TRAMS OR BUSES?

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 153, 24 March 1920, Page 7

TRAMS OR BUSES?

RIVAL PROPOSALS IN PALM BUS. TON..' '■'■ , By Telejrraph.—Special Correspondent. ■Palmerston North, March 23. A meeting in favour of the installation of buses in Palmerston North, held to-night, was about .as well attended as that in favour of trams the previous evening. Mr. E. H. -Crabb presided cud called upon Mr. E. Stark, late eledrtnal engineer to the Christchurch City Council, to put the caso for buses for the district. He contended that the .proposnl to run' trams on fixed tracks would not lie a pavable .proposition for Palmerston North, as for the s;\ miles suggested .£113.000 was a reasonable, estimate for laying down tracks and overhead wire?. To operate two cars on this would average ..£77,000 per annum, which would mean Is. per car mile. A revenue •of \.£U ,per day would have to be taken to make the project pay. He pointed ■out that the Invercnrgill cars, which bad slightly more mileaje. than that tji-ohm-ed for' Palmerston North, were losing money, as were also the extensions in Christchurch.. Referring to buses ho gaye his /experiences in Christchurch. which, he contended, was the pioneer nf the Dominion in the matter of electric vehicles. He admitted that there might be a loss of 50 per cent, in efficiency in .storage batteries for electric buses, Even then they were cheaper than trams. He claimed that' the Christchurch electric bus, which had proved a failure, had not been fairly treated by the* Tramway Company, which had asked it to do work for which it 7 was never intended, nnd the storage cells had been overcharged

: Messrs. P. C. feth, B. Holbon. J. Hodgens, and E. H, Crabb also roademned the tram proposal, and spoke (a favour of the' mobile traction.

•' Several questions were answered bv the chairman and Mr. Stark, and a vote of thanks to the latter concluded th» iproceedings,

Tho poll will be taken to-morrow,