Basis of Estimates Again Questioned

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 348, 8 May 1928, Page 13

Basis of Estimates Again Questioned

GAUNT ST. TRAM DEPOT MILEAGES IN ERROR suggestion that when the Gaunt CitYr- tram depot was approved by the City Council it was adopted on an unlair basis of comparison as against Ponsonby depot, occupied nearly ail tins morning s discussion at the Transport Commission. „JJ? r - X' M eredl th, counsel for several outside local bodies, resumed his examination of Mr. A. E. Ford tram? fa nager ’ who commenced his seventh day in the witness box. Gaunt Street depot practically re!!f de £ oc at a capital cost of ±.146,000. Ml-. Ford told the commission last week that Gaunt Street was saving the department over £ 6,000 a year in decreased dead mileage, etc. Bead mileage is that run between the depots and the actual route on which the tram is to travel or has travelled.

Witness said he had gone carefullv into the figures presented to the council, and had discovered that alterations were required to the extent of over 9,000 miles. Mr. Meredith suggested that insufficient care had been given to the figures before they were presented to the council, but witness said he had taken the figures prepared by his officers, had scanned them generally and thought he had not been lacking in duty.

Luring the course of the morning difficulty was experienced in getting time-tables. Witness said the public displayed little interest in time-tables owing to the close headways, which never gave a long wait on most routes. Mr. Ford said a round figure of 18d a mile had been used in computing cost of running trams. As a matter of fact the costs generally, everything considered, were much higher. Mr. Meredith asked if the original report recommending Gaunt Street was available. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, for the Citv Council, said Gaunt Street had been built in two sections, the first as a down-town depot, which was later increased. The better plan would have been to have had the evidence led in the evidence-in-chief, but the city did not know the question was to be raised. Mr. Meredith could not know the nosition. Mr. Meredith: I don’t:, I am only fishing. Mr. Johnstone: Fish are hard to catch. “Sometimes,” commented Mr. Meredith. With the exception of three questions deferred, this closed the crossexamination. Mr. Johnstone remarked on his difficulty in re-examining, as he did not know where much of the cross-exam-ination led. He thought it possible that if the other side led its evidence the city would know what line of reexamination was 'd. STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION. It was finally agreed that to save the time of the commission, Mr. Ford should prepare a statement in writing referring to the policy in building Gaunt Street depot, and closing Ponsonby. Mr. Meredith said they were not in a position to know, and they wanted to know, whether Gaunt Street depot had been given the consideration required, and whether the expenditure was justified in the then financial position of the undertaking. The Chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M.: He has to justify the policy, and the figures, and give the results.

Mr. Johnstone then re-examined the witness, who said he eliminated the crowding and congestion at the foot of Queen Street by re-routing the service, and increasing the time-table. At the end of 1923 the changes had .met with public approbation. Very extensive reconstructions and reasonable profits were features of the operations. BUS TROUBLE AGAIN

In October, 1923, he forecasted the trouble over buses, a feeder service having been replaced by a semi-through service, and a loss of £2,000 being anticipated.

He then urged the necessity of securing protection, and tried strenuously to evade the embarrassment he anticipated. Competition commenced in earnest in April, 1924, no protection having been secured.

The error in the estimate of £414,000 lost as the result of bus competition did not affect the position that the tramway undertaking had lost a huge sum of money, and had worked under the greatest difficulty. The tram system, in his opinion, must continue to be the backbone of the Auckland transport system. The configuration of the city did not permit the necessary style of bus. Mr. Meredith interrupted when the examination referred to local politics and the attitude of local bodies on the Omnibus Act, and pointed out that this aspect was not raised in cross-examin-ation, and the evidence would have to be subject to further cross-examina-tion. Mr. Johnstone: Well, if that is the position I will leave the question. We don’t want another two days of crossexamination. (Proceeding.)