ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20597, 23 June 1930, Page 11

ALBERT STREET TRAMS.

CRITICISM OF PROPOSAL". BOARD'S FINANCIAL POSITION. TRACK RENEWALS QUESTION. "In reading Sir George Elliot s speech at the meeting of the Bank of New Zealand it seemed to me," writes Mr. E. Kitchener, "that he' provides an adequate answer to any suggestion for tramway extensions at the present moment. 'lt is a lamentable fact that, as in Australia, we in New Zealand are losing all sense of proportion where public expenditure is concerned,' said Sir George. It is apparent, also, that in replying to the remarks I made to the Chamber of Commerce last week, Mr. Laidlaw has, momentarily at least, lost his sense of proportion. He says that the reading of my figures gave him the impression that the sooner the Albert Street outlet was opened the better, as it would not only carry the charges on the capital expenditure, but would actually show a surplus. "In his report on the proposed line Mr. Ford, the tramway manager, said that interest and sinking fund on the £29,000 capital charge for this line would be about £2645 per annum. He estimated that £3300 would be saved by diverting a certain amount of traffic from Queen Street, leaving a surplus of only £835. But, and here's the rub, the very considerable cost of track maintenance and various incidentals have not been taken into account. Track maintenance alone would probably reduce his profit to a loss, for he makes it clear in his statement to the board that the proposed line would not directly induce increased revenue. Contraction of Traffic. " Mr. Laidlaw infers that I attributed the decrease of 2,500,000 passengers last year, as compared with 1927, to the occasional congestion in .Queen Street. This is absurd on the face of it. The Transport Board has more trams than it had three years ago; it has extended its tracks along Dominion Road, to Point j Chevalier and to Meadowbankj yet it ; appears to anticipate carrying still fewer passengers this year. Mr. Ford estimates that -in the next 12 months the combined mileage will be 6,987,000, as compared with a mileage of 7,308,000 in 1927. He estimates the ensuing year's working to show a credit balance of £2296, but as £2043 of this is cash in hand at the beginning of the year, the balance seeins to me to be a trifle shaky and might all too easily slip over to the debit side. "In criticising my figures regarding capital expenditure and substituting others Mr. Laidlaw makes a serious mistake. He includes the amount spent on track renewals, which should not be a capital charge on the tramway system, any more than new tyres would be on a motor-car that has been in commission for a year or more. Track renewals should "be a charge against working expenses. He refrains from mentioning_ that two-thirds of the 1928 loan of £526,000, unexpended at the time the figures in question were published, would have to be added to capital expenditure when the extensions authorised under the loan are completed. Deferred Expenditure. "The deputation of which I was spokesman was composed of members of the Chamber of Commerce and represented ratepayers generally. The question of transport affects the whole community, not Queen Street traders alone, it was not our purpose to show the Transport Boai-d up in an unfavourable light, as Mr. Laidlaw suggests. As a matter of fact business men recognise that the board is doing its best to make the system pay against heavy odds. Any projected extensions merit the closest scrutiny before a penny piece is spent. The Transport Board was fortunate in being able to show a decrease of £24,000 in working expenses last year, as compared with 1927, but it must be remembered that this was almost entirely due to the Power Board's reducing its power charges, as well as a reduction of 330,000 in mileage run by the trams. Mr. Laidlaw speaks of the Transport Board's progress, but he does not attempt to reconcile the state of the {tramway tracks and the huge amount which should have been spent on them with the prcfit of £BBBB alleged to have been made by the board last year. Had the tracks been maintained in anything like decent repair, no profit, not even a paper one, could have been shown. Mr. Allum, by his own statements and by his recent visit to Wellington, has admitted the truth of this. It is all so obvious. " I, and those- who formed the deputation, have one object in view, and that is to safeguard the wider interests of the community at large as against the interests of any one section. Sir George Elliot advises caution as public expenditure has been on, an unwarranted scale." CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ALLEGATION OF DISCOURTESY "Civic" writes: —In Friday's Herald there is a report of a meeting of the council of the Chamber of Commerce dealing with the proposed Albert Street tramway extension. In my opinion the council before passing any resolution, before publishing any opinion, should have forwarded to the chairman of the Transport Board (who is a member of the chamber) a copy of the statements made by the leader of the deputation and asked for a statement from the board in reply to same. They would then have been in a position to give a much more reliable opinion. The opinion expressed, t lie resolution passed, is not worthy of any consideration. The council has treated Mr. Ford and the Transport Board in a most discourteous manner. It is to be hoped that the members of the chamber take action in the matter. An opinion has been expressed and published as that of the chamber without a meeting being called to confirm such opinion. No statement should be published as that of the chamber's unless a meeting of the members has approved of same. On this question we have had one or two glaring examples of discourteous treatment of the "Transport Board. Mr. i Alfred Eady organised a deputation of the Queen Street shopkeepers to wait on j the Transport Board. As usual the depu- j talion was received with the utmost j courtesy, listened to with interest and a 1 definite promise was given that the board would fully consider the matter and publish their views and intentions. Nothing could be fairer. Without waiting for any reply the same deputation called on the City Council and suggested that the council should endeavour to stop the Transport Board going any further in the matter, or if it had not power to do so. the Town Planning Act should be used for that purpose. The railways do not pay. Why? Because of political inter fero.nce with the management. The trams have had a bad spin because of outside interference. Let. Mr. Ford manage them and he will make them pay. The Chamber of Commerce Council may be composed of a number of sound business men, but if they will pause and think for a moment how they would feel individually and collectively if the Transport Board received a deputation criticising their business and published an opinion without consulting the j board, they will have some idea how j Air. Ford, the chairman and members of the Transport Bond must be feeling now. J