THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1935 CITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22029, 8 February 1935, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1935 CITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

As the result of his recent trip abroad the general manager of the Auckland Transport Board has produced a lengthy report summarising his new experiences and containing the conclusions he has reached from the evidence. Anybody reading it must be convinced that Mr. Ford has inquired diligently and given much thought to what he has seen. This has to be conceded whether his recommendations are accepted or disputed. The whole subject of passenger transport, especially in congested centres of population, has been the centre of much controversy the world over. New Zealand has been no exception, nor has Auckland been immune. In a country like this, far from the scene of most recent developments, it is often hard to decide on whi y ch side of the argument right lies. In these circumstances Mr. Ford's survey, with its •carefully documented facts and its impartial tone, is really valuable. He gives detailed attention to the type of vehicle which he considers has been most developed since his last visit abroad, the electricallydriven trolley bus, or, as it is 'sometimes called, the trackless tramcar. This vehicle combines many of the virtues of the tramcar and of the motor omnibus. It is more flexible than the tramcar in that its course is not cob fined to rails. It can pull in to the kerbside to take on or discharge passengers, and it does not require a permanent way, which is costly to instal and maintain. As against the motor bus dependent on internal combustion engines, it is odourless,, more silent, its motive power does mot come from abroad, it; does not offer the same problems of braking, acceleration and stopping as the motor-vehicle with its contained engine. On the othe'r hand, it is, like the tramcar, confined to particular routes where the system of overhead wires is available..

All the comparative values just recited can be found in Mr. Ford's report. Having discussed the virtues and possibilities of the modern trolley bus, he considers in detail the feasibility of doing away with the present tramway system in its favour. All things considered, the estimated capital cost of the-change-over is not high—some £802,000 less the proceeds from the sale of material and equipment superseded. Much of the present overhead system could be utilised, though it would have to be adapted to the new purpose. A negative return would be necessary because the new vehicles would be rubber-tyred and independent of the rails which now provide a return for the current. The present tracks would have to be demolished and the street paving completed. Thereafter the cost of permanent way maintenance would be saved. I't would be necessary to provide t balloon loops or some similar device for turning at the various termini. Mr. Ford remarks that the trolley bus must be turned ; it cannot bes driven the reverse way as a tramcar is. If such things could be done, conditions on the main thoroughfares where tramcars now run would be materially altered. Many people consider that the change would be wholly for the better. Mr. Ford does not agree with thisi. He considers that the trolley buses can contribute more to congestion when a traffic block occurs than railbound tramcars do. They remain in an orderly line on their tracks. The trolley buses may be distributed over the roadways. Further he considers that tramcars, with their fixed undeviating course on rails, help to keep traffic clear of congestion as the other vehicle, liable to swing inward or outward, would not. He has not allowed for the relief to traffic because other vehicles would not have to pull up as they do now when tramcars are receiving and discharging passengers. Neither has he remarked on the ease with which a trolley bus, should it break down, could be withdrawn, leaving those following free to move. When one tramcar goes amiss on the line, it often holds up a long string of those following for an appreciable time. Having thus discussed the new form of pasiienger traction, Mr. Ford reports against adopting it in substitution for the present tramway system. In so doing, he relies on two main arguments, the standard of service at present being provided, and the heavy capital debt now carried by the transport system. The Transport Board has a loan indebtedness of £2,321,867 and a sinking fund reserve of £740,920. Mr. Ford's finding is that if the new trolley bus system were installed, at an added cost of some £BOO,OOO, it would not show sufficient profits to compensate for the new load and at the same time meet the capital indebtedness already existing. It is a conclusion that cannot be successfully attacked. Yet it does not mean there cannot be any new developments in city transport. In view of what he hais reported, the board will have to think long and hard before deciding to lay any more permanent way, if extensions of its system are in view, Mr. Ford's report shows

that trolley buses are run 111 conjunction with tramcars. They are in New Zealand, Christchurch being the case in point. The possibility of trying trolley buses experimentally on part of the present system should also be considered. The Victoria Avenue section, about which there has been a good deal of discussion, suggests itself as a possible field for experiment. Many of the advantages which Mr. Ford claims for rail-bound tramway services can be cheerfully admitted. Yet the same approval cannot be given to railbound transport policy if there are possible advantages in departing from it. Mr. Ford has presented an admirable report, and directed it to a sound conclusion. This does not mean that the whole chapter is closed. His very interesting finding on trolley buses should be kept well in mind, with the idea of making use of it at the first good opportunity.