BUS BURDEN £414,000

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 341, 30 April 1928, Page 11

BUS BURDEN £414,000

Cost of Competition to City

lured to outer areas by cheap fares

The elimination of the £51,000 credit held by‘the City tramways in 1924, and the placing of a debit of £38,000 against the City’s trams and buses bv the end of the year 1926-27 was.not the only effect of the bus competition which began in 1924. The City Council will endeavour to show the Transport Commission that the total cost to the Council has been £414.000. Ihe < ouneil holds that the false stimulation which came to the outer suburbs as the result of cheap fares during competition is the cause oi: most of the present dissatisfaction. These suburbs could not be served profitably if any regard is paid to transport economics.

These were the main points raised i when the Auckland Transport Commission resumed its sitting this morning. Since Thursday the members of the commission have travelled 188 miles In the city and suburban area on inspection. Practically the whole of the morning was taken up by Mr. J. Stanton, city solicitor, in outlining formal matters and finances concerning Auckland, and the history of the tramway undertaking. Opening the actual proceedings this morning. Mr. Stanton remarked that the question of transport all over the world had given rise to immense contention and diversity of opinion, and nowhere was this keener than in Auckland. It was to be hoped that the discussions before the commission. and the final recommendations, would be of value to the whole Dominion, and that they would provide a sound basis for future development. He pointed out that £5,066,000 in capital was involved in the nine public, undertakings in New Zealand, of which a third was sunk in the Auckland system. In the year 1926-27 the Auckland system carried 66,000,000 passengers of the total of 167,599,000 carried on the whole of the nine systems. Tt was estimated that omnibuses in New Zealand in a year carried some 20i million passengers. SIGN OF PROGRESS Mr. Stanton said it was not surprising that the controversy which had resulted in the setting up of the commission should have occurred in Auckland. It was a sign of progress, and the progress in Auckland had heen rapid and immense. In 1911 the population in the districts concerned with trams was 113,000. To-day it was 186,000. Mr. Stanton proceeded to advise the commission of the growth in valuations and areas of the city, and then proceeded to outline the history of the w’hole tramway system in Auckland since its inception. BOARD SUGGESTED BY CITY He told the commission that the city bought the system and took it over in July, 1919, for £1,227,000, fewer than 3,000 ratepayers out of 10,000 voting. A conference was then called of local bodies, and this took place in October, 1920, the object being to discuss the control and tlie possibility of a tramway board. The first two local bodies to consider it decided to have nothing whatever to do with the system. No further action was taken in the direction, and the system remained 'in the hands of the city. He suggested that the commission would find, on examining the accounts, that the council’s financial policy had been a wise one. COST OF COMPETITION In 1924, when bus competition started, there was a credit of £51,000 on tram operations. By March 31, 1927, this had disappeared and buses and trams run by the city had a deficit of £38,000. "These figures do not represent the whole loss caused by bus competition. We will present figures later which will show that the loss has totalled £414,000, which, but for bus competition, would have been available either for development or for reduction of fares," stated Mr. Stanton. The position which had arisen falsely stimulated the outer areas, to which people went, confident of continued cheap fares. The cheap fares, with a maximum of 4d, had proved unprofitable, and one of the worst features was that the necessity for reducing the services had caused great dissatisfaction. This would be abundantly evident during the commission. The whole position was one which would never have arisen had there been any application of transport economics. The continuance of the competition would completely have undermined the financial stability of the tramway undertaking. “Some people have said that the competition should have been allowed to run its natural course,” remarked Mr. Stanton, “but all experiences elsewhere have shown that this is the most expensive and destructive method of dealing with the problem.” EMBARRASSING LEGACY Continuing, he said the city had got something in the way of assets in return for the amount of over £61,000 they had paid for omnibus operations. The council’s main embarrassment Was the legacy of bus services on which tiler© was no possibility of Profit.

trol rather than to form another board, which could only be a delaying step. The council would submit:

(1) That the transport system was adequate, efficient and suitable. (2) That the Motor Omnibus Act has been of service to the community, and its continuance is supported. (3) It agrees that motor-bus transport is suitable for parts of the district in conjunction with, or as an adjunct to tramway transport. (4) That in some cases feeder services only are justified, and in some “through” services at peak periods. (5) That all services should be provided by the city itself, excepting those outside services already operating. (6) That a transport board is undesirable. The opening address lasted for three hours, ancl th© commission adjourned after swearing in Mr. A. E. Ford, tramway manager, the first witness.

Mr. Stanton hoped that he v/ould be able to put the past year's tramway figures before the commission. He also indicated that there would possibly be some recommendation to the commission with regard to procedure in raising additional capital in view of the experiences when the last £500.000 loan was turned down. Mr. Stanton. in the concluding stages, said that the city would ask the commission to allow the city to tetain and manage its own transport system. It had the biggest interest *nd Auckland city had a population of 98,687, against the 87,321 outside. The system was efficiently managed. There Was no unanimity on the proposal for a transport board, which seemed to Present a multitude of conceptions. The city did not feel, in view of past actions, that the city would be putting itself into better hands. In 1920 the ?ky had mooted a scheme for bringing in the outside local bodies, but it had been fruitless. He suggested that this was due to the continued e videnee of lack of unanimity among the outside local bodies. BOARD’S VALUE QUESTIONED M/'hat was being asked was more c ne ol transport provision than of change in control. Unless the proposed transport board could give abundant transport at reasonable fares would not be any more acceptable than the present system. If there ''as to be a change it should be one to bring the whole area into one con-