TRAMWAY MATTERS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 482, 15 April 1909, Page 7

TRAMWAY MATTERS.

« MEETING OF MIRAMAR RATEPAYERS. / A meeting ot the'residents of Miramar (called by tho Miramar Ratepayers' Association) was held in the Kiosk, Worser Bay, last night. Mr. Robert Hall was in tho chair, and there was a good attendance of residents. An apology for absence was received from Mr. C. J'. Crawford, Mayor, who expressed pleasure at soeing tho increased interest being taken in tho borough affairs. Tho chairman said that something should be done in reference to tho proposed increase ot tram faros. He had figures to submit to them, which, however, wero only approximate. The original cost of the 'ramway was .£50,003, including £8000 for the Seatoun tunnel. A deal had been made with the city which, when analysed, practically meant a loss of .£3OOO to tho Miramar Borough Council. Out of ,£50,000 cost there was contributed in cash by tho companies and others interested the sum of <£15,500. which left .£34,500 to be borrowed. .That was dono at 4| per cent. In addition an area of about four acres of land, valued at =£3000, was given to the Miramar .Borough to meet any loss that might be made on the line. He found that the running cost of tho tramways on the Miramar line, which the schedule, said was served with 28 cars a day, worked but at a cost of Ss. lid. a trip, or M 95." Bd. a day. Seatoun line, which was served with 24 cars a day, at a loss of 2s. 4d. a trip, or .£2 18s. a day; grand total, i£B ss. Bd. a day. The total number of passengers a day that would have to be carried :would be 1938, or. 1316 to, Miramar and 672 to, Seatoun. He- did not suppose there were more than 950 pooplo in the whole Miramar Peninsula, and yet".they were supposed to carry 19S8 persons a day. It was very evident the number of cars was far in excess of requirements. The actual returns showed that for the past twelve months on tho Miramar line the revenue was ,£1799 2s. 2d., the amount-of mileago paid was ,£2298 Is., and tho loss made was .£498 13s. lOd. On the Seatoun line for nine months tho revenuo was 16s. 3d., the mileago paid was ,£1063 ss. 5d., and the loss was <£93 19s. 2d. The total approximate loss on the two sections, including interest paid on sinking fund, was .£2518 per annum. Last year's revenuo was in excess of what might bo expected in future. Reckoning 100 adnlts travelled to town by steamer, this left 376, possible travellers for the trams,, of, whom only about 188 would travel twice daily. Fifty-two trips a day were made to accommodate these—an absurd position. Reduction of Miramar ears by 15 a day, and Seatoun 12 a day, would save something like ,£1350 a year., and would practically wipo out half the loss on working. It appeared to him tlint proposed increase in fares was simply playing with the question. Councillor Brodie said that the council had anticipated a loss for the first two years, butit must be remembered-that the revenue of the borough had increased, and they were now in a position to faco the question of water and drainage. He was not in favour of increasing fares, but he thought that for special outings, such as. tlio race meetings and football matches, special fares of 3d. or 6d. should be charged. In eui'taling trams the borough would have to be; guided, to a great extent by the City Council, for, if the service was out down, there would be a difference in the mileage charged by the City Council. Councillor 11'Lood said the tenor of argument among the ratepayers seemed to be that the trams should be run to pay. Any resolution passed at tho meeting would havo weight with the council. 1 Mr. Gooch moved that the council bo re- ■ quested to call a public meeting to have the i matter discussed beforo their term of office expired. This was carried unanimously. Tho chairman then moven: "That tho new council be urged to consider the tramways . question with a view to reducing the recurring loss, either by rate or reduction in worki ing expenses, iu preference to any increase in fares, which this meeting considers would be 1 a retrograde stop." This was seconded by Mr. • Lindup, and carried unanimously.