COST OF INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19958, 29 May 1928, Page 11

COST OF INQUIRY.

TRANSPORT COMMISSION. CHAIRMAN ISSUES WARNING. LENGTH OF FUTURE EVIDENCE. FIFTH WEEK OF SITTINGS. "The cost of this inquiry is banking up, being well into three figures every day," said the chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., in issuing what he termed a warning when the Auckland Transport Commission resumed its sittings yesterday. Observing that the commission was entering on its fifth week, Mr. Barton asked counsel for the suburban bodies to indicate the nature and length of the evidence still to be called. Mr. E. H. Northcroft mentioned three aspects which further witnesses would probably give evidence on, namely, evidence regarding bus-running costs, the conditions of passenger traffic beyond the tram termini, and evidence by persons who had knowledge of the state of transport in 1923 and 1924. A great number of witnesses had responded to the general invitation to give evidence. Their evidence would entirely be directed to an account of the experience 'of most people with regard to transport in 1923 and 1924. Mr. Barton: But how many witnesses are there ? Mr. Northcroft: We could call 50, but we do not propose to call that number. Curtailing the Evidence. " I have received numerous letters from people desiring to give evidence, but I have replied to everyone, stating that we will not hear individual complaints from individual tram passengers," said the chairman. " I have dissociated the Chamber of Commerce and Citizens' Committee witnesses from tho evidence called by you, but I must regard you as calling these other witnesses, and you will be mulcted in costs accordingly." Mr. Barton suggested two responsible witnesses could tell of the expeiiences in 1923 and 1924. Mr. Northcroft said he did not propose to call 50 witnesses, but he was unable at- present to inform the commission of the actual number. He commented on the fact that evidence by witnesses representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Citizens' Committee had removed the question far from the realm of transport, and, in Mr. Northcroft's opinion, a week or ten days had been wasted. The chairman did not agree with that ,view. He thought the metropolitan board scheme had a bearing on the suggested transport board. The time so occupied had, in the commission's view, been usefully spent. " 1 give this warning," he added, "that if, in our opinion, time is unne<?fessarily wasted by bringing in a number of witnesses to give individual evidence whicli could be given by a few responsible witnesses, theu we will have to take that question into consideration in finding the incidence of costs." Greater Auckland Aspect. Mr. Northcroft: That sounds like a threat. Mr. Barton: I purposely said it was a warning. There is nothing sinister about it. Mr. Northcroft then asked whether the suburban bodies would be expected to bring evidence to resist the evidence relating to greater Auckland, which, he argued, was foreign to the question of whether it was desirable to establish a transport board. The chairman intimated the question would be answered later. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, representing the City Council, said Mr. M. Cable, manager of the Wellington tramways, was in Auckland, and was prepared to give evidence on any question desired. The commission would probably formulate some questions for Mr. Cable, said the chairman, who asked whether Mr. Northcroft desired- to do likewise. Observing that Mr. Cable had been in collaboration with the Auckland tramways officers for some days, Mr, Northcroft thought he should be regarded as a City Council witness. He could scarcely be viewed as an independent witness. The Chairman: But there is no question that he would not be an honest witness? Mr. Northcroft: Oh. no. He added, however, that he preferred to cross-ex-amine Mr. Cable, rather than to submit a set of questions. Feeder Service Condemned! The cross-examination ot Henry Bransgrove, traffic inspector, in the employ of the Mount Eden Borough Council, was then resumed by Mr. A. 11. Johnstone. The witness declared that in 1923 it was frequently necessary to wait an hour before a tram could be boarded at the early evening rush period. Mr. Johnstone: Bui couldn't you have pushed your way on 1 Witness: Yes, but I was trained differently in London. And what about the rudeness of the conductors ?—They used to push people off the cars and put the chains up. Then there would be a duel of words —and not very choice sometimes. The witness condemned the present "feeder" bus service. For instance, on the Dominion Road route at peak hours, there was only one"bus, of 25-passenger capacity, to meet five trams, which meant that the bus was "packed to suffocation" and many people had to walk beyond the tram terminus. The suggestion that the most suitable form of passenger transport for the metropolitan area at the present time was a continuation of the tramway system, with controlled buses, and the substitution wherever possible of the trolley buses, as being more mobile and cheaper than the tramways, was made by Lewis Joll, a motor-body builder and repairer, who said he had had nine years' local body experience as a member of the Mount Eden Borough Council. He thought the tramway system should be continued under careful control in order to avoid loss of capital, and should be gradually replaced by a system of trolley buses driven by electric traction. That, no doubt, would later be followed in the more congested areas by the underground electric railway. Elective Transport Board. The irollev bus system could be started at the New North Road, and a direct, or almost direct, route obtained from the centre of the city to Avondale, and, if necessary, to New Lynn and further. That would relievo traffic congestion in other streets and make It possible to reduce the administration expenses of the present system, which, as carried on, was inefficient and wasteful. The vehicles being of the corridor type, there was a heavy loss of time in loading, frequently causing all traffic to be held up. If it were possible to adopt vehicles of the open type, as existing on the Sydney and Wellington tramways system, that loss would be to a grot extent minimised. "I think the only constitutional method 5s to provide for an elective board to control the whole of the transport in the metropolitan area in the interest of public safety and convenience." added the witness. "The present control is wholly unjust." Regarding a transport board, Mr. Joll thought the board shoulo control and license ail transport in the area, and should have power to acquire any service it thought fit to acquire. He was strongly of opinion, however, that the board should only acquire a service as a last resort, after all possibility of satisfactory service in the public interest being furnished bv private enterprise had been eliminated.

Mr. Joll said his evidence expressed the unanimous views of the Mount Eden Borough Council. He was authorised to state that, in return for proper representation on a transport board, and to improve the present intolerable position in the suburban areas, the Mount Eden Council would advise its ratepayers to concede its proportion of financial responsibility for the present transport assets, subject to the assets being - properly valued, the financial responsibility to be allocated on a capital value basis. Witness Asked to Stand Down. The chairman asked if the witness had a resolution to support the statement that the views he had expressed were the unanimous views of the Mount Eden Borough Council. Witness: I have no resolution. I did not want to give evidence, but I was ; asked to represent the couneil. "That has been our difficulty all along," said the chairman. "Other witnesses have told us they represent local bodies. Are we to accept this as the considered opinion of a local body ? If so, why was the statement not made by Mr. Potter, and a witness saved ?" Mr. Rogerson explained that he had not called the witness. The evidence had been briefed by Mr. Melville, in whose absence the speaker had introduced Mr. Joll to the box. Mr. Johnstone (to Mr. Rogerson): But I thought you are here representing Mount Eden, and that Mr. Melville is representing the Waitemata County. Mr. Rogerson: I don't think we need go into that. Mr. W. G. T. Goodman (a member of the commission): This has placed the commission in a very unfortunato position. The Chairmen: Yes, Mr. Joll; you must support t.iis statement by a minute showing that, it is the opinion of the Mount Eden Borough Council.. Please stand down until wo get certified copies of the resolutions. Wellington Operating Costs. As no further witness was available before the luncheon adjournment Mr. Barton asked that Mr. Cable be called to answer two questions which would assist the commission on points it was then considering, namely, the cost of power to trams in Wellington, and the cost of running buses. Mr. Cable said power for the Wellington trams was derived from the City Council's electricity department. The cost for the year ended March, 1927, was .9d per standard direct current unit, and for the year ended March, 1928, the figure was .85d per unit. Thst price included a profit of 10 per cent., paid by the tramways to the electricity department. Regarding bus operations, Mr. Cable said the working expenses per bus mile were 16a in the year ended March, 1926, 17.55 din 1927, and 21.75 din 1928. About 30 buses were now being operated. The figures allowed 20 per cent, for depreciation, but did not include anything for interest or sinking fund, as 'the vehicles were purchased out of revenue. Mr. Cable will give fuller evidence later. Attitude of New Lynn. Walter Leigh Titchener, chairman of the New Lynn Town Board, said he had been appointed to put forward that body's views on the transport question. Although the views might be critical of tho City Council, he explained, they were not intended to be hostile. The witness claimed that private enterprise ran transit facilities at a lower running cost than the City Council. His board had been informed by the manager of tho company serving the district, long before the advent of the City Council buses, that the company was prepared and willing to continue the services then running. The board was of the opinion that, had the city not interfered, the district would still be enjoying a satisfactory service, which would become steadily stronger through increasing population. "My board is most emphatically of the opinion that all buses on the main highway should run right through to the city from the outer districts," added the witness. "Feeder services are distinctly detrimental to the adequacy and efficiency of services, and seriously impair their earning power without any adequate saving in running costs. At the same time passengers are gravely inconvenienced, and are called upon to suffer most annoying loss of time. Not the least of the difficulties of the feeder services discharging and loading at Surrey Crescent lies in the fact that the trams are fully taxed by purely local traffic, and there is little accommodation and less comfort for bus passengers." " Grotesque Anomalies." Another cause of serious discontent was "the grotesque anomalies" in the scale of fares. One instance quoted related to the Henderson-City service. Henderson to Avondale cost 2s, but Henderson to Hall's almost two miles farther, cost Is 9d, while Henderson to the city cost 2s 3d. On that computation the fare from .Avondale to the city was only threepence; vet Avondale passengers had to pay Is 3d. The request of the City Council to local bodies to guarantee Is 6d per bus mile had been rejected because the New Lynn board was far from satisfied that such a cost was reasonable or necessary, said Mr. Titchener, who proceeded to criticise various items of expenditure. The New Lynn Town Board urged that the control of all transport services should be placed in the hands of a representative elected transport board, continued , Mr. Titchener. In the event of the tramway system being acquired, the districts served bv that system should be wholly responsible for its capital cost. However, in order to get rid of an intolerable position, tho board had unanimously agreed to advise its ratepayers to concede a measure of financial responsibility under proper safeguards in return for proper representation on a transport board, and provided the trams wero taken at valuation. The commission adjourned until this morninc. It was inSffnated there was a possibility of Mr, G. A. Troup, Mayor of Wellington, giving evidence to-morrow.