CAUSEWAY QUESTION

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 212, 12 October 1914, Page 10

CAUSEWAY QUESTION

APPORTIONING THE COST. COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY OPENS. A PROTEST FROM REDCLIFFS. The Commission appointed to enquire into and apportion among the bodies concerned the cost of the Sumner Causeway was opened by the Commissioner (Mr W. S. Short, Assistant Under-Sec-retary of Public Works) in the Provincial Council Chambers this morning. The bodies primarily Concerned are the Christchurch Tramway Board and the Sumner Borough Council. Mr T. G. Russell appeared for the Tramway Board and Mr A. F. Wright for the Sumner Borough Council. THE COMMISSIONER'S TASK. The Commissioner said the Deed of Arbitration required him to answer two questions:—(l) What proportion per centum of the capital sum required should" be paid by the bodies to construct the following things: A causeway across a small portion of the harbour of Sumner and the removing of the tramway from its present site and laying it on the causeway. The arbitrator must not take into, consideration the fact that the borough of Sumner would allow the board to take stone free of charge, but he must take into consideration the fact that the construction of the causeway would allow the borough to construct a road over the causeway at a cost lower than would otherwise have been the case. He had to enquire on what basis the percentage was to be fixed—whether on capital value or on the proportionate use of the tramway by the;Sumner people. He understood the matter came up under sub-clause I. of Section 27 of the Christchurch Tramway District Amendment Act, 1912. This allowed of special areas being created in order that tramways might be constructed in such special areas. He was to give an opinion of the proportion of the cost of this work which should be debited to the special area. The Tramway Board, he understood, intended to raise a loan and charge the special area with a certain proportion of the cost of this tramway. Mr Wright: We do not regard it as a new tramway. We regard it as an improvement or an alteration of the tramway. •«, • Mr Short said it seemed to him the greatest difficulty, that was going to arise in this matter was the basis on which the apportionment was going to be made. It might well be argued that was a proportionate use. One had to consider what was the benefit to Sumner and whether it was to be based wholly upon the interest of the people of Sumner or not. A REDCLIFFS VIEW. Mr A. W. Beaven, speaking on behalf of the people of Redcliffs, said "the Borough of Sumner was divided into two parts by the range of cliffs, Sumner being divided from Redcliffs. The Redcliffs people were exercised about this matter, and were wondering what effect this causeway would have upon the foreshore of Redcliffs. They feared that the erection of this wall or causeway might affect their foreshore, where yachting and boating ?clubs had their quarters. They wished to" know when would be their best time to protest against the causeway being made, and to speak as to the proportion that should be borne by Redcliffs. Mr Short: You will 'have an. opportunity to vote against the poll. Mr Beaven: If Sumner and Redcliffs are to go in as a whole the chance is the thing will be thrown out. But

there-is that other matter of the effect of the causeway upon the foreshore. Mr Short: That is rather outside my order of reference. We will gi\"e you an opportunity at the finish of saying what you wish. This arbitration is between two definite parties. CASE FOK TRAMWAY BQ\RD. Mr Russell said he came to the Commission as an advocate of both sides, and was not there to endeavour to squeeze anything more than was,, fair out of the Sumner Borough. The Tramway Board did not think there was any chance of an accident occurring*" by which loss of life might occur. The engineers estimated that the cost of the causeway would be £4710. The interest and sinking fund on the loan—the inteiest at 5 per cent, an I the sinkingfund at £ per cent. —would be £275 per annum. Mr Short: Can you say what proportion of the cost the Tramway Board considers the Sumner Borough should pay? Mr Russell: We would rather leave that to you, sir. * Mr Short: Is it not rather unfair not to make some sort of claim. They do not know what they have to meet. Mr Russell: We think if the Sumner people were to pay one half they would be getting a very great benefit at little exjiense. Mr Russell quoted statistics that had been taken on the Sumner line for the purpose of ascertaining what proportion of the tram passengers were residents and what proportion trippers. The figures were taken during the winter —from July 20 to August 16 — and gave the following results:—On the four Sundays, the four Saturdays, and the 20 other week days — Visitors. Residents. Four Sundays 2739 or 87 p.c. 430 or 13 p.c. Pour Saturdays 1375 or 48 p.c. 1499 or 52 p.c. Week days 4652 or 41 p.c. 6830 or 59 p.c. Whole period 8766 or 50 p.c. 8739 or 50 p.c. A -second return had been prepared for the Cranford Street-Spreydon line, a residential area showing the increase of traffic in spring, summer, and

autumn over the mid-winter period. The figures were:— J

A third return showing the apportionment of the Sumner "line reveuue (exclusive of the Woolston section) as between Sumner residential traffic and the Sumner holiday traffic showed the residential traffic returning £5193 and the holiday traffic returning £8587, the residential proportion being 37.69 per cent and the holiday proportion 62.31 per cent. A return showing the proportion of through fares showed 39.96 per cent, residential and 60.04 per cent, holiday. If, said Mr Eussell, the Sumner Borough were to build a road along where the causeway would go, the cost would be £4262: By using the tramway embankment as the outside of their road, to get a 25ft road in addition to the tram roadway, the cost would be £2145, thus leaving a saving to the Sumner -Borough of £2120 on the road by reason of the construction of the causeway. Mr Wright: There is not the slightest intention of the Sumner Borough Council ever constructing this road. EVIDENCE FOR THE BOARD. Prank Thompson, . general manager of the Christchurch Tramways, said the Tramways Board had instituted a very, low scale of fares on the Sumner line of under jd per mile for residents. Last year the loss on. the running of the cars on the Sumner line was £SOO odd. It was impossible from the traffic re : turns to discover the number of people who passed the Sumner cliffs. ■ To Mr Wright: About 60 oars a day passed under the cliffs—6o trips were made. The cost of each car w,as from £IOO to £I2OO. There had never been any cars damaged »by fulling rock. , Mr Wright: Has the track,ever been damaged? . Mr Thompson: .We have had our lines more damaged by the blasting operations of the Sumner Borough Council than by anything else,. Mr Wright: That was a joint affair. Mr Thompson said the North Beach line was operated at a greater loss than the Sumner line. The line had been recently completed for electric cars in order to reduce the. cost of operating. .The difference in the, fares on concessions per car mile on the Sumner, North Beach,-and New Brighton lines .was very small. The Board had removed a, great many of the centre tramway poles, and proposed to remove the balance during the coming, year. This was done mainly to suit the convenience of vehicular traffic. No special rating area was constituted to meet the cost of this. It was paid out of profits from payable lines. This work was not done because of anv danger to conductors or the travelling " public. When the regulations iad been observed there had been no serious accidents by reason of the centre poles. CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. James Alfred Flesher, ■ chairman of the Christchurch Tramway Board, and a Sumner ratepayer, said if an accident occurred to the present line, causing a prolonged dislocation of the tram traffic, property would decrease in. value considerably. ' The Sumner people—about 95 per cent, of them-—depended on the

tram service. A great many of the residents were employed in town. When the price of the trip .to Sumner was increased there was.apparently a. falling off in the traffic. A falling off was shown in the returns. If the outlying lines were cut out he did not think there would be a deficiency on the whole service. Quite 70 per cent, of the total revenue came from the first three sections. It was the tripper traffic that permitted the Tramways Board to give concessions to the residents in these outlying parts. To Mr. Wright: Sumner was, with New Brighton, the principal seaside place in Canterbury, and one of the chief lungs of the city. Sumner did not have any reserves. New Brighton did; it had.ooo acres of sand, which brought it the magnificent sum of about £lO per annum. Sumner depended almost entirely on the tram 4 traffic for its means of communication. If the trams were not running a motor 'bus service might spring up. But if a motor 'bus service ran to Sumner the local authority would have to come down with a pretty heavy tax to keep the roads in order. If they had the same difficulty in regard to the cliffs, the motor service would be of no use. Mr Short said his experience was that motor services started with a great flourish of trumpets, and after running for a time stopped. They had had an example of that in Kelburue (Wellington). Mr Flesher said he was not a convert to the motor 'buses. The removal of the danger of the cliffs was not analogous to the removing of the centre poles. There was not in that case danger to the conductors and passengers, and it accidents did occur they were due to carelessness. The erection of the causeway would allay public fear, and might to a certain extent increase the train traffic. To Mr Short: He thought the apportionment to Sunnier should be more than half. The benefit would.be more to Sumner than to the Board. The roadway was more unsafe from the cliffs than was the tram track. Bedcliffs was quite tied up with Sumner in this matter. If anything occurred to the tram service to Sumner, Kedcliffs would be bound to suffer. (Proceeding.)

Increase or decrease on • Total plebiscite Pour weeks revenue. period. ended £ Per cent. April 20, 1913 . . 556 Inc. 9.45 May 18, 1913 .. 566 Inc. 11.41 June 15, 1913 .. 516 Inc. 1.57 July 13, 1913 . . 499 Dec. 1.80 August 10, 1913 . . 508 Period of summer plebiscite. September 7, 1913 550 Inc. 8.26 October 5, 1913 . . 514 Inc. 1.18 November 2, 1913 537 Inc. 5.71 November 30, 1913 596 Inc. 17.32 December 28, 1913 614 Inc. 20.86 January 25, 1914 616 Inc. 21.26 V February 22, 1914 578 Inc. 13.78 March 22, 1914 .. 559 Inc. 10.04