CAR FARES TO MIRAMAR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 863, 8 July 1910, Page 6

CAR FARES TO MIRAMAR.

QUESTION OF INCREASE. ' .; A DEPUTATION'S VIEWS.; A deputation of ratepayers from Mira--111 ar waited on the Mirainar Borough Council last evening witli regard to the question of tramway fares. Mr. \V. H. P. Barber, who headed the •deputation, read the following petition, t,which was signed by prominent residents;

Deputation's Request. "Wo, the luidersigiwd electors of the borough, respecttully request that you will not rescind the motion carried at your last meeting raising the tramway fares without giving the increased fares a thorough trial. Wo recognise that for a long while the financial side of the tramway question has boon such as to demand some alteration of the policy, and we congratulate you on having at last made a step ill the right direction. At iho same time we would respectfully request that the alterations be carried further, so as to reap the full benefit of the change and easier working of same, by making the fare 2d. for casuals on each line, allowing always the residents the option of buying coupons whereby they will not have to pay more than at present, viz., one penny for any part in the borough." Mr. Barber said that it was well known •that the tramway system lost .£3OOO last year without setting aside anything for depreciation. It was a serious matter, and would leavo the borough iu an unsatisfactory iinaucial condition. He was jiot a pessimist, but he firmly believed that, the tramway system to Jliramar would be destroyed in a few years. He trusted that the council would give the system which they had adopted a fair trial. Mr. Townsend remarked that the people of Miramar were in deep earnest over the question. People who resided there should not be asked to pay more than Id. on the lliramai' line. Ho was a big householder, and he thought the council's proposal would not do any liarm to the district whatever. There .were 54 trams running to Miramar and 'Seatoun and the population did not .warrant it. The service was overdone, and no borough could stand the loss. ,He was in a position to state that if i+hc Jliramar Council waited on the City .'Council their requests would lie met regarding the tram service. If they were •to cut out every other car after 9 a.m. up to 5 p.m., there woidd be a big saving. It was a common thing to sec trams reaching Jliramar empty, and the ■ratepayers of that place could not aiford to- "pay the piper." If half the runnings were cnt out the balance of ■ the deficit would be made up by the sugjrf.sted extra charge on the line. Mr. F. W. Haybittle also thought that :the tramway system .was too luxurious, ■and in consequence the values of Mirainar had been unduly inflated, and today's values were the values of six years hence. The borough was not going ahead at present. Mr. D. K. Blair thought that the .council would bo acting wisely in giving 'this new system a trial. He considered : also that it would be a success.

Mayor's Reply. The Mayor thanked the deputation for -their presence, and stated that the :.council fully recognised the anxiety ' that existed. He was of opinion, however. that the speakers of the deputation bad lost sight of a few very important points. There was nothing definite yet about the mileage charge. Their 'council recommended economy, Tjut. until they had something definite it .-would be folly to mluce their tramway service. It "was questionable in his mind whether they would make a saving ou a 2d. fare. If they saved .£SOO on an increased fare, they would do the district ,£IOOO worth of harm. If satisfactory arrangements could be made with tho City Council they (the council) would do their best to have the number of cars reduced. Mr. Barber said that if the C't.y Council were approached oil the matter ho did not think that they (the City Council) would see the borough ruined through the tramway service. Councillor Bell then remarked that the Mavor had made certain remarks which -were not held by the majority oi the deputation then filtrated tli« council; and withdrew. The question was discussed at length, tho general consensus of opinion being ■that there was not a great likelihood ot "the council rescinding the motion passed ■at a previous meeting to alter the fares. It was resolved, on the motion of Councillor M'Leod, seconded by Councillor Muir, that the petitioners represented by the deputation be informed tliat the matter will receivo due consideration from the council. It was also dccided, ou the motion ot -Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor ; M'Leod, that tho whole question be referred to the Tramway Committee. The Tramway Committee reported that the Tramway Engineer had been asked to delete certain cars, but an unfavourable reply had been received. He had subsequently promised, on being interriewed, to go fully into the council's proposals as to fares and running, and forward a report 011 tho matter.

A Diametrically Different Request, Iu connection with the tramway fares, Mr. W. H. Lawrence also forwarded the appended petition which was signed by. ; 200 electors i— "We, the unlersigned electors of Miramar, hereby strongly protest ? 'gainst the action of the council in aising the tram fares per single trip 011 the Seatoun line from !d. to 1 id., and from Id. to 2d. per single trip on the Miramar North line, as we firmly believe the same to be harmful to out own interests, and detrimenral to the interests of the borough generally. We wonld therefore respectfully ask you to urgently reconsider this question, with a view to rescinding the motion dealing with the jibove, which was passed at the last council meeting, thus giving elV'.'ct to our wishes, and leaving the tram fares at the old rate, viz., Id. per single trip on South Miramar or Seatoun sections." It was decided, on the motion of Councillor Bowie, seconded by Councillor liell, .that the petition forwarded by Mr. Lawrence bo received, and that the. petitioners be informed that they are evidently under a misapprehension, as there is no intention of raising the fares to residents.