ALBERT STREET TRAMS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 982, 27 May 1930, Page 10

ALBERT STREET TRAMS

DEPUTATION PROTESTS TO TRANSPORT BOARD

“UNECONOMIC PROPOSITION”

Strong opposition to the trams-in-Albert-Street proposal was voiced at this morning’s meeting of the . ransport Board by a deputation representing Queen Street property interests and traders. In fine, the objections were that the scheme was uneconomic and would cause hardship to the travel; ing public. The speakers held that existing outlets, if exploited, were sufficient to relieve Queen Street congestion. *‘T want'you to understand,” said the chairman, Mr. J. A. C. Allum. in meeting the deputation, “that the manager’s proposal was for the economic running of the service, but the board has no desire but to give the best service to the greatest number. We are deferring consideration of the report until we have heard what the various interests have to say.” “WE ARE IN TIME” The deputation could congratulate itself that it was in time, commented Mr. F. IS - . Andrews, who spoke first, lie explained that the assembly represented Queen Street interests, and some from Albert Street. They were surprised to hear that the manager proposed to divert traffic through AJbert Street, when there was no serious Queen Street congestion. There were ways in which the movement of trams in and out of Queen Street could be improved—first, dual control of traffic at the junction of Queen and Wellesley Streets should be discontinued, and the complete control of trams and traffic generally should be under the traffic officer on duty. Secondly, during peak hours no vehicle should be allowed to cross the tram rails between Wellesley Street and Customs Street. Mr. Andrews criticised the proposal to run cars as far as Wellesley Street, via the projected Albert Street route, to feed the new railway station. Other methods than the tram service ought to be made, it being felt that the trams would be most unsatisfactory. Many thousands of people who had been accustomed to being carried into the centre of the shopping area would be adversely affected. “We respectfully suggest that it is not the business of the board to take any step with a view to creating another shopping area,” Mr. Andrews remarked. VIEWED WITH CONCERN

The great majority of Queen Street business men viewed the proposal with concern, said Mr. L. A. Eady. In opposing the extension they were not taking a parochial, or an entirely self-interested view, but there were important reasons why the extension was not expedient. The entire diversion of western suburbs cars would bo most inconvenient to Queen Street shoppers, because, with the exception of Customs Street West, all the connecting streets from Queen Street were hilly and would impose an unfair hardships on travellers. From the manager’s figures it appeared that the saving would be only £835, an estimated margin of 2.7 per cent. “We submit this does not provide a sufficiently substantial and safe margin to cover possible reduction in passenger revenue and to meet cost of track maintenance,” Mr. Eady said. The manager had estimated the work to cost £29,000, and that one straight shift run would save £3,300, against which had to be placed £2,465 per annum for capital charges, leaving a margin of £835.

There was a possibility, therefore, the speaker maintained, that the extension might be a dead-weight on the ■whole system. The scheme had been rejected by the City Council in March, 1927, and had been the only one of ten projects which was turned down. As ratepayers they felt that a conservative policy of capital expenditure was necessary until the whole system clearly showed that its earning capacity was sufficient to meet calls which might be made for essential items. EVENING PEAK LOAD Mr. Eady claimed that in order to relieve Queen Street at peak hours it was unnecessary to divert 956 car trips daily as only 117 took place during the evening peak-loads. He urged that the greater utilisation of existing routes would achieve the desired result. Fanshawe, Hobson and Wellesley streets could be used on the west, and Anzac Avenue and Parnell on the east, to effect the desired purpose if routing, parking and shunting facilities were needed they could be provided round the Civic centre block and at the foot of Queen Street in Quay Street. Queen Street and its immediate vicinity was responsible for a large proportion of the total rates collected and Queen Street values were high only because of the business resulting from the ease -with which the street could be reached. Diversion of 956 car trips would mean the diversion of 19,000 people from Queen Street daily. Albert Street was an important motor traffic outlet and should not be interfered with. “You have no objection to more circular rounding?” asked the chairman. Mr. Eady: That suggestion has been made by our members, but I cannot yet speak on it. Mr. M. J. Coyle: Would 3 r oti suggest where the 19,000 people would go if they did not go into Queen Street? Mr. Eady: The position is that these people will have to climb back intc Albert Street.

Mr. Coyle: My belief is that Queen Street would not suffer as you say. Mr. Eady: We feel strongly that it would. “Mr. Eady mentioned the small saving which would follow the elimination of our shift but he forgot to mention the saving which would attend on the speeding-up of the cars,” commented Mr. E. J. Phelan.

“It is quite obvious from Mr. Ford’s report that the problem is not a normal day one, but a peak-load one,” Mr. Eady returned. “We say existing facilities are adequate.” The chairman promised adequate consideration of the representations.