year. Electrification municipally-owned would, as previously shown, have a further advantage of at least £ISOO against the steam tram.

I understand that electric current is charged on the peak load and that the peak load could be maintained all day without any appreciable extra cost for power. Therefore, cheap excursion fares to the two best beaches in Auckland could be run from say 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at say 6d return from Auckland, or even 3d return for the matter of that; as this would be all found money to the transport board. Neither coal nor petrol could run such cheap excursions. What would such cheap excursion fares mean to the Takapuna and Milford shopkeepers, let alone the popularisation of Takapuna as a residential area ? This is where I come in. Every new house erected in the borough helps materially to reduce the rates. Every possible point appears to me to be in favonr of the tram purchase. The opposition say the price is too high. Obviously municipalities must depend on expert reports for that, but from what I can see, if it should so happen that at a later date it is found necessary to electrify and put down a new track, the present one having been rejected and taken up, I feel sure that the new track alone will cost more than the total purchase price at present proposed. Charles P. Lock. Bayswater Point.