ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20595, 20 June 1930, Page 13

ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

FURTHER OPPOSITION. TRANSPORT BOARD'S POLICY. CRITICISM OF FINANCES. An intimation that in its qiinion the possibilities of utilising Hobson Street, Anzac Avenue and the Parnell route to relieve the Queen Street traffic congestion were not being sufficiently explored was given by the Chamber of Commerce council yesterday to a deputation of Queen Street ratepayers which sought the support of the chamber in its request to the Auckland Transport Board that no fuj-ther tramway extensions should be carried out until the present position was improved and consolidated. The deputation, which was headed by Mr. E. Kitchener, was introduced by Mr. A. G. Lunn. Mr. Kitchener said the deputation did not claim to consist of experts, but of ordinary business men who could understand figures and who had become seriously concerned at the parlous state into which the transport system had drifted. Comparing the years 1930 and 1927, it would be seen from the reports of the Transport Board that the capital expenditure had increased by £447,683, or 23 per cent., while revenue had increased by only £36,203, or 5.6 per cent. Against this, the fixed charges showed an increase of £14,632. In this same period the number of passengers carried showed a decrease of over 2.500,000, although earnings had increased owing to a general rise in fares. Finance and Maintenance. Another striking fact was that last year the trams ran 330,000 miles less than in 1927. On the other hand, the power saving, which was due in part to reduced mileage, but principally to the reductions in power charged, amounted to £24,000. Mr. Kitchener said he considered that capital expenditure had reached a stage where a halt should be made until the position could be consolidated. In giving evidence before the Transport Commission in April, 1923, Mr. Ford had stated that at least £90,000 would be required to bring the tracks into a satisfactory state of repair. During the past two years about £70,000 had been spent on tracks. Therefore, assuming that the tracks to-day were comparable with their condition in 1928, which they were not, the Transport Board should have expended at least £20,000 more on this work over the period than it had done. It was hard to reconcile this position with the announcement of a surplus of £BBBB for the past year, continued Mr. Kitchener. Had the board faithfully carried out its obligations there would have been a deficit of £12,000 or more on the year's working, instead of a very dubious surplus. Estimated Loss on Extensions. The deputation was seriously concerned, further, bv reason of the fact that the accumulated deficit on the system had now reached a very considerable sum. In addition to this there was an item of £50,000 debited to the suspense account for track renewals expended in 1926, which should be a running charge against the undertaking for a very much shorter period than 20 years. There was also the question of tramway extensions which had been authorised by the. ratepayers and were now being carried out at a cost of £500,000. tramways manager in a report had estimated the* loss on these extensions for three years at £53,000. According to the tramway manager's estimates for the ensuing year's working he had budgeted for an estimated credit balance of £2296, said Mr. Kitchener. Of this £2043 was cash in hand at the beginning of the year. It was also singular that in spite of the increase in capital expenditure that would, no doubt, approach £750,000 by the time the authorised extensions were put down, the combined mileage was estimated to be 6.987,000, as compared with a mileage of 7.308,000 in 1927. With the considerably increased overhead, therefore, a much restricted'service was being given by the Transport Board, as compared with 1927. Losses on Motor-buses. It might be said that the pursuance of the transport policy of tram extensions, as outlined by the board, would reduce motor-bus losses. This appeared fallacious, as the increased capital charges were an offset against this factor. It was submitted by the deputation that the time had come to slop further capital expenditure until the present extensions had reached a net revenue-earning position. The speaker urged the chamber to use its influence to see that the Transport Board made adequate expenditure on tracks, the permanent way in many places being in a most dangerous condition. He felt, also, that the ratepayers should have a frank statement of the actual position. The chamber was asked to consider the economic aspects of the whole transport undertaking, particularly the projected extensions, in the light of the figures just quoted. The deputation was opposed to the Avondale and Albert Street extensions while the Transport Board's finances were in such an unsatisfactory position. Resolution by Executive. Replying to the deputation, Mr. Stewart said the question had been considered by the Chamber of Commerce council, and he invited the members to remain while the discussion on the matter was brought to a conclusion.

The following resolution was then carried: "That in the opinion of the executive the possibilities of utilising Hobson Street, Anzac Avenue and Parnell to relieve the Queen Street traffic congestion should be more fully explored by the Transport Board before considering further capital expenditure, such as that involved in the Albert Street proposition; moreover, that any additional capital expenditure should not be undertaken unless it could bo shown to bo an economic proposition, yielding an additional revenue commensurate with tho outlay."