THE TRAMWAYS QUESTION.

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 925, 19 September 1896, Page 6

THE TRAMWAYS QUESTION.

The Matter to Have Further Coa-

sl&eration

It is reassuring to find that a majority of the City Council is opposed to the attempt to rush theParrish electric tramway scheme through without mature consideration. The question ha 3 been referred back to a special committee of the whole Council for further deliberation ; and even though the motion towards this end was only carried by a narrow majority of one, the action taken disclosed a determination on the part of a solid party in the Council that no indecent haste should be shown in closing with the Parrish proposals, and that the best terms should be made for the city. This is a point gained, inasmuch as the period of delay affords valuable time for further reflection.

New issues have row cropped up in this matter. For example, Mr Bruce Lloyd has written on behalf of the Messrs Siemens, the .eminent firm of electrical engineers, asking to be afforded an opportunity of making an offer for the construction of these tramways. And probably Mr Lloyd's principals are not the only ones in this line of business who would be glad to enter into competition with the Messrs Parrish in the matter of supplying Auckland with tramways. AH of which goes to prove that we are acting with undue haste in this tramway transaction, which is a matter of vital importance to the Aucklanders of today and of a whole generation, and that nothing is to be lost and much to be gained by holding our hands until we have made positively the best terms for ourselves that are available to ns.

The OnsEHVEit sincerely trusts that when the special committee meets it will give careful consideration to the proposal that we should construct these tramways ourselves. The total cost would be less than the expenditure on the Calliope Dock, and would be distributed between the city and suburban boroughs. The city's share of the annual interest would be very little more than we spend every year upon the maintenance of the Albert Park. This is worth making a note of. Then, the earnings of the tramways would be considerable, even with the popular system of penny sections, and for every pound the city and suburbs paid for interest they would pocket at least five from profits. This is not a matter of speculation. Already, the traffic is sufficient to~guarantee big profits to an inexpensive and cheaply-worked system snch as the electrical. The cost of the system is a bngbear created to frighten taxpayers. But Auckland has repeatedly faced a

greater cost upon mere fads. This is not a fad. It is a public work, which would earn great profits.

Another objection is that we have no one here who could build the tramways. This is a tiny obstacle — indeed it is an advantage. Why should anyone here necessarily build them ? We can call for tenders for their construction in London and elsewhere, in which case we will get tramways well and faithfully built by good people at a minimum competitive cost. This would be a guarantee of the best service for the least money. Another objection is that the Council officials are not competent to run them, and that abuses might arise. Very possibly bo, bnt it is not proposed that the Council officials should have anything to do with the service. It would, or ought to be, managed by a trust composed of representatives from the city and suburban borough councils. This would appoint its own manager, would be free from borough influence oi 1 control, and would be alive to the advantages of securing the best results for the people. Sydney tramways aie run by the Government, and pay handsomely with steam motors. Why should municipal tramways not pay here with the cheaper electric motive power ?

Councillor Patterson voiced a frequentlyused argument in favour of the Parrish scheme when he said the people would be carried 33 percent, cheaper on these trams. But what guarantee have we of this ? It is not provided for in the Parrish agreement. There was a vague promise in one of their letters that passengers would be carried for 2d, but, all the same, the agreement gives the Parrish syndicate the power to charge 6d after nightfall from one end of Queen-street to the other But would a 2d fare meet the times either now or forty years hence? Surely not. The penny section system is in vogue, and ia highly popular elsewhere. Why should it not be introduced here ? And, given municipal tramways, it would be introduced. On the Ponsonby line, for example, the proper fare is Id to the top of Wellesley-street, Id to the reservoir, and Id to the tramway stables. This Bystem ought to have been installed years ago. To-day, it would be consistent with the times, but twenty years hence a just fare might be Id for the whole distance. And yet we bind ourselves for forty years to the Parrish syndicate, giving them the right to exact sixpence for any distance after nightfall during the whole period. Has the Council thought of this ?