HUTT VALLEY TRAMS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 963, 2 November 1910, Page 9

HUTT VALLEY TRAMS.

MEETINC AT PETONE,

By way of answering tho criticisms of the anti-tramway meeting held last Friday evening, Mr. J. Austin addressed a large number of ratepayers in St. Augustine's Hall, l'etone, last night. Mr. J. W.' M'Ewan occupied tho chair.

Mr. Austin opened by stating that Mr. Piper (tho speaker at the antitramway meeting) had raised the bogey of heavier rates, but. ho had not proved his cas'o. so far as this aspect..of the question was concerned. Th"o board, from tho out-sot, had only claimed that there was a probability of.the trams paying, but he felt certain tliat/ they would pay. Referring to Mr. Piper's statement as to tho loss on tho trams at Karon, Mr. Austin quoted figures with a view of showing that the Karori service could show a profit. Tho board had no axe to'grind, and they had put forth this loan proposal entirely in. the interests of the, ratepayers. . Wanganui was quoted by, the speaker, who showed that trams-had payed in tliat town. The peoplo of Wanganui had recently petitioned their council to extend tho tram . track to St. John's .Hill, Regarding the assertion that tho Wellington trams had showed a debit balance .of _ £76, : Mr. Austin declared that Mr. Piper had not stated the position correctly. _ It had to be remembered that the Wellington City . Council were carrying 'a dead, load of £20,000 (the price, paid, for the horse trams).. . If that were taken, off, .the Wellington tram's.would pay,handsomely... .. They had no. load like that to shoulder. in the Hutt Valley. Even if .they lost £1000. a year, some of the., rate-;, payers would only have an increase in rates of 8d; 'on total valuation, and others a little more;" so that the rate if it ever were struck would not be excessive. Concluding, tho speaker exhorted ratepayers to weigh' the. 'matter carefully,, and let the ballot box show their opinion., :. Mr.. J':"Wi "M'Ewan, who' also spoke, stated thatjit had been .said that ..they in Petone required a sewerage ..scheme before they had trains. "Well," , said Mr. M'Ewan, "I am one of:-thoso who believe that we could bavo a sewerage scheme as well as-trams." A motion, approving the board's- proposals, was carried., HUTT TRAM. SCHEME. [To The Editoii.] . Sir, —In your issue of yesterday appears- a report of the Tramway Board, Containing an attempt to discredit,the suggested scheme for a motor 'bus service. It is, therefore, not unnatural for the advocates of -ono scheme to magnify all those points which tell in its favour and to cast discredit on' -.any rival scheme.: '. But I submit that tho , Hutt Tramway Board should not ho partisans, but should impartially state tho case' with .its .advantages and disadvantages for tho decision of the ratepayers. Have they dono so? I,think I can- show that they have not. In England at the present time thero are, I believo, numbers of motor 'bus services, running at a profit, with no expensive track of asphalt, but just using tho ordinary country roads. It appears that tho Tramway Board h'avo ,used i for comparison, the,case of Leicester, \whose motor 'bus service, was, not a success. But. have they taken means to ascertain the experience of other places? If not,-is J that- placing tho issuo fairly/beforo. tho ratepayers ? It is ludicrous to suggest that the advocates of a motor 'bus servico would advise tho laying of a "tarred macadam track" at a cost of £64,500! It. is equally absurd to suggest that tho cost .of upkeep of such a track would .be .£9360 per annum. Again, the chargo of £204 per car for "tyre depreciation and renewals" seems to bo excessivo. .A 150,,, the charge of .£2IOO, for dqpreciation at 10 per. cent-'on 'buses worth £15,000 would seem to be an overcharge of £600.' Tho great advantago of a motor 'bus servico is that its capital cost' would be only ,£17,000 for, ten 'buses, no asphalt track being necessary) and in case some better system is discovered later on 1 a large part: of this cost could bo realised;- whereas-tho cost-of- an electric tram' lino' is sunk beyond recovery. Other important points for tho ratepayers to consider aro that tho Government is. contemplating a schemo of supplying electricity from the Hutt River,_ and, that .Edison's storago battery is reported to be a commercial success, in which ease a largo part : of the proposed expenditure would provoto have been spent, in vain. ' In my opinion, the ratepayers would do well to wait for a year or two, until they know more about the comparative success, of electric and . motor 'bus' schemes, and-:until tile- . Government's water-power schemo and the, -Edison accumulator aro available. If they plungo, now into heavy expense they may pay for their hurry by having to repent at leisure.—l am, etc., - - G. E. "ANSON. Lower Hutt, 1910. ■

"A Motor 'Bus Advocate" writes at great length criticising in detail tho report of tho Hutt Tramways Board on motor 'buses, and supporting his contentions with information collected from various sources. Wo have, not spaco to give his analysis of the board's figures ill full, but - wo publish tho concluding portion of his letter, wliich summarises his contentions:— "Tho above figures," ho says, "will, of course, completely alter tho interest and sinking fund charges. - Tho amended statemont will read as follows: Motor 'Bus: Capital Cost. 10 motor 'buses, at £810, landed cost £8,100 Cleaning-Shed and Repairs Shop 1,900 Tools, say ........ .100 • . ' £10,100 Working and Other Expenses: Petrol,' ai Is. 3d:, per gallon £1,450 Wages— ' ' .. .Drivers '.and conductors ... "4,392 Manager-'...;......; . 350 Tyro depreciation and renewals 1,22-1 Dispatcher, clork, printing, etc. 500 Depreciation on 'buses, 10 percent. (Home experienco, 20 ■ . per cent.). ;...„ . 810 Interest on £81,500, at 4 i per cent. 505 Sinking , fund 101 . £9*332 "Thus altering tho expenses from £25,749 to £9332,'- and converting nn annual loss of £11,000 to an annual profit of £4868. "Finally, sir, with refeienco to tho eight objections, I have only timo and spaco to say that, howovor much they may have applied to motor 'buses seven or even fivo years ago, they aro an entirely futile argument to-day. Tho objection of tho noise of motor 'buses is laughable in face of that well-known institution, tho Wellington electric car service.—l am, otc., "A MOTOR 'BUS ADVOCATE."