ALBERT STREET TRAMS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1005, 23 June 1930, Page 8

ALBERT STREET TRAMS

REPLY TO MR. LAIDLAW AND MR. ALLUM Mr. S. Kitchener, whose remarkmade when he was speaking on behoof a deputation to the Chamber - Commerce, were criticised by Mr. J 7* C. Allum, chairman of the Board, and Mr. R. A. Laidiaw. geners« manager of the Farmers’ Tradingcp Ltd., makes his reply in a letter *" The Sun. Sir.— “When local body indebtedness |j. creases in 10 years from >' £ 65.000.000, there is every justification for communities to pause and taken ref ul stock of the situation.” e This concise statement from y ou leading article in last Friday’s Sun i< ! in itself an answer to both Mr. Allum« | and Mr. Laidlaw s criticism of the rr. marks I made at the Chamber of Commerce meeting last week. However. 1 ask your indulgence while 1 deal as briefly as possible wi» Mr. Allum’s “general refutation” an~ Mr. Laidlaw’s lengthy reply. The deputation upon whose behalf l j,.,! the privilege of speaking was of members of the Chamber of Commerce and represented ratepayers'cenerally. We take the stand that the ini terest of the citizens of Auckland are paramount as compared with the inter I ests of “West of Queen Street” or air' other section of the community. j t was with this City-wide view in mind that I spoke. Mr. Allum’s dismissal of my remarks was perhaps wise from Ids standpoint Still, I would like very much to know wherein my statement was misleading. which remarks were incorrect what vital facts were ignored, and how ho can defend the charge of “windowdressing” made against the TranspoBoard. Mr. Laidlaw’s loyal defence of the Transport Board’s policy is laudable if misdirected. In could not possibly construe my as an argument in favour of the Albert Street line on the assumption that it would show a profit, and thus relief the board’s unsatisfactory financial position. On the tramway manager's own showing, there would be a loss on this proposed extension. In his report on the project, Mr. Ford said that about £3,300 would be saved by the diversion of traffic from Queen Street, but that against this interest and sinking fund on the estimated capita! eoit of the line. £29,000, would amount £2.465, leaving an annual surplus of £835. Bo far so good, but what about track maintenance and other expenses incidental to every mile of tramway'’ Mr. Ford apparently omits to take these charges into account —charges that would, it seems clear, change the profit into a loss. Mr. Laidiaw has not done me the honour of reading the report of mv statement with the care that, in ail modesty, I feel it deserved. Otherwise he could never have said that 1 blamed the peak-load congestion in Queen Street for the decrease of two and a-half million passengers last year, as compared with 1927. Neither does Mr. Laidiaw believe anything so absurd. The reduction in the number of passengers carried, with the consequent reduction in tram mileage, is due to the changing transport habits of the public. It seems to me that the whole transport business is in a state of flux, which is all the more reason for greater caution. As a matter of fact, the Transport Board itself admits the truth of this observation. In spite of the recent extensions to Point Chevalier, Meadow bank and Dominion Road and additional trams, the manager estimates a combined mileage of 6,987,000 for this year, although in 1927. with less track miles and fewer trams, the mileage run was 7.308.000. TRAMS AND BICYCLES To what causes can the loss of tram passengers be attributed? Well, there aro many more motor-cars on the road, and bicycles are becoming almost as common here as they are in Christchurch. I have been told by men who ride bicycles to and from the suburbs and the city that the weekly payments on the machines come cheaper than tram fares, and that when all the payments have been made they travel between home and work for practically nothing. The train way manager showed further signs that his eyes are wide open to the changing conditions when h‘ estimated for a credit balance c( £2.296 on the ensuing year's working. This modest figure is all the more striking when it is pointed out tha: £2,043 of the amount is actually in hand in the form of cash at the beginning of the year. It is to be hoped that the board will make up the extra £253.

When Mr. Laidiaw undertook to correct my figures on capital expenditure he fell into the error of including track renewals under this heading. A-> a business man, he ought to know that track renewals should not be a capital charge, but rather a charge against the replacement of worn rails and similar accounts. He omits to refer to tb f fact that capital expenditure will be still further increased when the extensions now on hand are completed. I refer here to the balance of the 192 s loan of £526,000, about two-thirds of which was unexpended at the time the figures to which I referred were published. The large arrears in track maintenance which make last year’s alleged profit of £B.BBB a rather doubtful achievement, has been ignored by Mr. Laidiaw. Mr. Allum himself endorses my assertions with regard to this item in his candid admission ©- the conditions of the tracks and by bis recent visit .to Wellington for the purpose of securing a Government subsidy for the work of reconstruction. However, I am afraid I am strainin* your courtesy a little more than i* reasonable, so I will conclude by assuring Mr. Allum and Mr. Laidiaw. and ratepayers generally, that all we ask is that the Transport Board wiL give the ratepayers a full and tranjj statement of its position, and that if it can prove its policy to be in the b«* T . interests of the whole community w® shall be among its staunchest supporters. To quote Sir George Elliot: “Rates and taxes in New Zealand are steadily increasing: beyond a certain level, however, they cannot go furth® r without bringing about calamitous ftsuits to the tax-payers as well as to th® tax-gatherer.” And, as The Sun in this connection: ‘‘Definitely, the time has come for caution.” S. KITCHENER-