CITY’S EVIDENCE CLOSED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 354, 15 May 1928, Page 13

CITY’S EVIDENCE CLOSED

Suburbs Start Their Case COMMISSION’S LONG SITTING HAVING occupied tlie Transport Commission for between 11 and 12 days, the City Council closed its evidence this morning-, and Mr. E. H. Northcroft, counsel for outer local bodies, commenced his opening address. It is possible that Mr. A. H. Johnstone, counsel for the city, may later seek to call further evidence in reply to that to be introduced by the outer bodies.

On the subject of the Point Chevalier service, Mr. Northcroft pointed out that “through” buses were still substantially in a majority over “feeder” services. The concession ticket was a composite one, with tram and biis sections. The bus portion could not be used on trams, but the tram portion could be used on either tram ol* bus. He asked Mr. Thomas White, who was in the box, w’hether any of the sum paid for the tram portion was credited to buses. Witness admitted that none of it -was. Counsel expressed the opinion that if the Point Chevalier service were properly credited with its earnings it would show a very small loss, compared with the £9,000 alleged by the department. Re-examined witness said the trams got no credit for carrying workers and apprentices from the Blockhouse Bay and Hutchinson Avenue buses. MR. FORD RETURNS At this stage Mr. A. E. Ford, Tramway manager, re-entered the box to give evidence on questions deferred to enable him to prepare statements. The first concerned Gaunt Street depot. Mr. Ford said he had estimated a saving of £6,313 yearly on dead mileage, on the report of a responsible officer instructed to work out the dead mileage. Witness, on reconsidering the mileage, now decided that it was wrong, and that the saving amounted to £4,882. Witness considerd that the complete saving by the change from jPonsonby to Gaunt Street, apart from greatly improved facilities, w r as this amount of £4,882, and £2,151 from changing 16 cars from Epsom, and £2,197 by reduction in staff, a total of £9,230. Against this certain portions of the interest and sinking fund on the new depot had to be charged. Witness said Gaunt Street had never been indicated to the public as one of the things loans were raised for. a fie loans w r ere granted for tramway purposes, however. Further replies by witness led Mr. Northcroft to remark: “Whenever there is a report by you there is apparently either a verbal explanation or a verbal modification. Witness: That is quite so. Mr. Ford was again examined at length on the £146,000 Gaunt Street depot, and Mr. Northcroft then addressed the commission. OUTER BODIES OPEN

Mr. Northcroft said that Mr. Stanton had given the Commission a complete history, and it was only necessary for him to cover one aspect, and that was the local controversy which had resulted in the Commission. This dated from the taking over of the trams by the city. The trams were then in great difficulties and tending to an intolerable position, according to Mr. Allum. Notwithstanding this the loan was put to the ratepayers as for an entirely justifiable and profitable purchase. Mr. W. Ferguson’s report had extolled the system in nearly every department, including the permanent way.

There were thus two conflicting statements, and the city ratepayers had never been able to reconcile them. If the position was so bad the purchase might well have been delayed until more advantageous terms were available.

If Mr. Ferguson’s report on the l tracks was correct then Mr. Ford’s subsequent spending of a sum approaching half a million pounds was not justifiable. When the service was taken over it was hopelessly inadequate and uncomfortable. Mr. Ford had adopted a system of routing, Hut at that stage passengers had been unable to board cars at the proper loading places. Parnell people, instead of getting on the car at Customs Street, had to walk far up Queen Street to even get on the trams. This was the position when bus competition started, and too late the city tried to improve their administration under the spur of necessity.

INFURIATED PUBLIC The infuriated public preferred to support those who came to their relief, and the council sought unworthy—many people considered it unjust—r-leg-islation. In spite of this the council was still unable to make the system pay. The ratepayers had shown that they were in no mood to trust the council With more loan money. CERTIFICATE OF CHARACTER The council to-day sought something in the nature of a certificate of character. *The outside bodies considered that the argument was between the council and its ratepayers. The outside bodies had stood aloof, but they appeared at the request of the Prime Minister to give what assistance they could, in finding out why and how the council had got into the difficulties. Transport was in the melting pot, as it was when electric trams replaced horse trams. It would be a bold man who would predict the possibilities of buses in the next 10 or 15 years. In the meantime they were left with the question of deciding how, during the period of experimentation and doubt, the city’s transport and government was to be arranged.

In reality the present was a political controversy created by the City Council in the confident hope that the commission would tell the people that the council had acted with propriety and wisdom and was capable of being trusted in the future. “I am not unconscious that a great deal of resentment is felt by city councillors and employees at the criticism we have offered,” remarked Mr. Northcroft. “It is not too much to say that there was an inclination to look upon us as litigants with a case to prove- But I say that position has never arisen. We were requested to help, and we can only do so by criticising and analysing the ease put forward by the council.” WORSE THAN FOOTBALL Mr. Northcroft said rerouting cars had been only a palliative, and a scrimmage at a football match was not comparable with the scenes at the foot of Queen Street in 1924. He pointed out that no trams were built between 1913 and 1920, while the population increased between 1911 and 1924 from 113,000 to 161,600. The old company built nine cars a year, then there was a break of seven years, then the city built five cars a year. The figures spoke for themselves. Counsel suggested that a very grave injustice had been done bus operators, quite apart from any question of allowing competition. The stock argument against competition was that &

huge sum was wrapped up in tramways, and this would be lost. Such competition throughout the world had resulted in the scrapping of the inefficient. The bus owners had entered into legitimate competition. The circumstances invited it. By neglect the City Council deliberately created a market. Then it went for legislation, an action that was neither just nor decent. THE MAIN IMPROPRIETY The impropriety however, arose in this; that the City Council did not accept the advice of its expert, Mr. Ford, to protect itself before the competition arrived. Mr. Ford was not to blame, and if the legislation had been secured in 1922 few bones would have been broken, but it let the competition arrive and then set out to smash it. In reply to a question by Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., chairman, Mr. Northcroft said the Auckland City CoLincil was entirely responsible for the omnibus legislation. Mr. Johnstone said he would have something to say about that statement later. Mr. J. Stanton, city solicitor, said the report by Mr. Forg%was made in 1923, and was made to?J»e Mayor, Sir James Gunson, and never went to the council. ( Proceeding.}