THE TRAMS

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160797, 3 November 1920, Page 9

THE TRAMS

THE GONVILLE-CASTLECLIFF * ' SERVICE. TROUBLE OVER AN AGREEMENT Considerable discussion took place at the usual monthly meeting of the Gonville-Castlecliff Tramway Board last evening over the proposed agreement with the Borough for the supply of cars and power for the suburban tramways. As most local residents are aware the Gonville-Castlecliff tram lines were not a, portion of the Borough undertaking. They were constructed by the suburbanites out of a loan of £42,000, to provide the .interest on which a rate was ■Struck over an area embraced within the Gonville and Castlecliff. Town District. At /the outset a seven-years’ agreement was entered into between the. Borough Council and the Tramway Board, under which the former agreed to place cars on the line and charge the Board 9%d per car mile for the cars and 7d for the trailers, the Board undertaking “to take a minimum car mileage"”ol, 120,000For the first year or two a restricted service was rim, the traffic-, offering not absorbing the minimum mileage, and the Board had to pty the Borough £7OO for services it never received. As the outcome of representations made to the Council by the Board, the minimum was lowered to 110,000,1 "but the Council declined to give any concession for the first two years’ -loss. As time passed on the service grew rapidly, and when the agreement expired in November, 1919, the takings on the line had increased to £8657 from £3336 in 1912-lf, the car mileage run in 1919 - being 132,000, an excess of 221-000 miles over the minimum provided for in the agreement. On the termination of the agreement at the- end of > last year the Council raised the price of car mileage from 9%d and 7d to-1/2‘and and a fresh document was drawn up. This agreement has not yet been signed, the parties being' unable to agree upon k particular’ clause in the original agreement which the Council desires should be retained in the new agreement, but which the Board objects to, giving the Council power to purchase the Board's undertaking, on giving 12 monlns’ notice, on payment to the Board ,of the actual cost of the undertaking, excluding the first year’s interest on the loans. \ The members of argue that, as the Council has the option of “taking,- over an undertaking which to-day could not be installed for less than £60,000, and ap the interest for the- first year on the loan (£1925) was a part of the undertaking, it is not unreasonable to 'ask that the latter sum should be included,in the price to ha paid by the Borough?. 9 The Borough Council, on the other hand, hold that as the Board offered to renew the agreement, with certain other alterations, including , the increase in price of power, it should not now raise any objection about the terms at which the Coun-. ell shall purchase the undertaking. During the discussion last# evening members contended, thatfihe re« quest of the Board was quite reasonable, especially in view of the fact that not only had the suburban ratepayers presented the Borough with £7OO for services’not rendered, but during the past eight years had contributed! many' thousands of pounds in rates for the payment of interest on a loan for tram, services which greatly benefitted borough re-, sidents as well as' settlers in the suburbs and materially/ helped to swell the takings on the Borough lines. In asking/ the Council, to purchase for £4O/000, the Board desired only a refund of the actual amount expended .ip the construction of the line. 7 Eventually it was resolved to notify the Council- that th,e Board would be willing to renew the agreement, provided the Council agreed to purchase the;; undertaking for £40,000, a sum 6f /£2OOO expended on the tea kiosk being 'excluded, from the purchase price. Under the agreement with 'the Council, the sanction of ’the ratepayers of the tramway district has to be obtained for the sale to the Borough, and it was decided to take a poll at the same time as the general election of members on the' 10th of next month.