TRANSPORT INQUIRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19963, 4 June 1928, Page 11

TRANSPORT INQUIRY.

SITTING OF COMMISSION. WELLINGTON'S EXPERIENCE. EVIDENCE BY THE MAYOR. UNIFIED CONTROL FAVOURED. The Mayor of Wellington, Mr. G. A. Troup, who had come to Auckland specially at the request of the Transport Commission, gave evidence before the commission on Saturday. Mr. Troup upheld the principle of unified city administration, which, he said, had been most successful in Wellington, and promised good results in the future. He was not in favour of separate boards to replace City Council committees of trading depsirtments. Replying to written questions submitted to him by the chairman, the witness said he had been Mayor of Wellington for a little over "a year, and had served as a councillor for two years previously. He had visited Auckland at fairly frequent interval!!, for the past 40 years. The boundaries of Auckland City, as indicated on the map, were, from a townplanning point of view, very bad. The present division of the Auckland metropolitan area among a number of local bodies was altogether against economy. There must be a multiplicity of paid officers, find the smaller bodies probably could not arrange loans satisfactorily* There must also be a -loss because municipal administration and methods of carrying out- works would not be uniform. No 100,000 Limit. Asked whether he thought the local knowledge possessed by members of the smaller bodies would be an advantagtt, Mr. Troup said a large united body should have a better grip of its work than a small local body, and, through being less swayed by local influences and employing more highly-paid and more able officers; it should be more efficient all round. It should also attract a better class of man to its membership. The same principles applied to the control of transport in a geographically united area. He could not assent to the proposition that a growing city reached the point of most efficient- administration when its population was 100.000. In Wellington h© had not found thaLafter that point the municipal machine, with its trading departments, became clogged with detail. It was, after all, a metropolitan organisation. If councillors attended matters of policy, leaving the paid officials to their proper work, there should be no clogging. Both trading and non-trading services, in Sir. Troup's experience, could be carried on by the same body. Trading services gave the Wellington City Council less trouble than any. He was chairman of the Tramways and Power Committee, and he had never known a meeting to last longer, than three-quarters of an hour. One reason was that the manager was a very efficient man, and did not' burden the committee with needless detail. Ais regards amalgamation, Wellington City had now absorbed all the adjoining boroughs, with very satisfactory results to itself and to them. There had been no clogging as a result. Too Many Boards. Mr. Troup detailed the non-municipal bus services running in the licensing district, controlled by his council. There had lately been one appeal from a decision of the licensing authority. He felt there was something to be said for the argument that a local body which itself owned bus services should not sit in a judicial capacity as a licensing body. This' was not to say that his own council was unable to act judicially; he held that it was able. A fairer arrangement would be to hand the duties over to the senior magistrate of the city. The Chairman (smiling): Before that were done, I hope you yould allow me to be heard on my own behalf. The witness said there had been some difficulties between the city and other bodies before the absorption of the latter. These difficulties had now disappeared, except that naturally different districts were found asking for certain work to be done. The council did its best to satisfy these demands.

The Chairman: What do you think of the setting up of separate boards to control various undertakings ? Witness: I think' we are setting up far too many separate bodies altogether. It seems to me that the same difficulties are likely to occur between these bodies as between adjecent local bodies. All the services should be controlled by committees of a central body. In reply to Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Troup said he was convinced a united municipality was in a much better position than a sectional body to raise loans. The Wellington City Council, by reason of its combination of functions, had lately been able to raise a 5 per cent, loan at 98. These were better terms than any Australian city had obtained. The witness considered a separate transport board, such as that proposed in Auckland, would have many difficulties that a united municipality would not experience. The Wellington City Council found its trading departments a great help.. They had made a profit of £70,000 in the last year and recently the council had taken two sums of £20,000 each from the electric lighting account to help it with other finance. Position of Newmarket. 5 The fact that Wellington was under a single body had materially simplified the problem of providing traffic outlets, and would do the same for town-planning in general. He could see no justification whatever for the continued existence in Auckland of an island borough such as Newmarket. Mi*. Meredith: Supposing the island borough has several times definitely refused to come in ? Witness; I think the authorities should do what is right and compel it to come in. But surely the borough has some rights?— Yes, but the principle should be the greatest good for the greatest number. The island borough should be brought in for the general good. The witness said his council did not operate buses outside its own boundaries, except occasional sight-seeing trips up the Huti Ynllev. n f Mr. Meredith raised the question _ the rebutting evidence called bv Council. He hoped that if th« C^LrSr' cil called further .witnesses Greater Auckland su re butting would have the right to evidence. nf which they had a y , ba morning. ,