BOAT AND TRAMS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8360, 21 February 1913, Page 10

BOAT AND TRAMS

A MIRAMAR QUESTION. PETITION AGAINST A SUBSIDY. The proposal of the Miramar Borough Council to pay to the Ferry Company a subsidy of £2OO per year for the maintenance of the present service to Karaka Bay came in for some strong criticism by a deputation which waited on the council last evening. RETARDED THE BOROUGH. Mr J. Brodic said Karaka Bay was isolated from early morning till about six o’clock in the, evening. Boats did not run in the interval. They found at present women and children tramping about two miles along the foreshore to catch a tram at Seatoun when the boats were not running. Communication to the trams should he provided for these people. Yet on the face of this it was proposed to pay the Ferry Company a £2OO subsidy to keep up its present service—a service which was of no use to the borough, but which really retarded it. The advocates of this subsidy were not selfish, but they were capable of thoughtlessness. The gentlemen who used the boat of a morning were more capable of doing a six or seven minute walk to the tram than were women and children to walk two miles. He read a petition (containing over 300 names) protesting against th© grant of the proposed subsidy. It was suggested that a motor bus service should ho inaugurated, or, if the traffic warranted it, an extension of the trams towards Karaka Bay. ONLY A BOGEY. Mr F. Townsend supported Mr Brodie’s remarks. He had read with surprise that the council was asked to give a subsidy of £2OO in order that a boat might be kept running to Karaka Bay. At first he thought it was some wild freak on the part of an irresponsible person. He did not understand how the council could seriously consider a proposal to pay £2OO to take people away from their own trams. They would understand the feeling of the ratepayers on the matter when it was stated that the signatures represented had been collected by two men in a very short space of time. The ferry bad been started when there were practically no people in Miramar, and did it not seem absurd that they should now give a subsidy when there were 1500 or 1700 people in the place? It was not a selfish motive that prompted ■those leading in this opposition—-they had in view only the interests of the borough. He did not want to deprive the people on the waterfront of a means of communication with the city, hut he considered it was better to look after their own trams' than pay £2OO a year to a, private company. If the steamers went off (and he considered that was only a bogey) they would have to provide accommodation to the people on the waterfront. Why not grant it at present? THE CHEAPEST WAY.

Councillor Bell (who presided) said they were all at one in wishing to provide better communication with the city. When this threat of taking the boats off was made it was necessary to provide some means of communication for the Karaka Bay people. The council considered the payment of a £2OO subsidy the cheapest way they had of getting out of the difficulty. They, might run .a ’bus or a brake, but that would cost more than £2OO per year. So far nothing definite had been done. If nothing better than what was suggested could be brought forward he would vote for the subsidy and see it through. He was going to stand by the Karaka Bay people. All they had heard as to carrying the trams up the foreshore would cost in interest on cost of construction and maintenance £7OO per year, and a ’bus service would cost more than £2OO. The council were serious in their intention to see a tunnel put through to give better communication. About. 150 .people travelled by the boat daily. If they were to travel by the trams the council would have to find some way of taking them to the trams. To get them there would cost more than £2OO per year. • COST OF MOTOR SERVICE. Councillor Bowie said it was all very well for the deputation to make suggestions, but they had to he seriously considered. In the meantime something had to he done. If they had ’bus communication with the bay it would cost, over and above what the fares would bring in, £250 per year. It would then take about twice as long for them to get to town as compared with the boat. The council had a petition from some 100 ratepayers who were passengers on the boat, stating that something to maintain tie boat service must be done, in view of the great loss of time that would be . otherwise occasioned. The bulk of the traffic occurred all at one time, and they had to consider how many extra cars would be necessary to meet the rush requirements. After further discussion the deputation. withdrew, being assured by Mr Bell that their representations would receive the fullest consideration.