BOARD CONTROL?

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 924, 18 March 1930, Page 1

BOARD CONTROL?

ST. HELIERS TRANSPORT DEFERRED WATERFRONT WOULD PAY A strong vein of opinion that the Transpoi*t Board could control the most promising traffic route of Auckland was evident when the board discussed ah application for a private service along the Waterfront Roadway to St. Heliers Bay this morning. The board deferred considers tion for six months of a report on a trackless trolley system from its manager, Mr. A. E. Ford. A report from the committee of the whole board recommended the adoption of Mr. Ford’s report, which suggested the granting of a licence to L. J. Keys, Lknited, for cosdu ing a Waterfront Road service, but substituted a term of three years in place of the live-year tenure sug-

gested by the manager. A long discussion took place on the possibilities of the Waterfront Roadway route and the board eventually carried an amendment advanced bv Mr. A. ,1. Entriean, without adopting the recomniendatiou. Mr. Entriean moved the receiving of Mr. Ford's report and the deferring of consideration for six months, pending a repoi t from the manager on the necessary changes of transport in the upper portion of the Tamaki district on the completion of the Meadowbank Roa 1 tram extension; the receiving of a report from the City Council on whether it would allow a full service to be run by the private concern with the present plant; and the submission by Mr. Keys of a suggested timetable and scale of fares, to take effec t on the completion of the road and the tramway extension. SEPARATE ESTIMATES

In his report to the board, Mr. Ford gave his estimates of the cost of operating a trackless trolle3 r system. To operate a service via Orakei and a feeder bus; service from the new Meat - owbank Road tram terminus in addition to the Waterfront Roadway rout . he estimated that the annual expenditure would exceed the receipts by £7,478. The separate estimates were: (a) From Sturdee Street along Qua - Street and the Waterfront Roadwav ; . serve residents near Orakei Point, Mission Bay, Kohin:arama and St. Heliers: an annual profit of £2,614. (b) From Sturdee Street along Qua v Street and the Waterfront lloadwav t,. Hobson's Point, thence to Whakatiikataka Bay Road. Xgaiwi Street, Coates Avenue, Orakei Road and St. W- her- B» •• Road to St. Hellers; a loss of £B,Bll* (c) A feeder omnibus service between the New Meadow-bank Road tram exi« sion along; St. Hellers Bay Road to he trackless trolley at the intersection . f St. Heliers Bay and Kohimarama Road; . a loss of £ 1,272.

Provision was made for eight, double-deck, six-wheeled trackless trolley buses each with a seating capacity of 60 passengers to operate in the first estimate. Five single-deck tr< 1leys, each with a seating capacity of 34, were provided for in the second estimate.,. Should the board decide to operate only on the Waterfront Roadway, there w'ould be an annual pr * . Should this be done, practically the whole of the through passengers at present carried by the private concern would be diverted to the new route. Having regard for a belief that the Waterfront Roadway would not be sufficiently consolidated for a considerable time to operate the largo trolley buses and the likelihood of having to take over the other services, Mr. Ford recommended the granting of the licence.

Mr. E. H. Potter, seconded by Mr G. G. Ashley, moved the fixing of the term of the private licence, should ir be granted, at five years. He maintained that time would be required io liquidate the expenses on the buses “PEOPLE'S BIRTHRIGHT”

Mr. E. J. Phelan, opposing both the recommendation and the amendment, declared it was in the hands of th~ board to give the best service in Auck land on the Waterfront Roadway. He described the roadway as the “birth right of the people” because the citizens, apart from Government expenditure, had given more than £200.000 to the roadway. The board could run its own trolley buses.

Supporting the report of the manager, Mr. M. J. Coyle said the road would not be rea.dy for some time, and, in any case, a deputation had said it would prefer private enterprise. “Once we give this route to private enterprise, we can say ‘good-bye’ to it,” declared Mr. E. E. Rhodes. “We should run a temporary service until the road is consolidated and then put on a permanent service.” Mr. Potter Are we considering this as a licensing authority or an operating authority? The opposition to the motion is out of order. Mr. Phelan moved an amendment to defer consideration of the report for six months, but it was defeated.

Explaining the purpose of his amendment, Mr. Entriean said the road would bt the most profitable in the whole of the transport area, par ticularly when the beaches reached by it were sought in the summer. Mr. Rhodes would not agree to handing the road to private enterprise for five years. He thought the development caused by the Waterfront Road would improve the possibilities for the other services on which losses were at present estimated. Mr. Entri can's amendment was carried. The division was:—For: Messrs Entriean. Baildon, Wood, Rhodes and Phelan. Against: Messrs. Potter, Morton, Coyle ard Ashley.