Transport Monopoly

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 418, 28 July 1928, Page 8

Transport Monopoly

Board for Metropolitan Area

(THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, To-day. THE pith of the Auckland Transport Commission's recommendations is this: — Formation of a metropolitan boai } d to control the whole of Auckland traffic.

Board to consist of ten members, six from the city and two from each of two specially created suburban areas. Power to borrow, with the right also of levy upon local bodies affected.

Ownership of trams and all municipal buses to be vested in the board, according to value as at April 1, 1928.

The commission, the report of which was presented to Parliament to-day, made it very clear that the course adopted was not considered the most desirable one, but that the alternative suggestions were eliminated because of their impracticability—particularly in view of- what was termed the “decadent municipal outlook” displayed by those appearing before the commission. Four alternative suggestions were considered: (1) Control by the Auckland City

Council, but without the power of licence; (2) Inclusion of co-opted members from outside on the Tramways Committee of the council; (3) Creation of Greater Auckland: (4) A new board to take over the control of traffic in areas already defined. This narrowed the issue to the question of whether control should remain in the hands of the council or be given into the hands of a newlycreated body. The commission agreed that the council should not be the licensing authority for bus licences, but dismissed the proposal of city control because of the conflicting interests of the local bodies on the one hand and the city proper on the other. The outside bodies, the commission thought, had made no case for taking the control away from the City Council, while there was no evidence of a willingness on the pare of the Auckland Electric-Power Board to take over transport, as had been suggested. This left one proposal, and one

j which the commission advanced with regret, because progressive elimination had left nothing else. The lack of unity among the citizens and the local authorities in Auckland over unified control, was commented upon, though the commission emphasised the futility of compelling amalgamation. To quote the finding of the commissioners: “We have expressed our opinion of what we believe to be the narrow, short-sighted policy, the lack of true civic pride and public spirit, which magnifies the importance of any local benefits that may attach to the present system and is blind to the advantages of amalgamation. This is a I matter which is entirely in the hands |of the citizens of Auckland and disi trict, and until a spirit of co-opera-tion and unity has been cultivated sufficiently to dissipate the present unhappy and arbitrary divisions, the discord and difficulties which are inherent in those divisions will conI tinue. CENTURY OUT OF DATE The transport equipment and methods and the standard of comfort required belong to the decade 1925 to 1935. The municipal outlook and spirit deposed to by many witnesses before us belong to the decade 1825 to 1835. “The solution of the problem requires us to bring transport requirements and civic administration into line. One alternative is to bring the civic administration up to date with the requirements. That would mean a compulsory amalgamation of the local bodies, and that is by general consent wholly impolitic. The only alternative to to relate the present transport problem to the older methods and trust to time and the education of the public to remove the anomaly.” Auckland, it is suggested, should be divided into three districts: 1) The City of Auckland as at present constituted; (2) the boroughs of Mount Eden. Newmarket and Mount Albert; (3) the borough of Onehunga and the road districts of One Tree Hill, Mount Roskill, Panmure township and Mount Wellington, and the town district of Ellerslie.

TRAMS CHANGE OWNERSHIP The Transport Board would have complete control of trams and buses within the district, with authority to make by-laws and impose a straight out levy, instead of separate rates. The whole tramways and buses system would be taken over from the City Council at a valuation shown in the balance sheet of the council up to March 31 of this year, the board to indemnify the council accordingly in respect to loans and sinking funds outstanding. Members would hold office for six years, but half of them would retire after three years, thereafter elections to be held every three years. The board chairman is to collect £250 a year, and members £1 10s a meeting, with a maximum of £7B a year.