Albert Street Trams Proposal is Upheld

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1006, 24 June 1930, Page 9

Albert Street Trams Proposal is Upheld

“INTERESTS OF CITY’’ MR. LAIDLAW IN REPLY A reply to criticism of the Albert Street tram proposal is made by Mr. R. A. Laid law, president of the West of Queen Street Business Men s Association. who writes to The Sun as fol- ‘ The West of Queen Street Business Men’s Association is quite in accord with Air. Kitchener about further tram extensions, but Albert Street is not an extension in the in which that term is usually understood; it is a. consolidation furnishing tho necessary terminal facilities for the extended system as it now exists. “That such facilities are necessary is so evident to everyone cf the thousands of people who have to travel home by tram from Queen Street in the evenings that it is not really open to argument. “Air. Ford, who is in a far better position to judge than the Queen Street retailers or the West of Queen Street business men. has produced figures showing that the Albert Street lines will pay, but even if they did not show a substantial profit, but BAid bare overhead expenses and maintenance, and at tho same time resulted in saving considerable time for the travelling public. and made it easier for the officers in charge to control our transport system, these would in themselves bo sound reasons for proceeding with tho Albert Street lines. “Air. Kitchener says: *l, and those who formed the deputation, have one object in view, and that is to safeguard tho wider interests of the community at large as against the interests of any one section.* This certainly needs some explanation. The Que**n Street retailers have been aware for years of the position of the transport system; now., if self-interest is not the principal reason for their present propaganda against Albert Street trams, why have they so suddenly stepped forward to ‘safeguard the wider interests of the community at large’? “The West of Queen Street Business Alen’s Association frankly admits that Albert Street trams will be of benefit to their business interests, but that they will be of great benefit to the travelling public and the Transport Board as well. Why do not the Queen Street retailers who formed the deputation to the Chamber of Commerce openly admit that they fear trams in Albert Street will detrimentally affect their business interests, although experience in other cities faced with a similar situation has proved the results to be otherwise? “But apart from this, why not be broad-minded enough to see that one street cannot possibly carry the whole traffic for this city for ever, and that it is better to get rid of the* congestion, and hold the centre of the city as the principal retail shopping area rather than drive trade to the outer suburbs. In any case, the matter will no doubt go before the public to vote on the loan, and if it is satisfied that the Albert Street trams will pay interest on the capital invested, provide work for the unemployed, and save passengers say five to seven minutes every night in getting home, it will no doubt vote for the loan irrespective of whether it affects Queen Street retailers or the West of Queen Street Business Alen's Association, and in the final analysis it is the public’s interests that are involved, and it is th© public which has tho right to decide in a democratic country like New Zealand.” ‘WEST SIDE” ADVOCATES DEFINE POLICY BRINGING NO PRESSURE Tlio West of Queen Street Development Association, through its director. Air. A. J. Hutchinson, advised tho Transport Board this morning that it does not intend to wait in deputation upon the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, or the Town Planning Committee of the council in furtherance of the association’s advocacy of trams in Albert Street. This decision is made as a counter to the policy of the opponents of the scheme, the Queen Street Traders’ and Ratepayers’ Association, which has already presented its view’s to the City Council and the Chamber of Commerce. “Our view is that having made representations direct to the Transport Board we are now prepared to let matter rest there, recognising that a deputation to the City Council or to other local bodies might savour of an attempt to bring pressure upon vour board,” stated the “West Side” advocates. “This would be entirely contrary tc* our policy, as expressed by the deputation which waited upon the Transport Board last year,” said the association “We realise that the subject must be decided by the board with duo regard to the need for giving efficient transportation to the service and therefore it would be unfair of our associ- V tion to seek to prejudge your decision by making representations to other bodies.”