THE TRAMWAY QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 223, 8 February 1913, Page 6

THE TRAMWAY QUESTION.

Til]; REVENTE ESTIMATE. Mr. Jus. McLeod writes:—ln your issue of Wednesday. I undertook to accept Mr. licwley\s so-called challenge in respect to three issues of the tramway question. Ido not propose to answer all three together, but will take first that one which involves the examination of figures, and the question of probable revenue for the first complete year of the system. Mr. Bewley asks •'whether I dispute the correctness of his < figures showing a loss of £ls-15 for Ihe 1 lirst year of electric tramways. If not, then "how do I justify such a loss?" To deal with the first half of the question, I most decidedly dispute the correctness i of his figures, and say further that his ' figures disclose the fact that he has not yet grasped the tramway proposals as submitted by the Council, or else ignored portion of them to suit a mathematical juggle. To commence, Mr. Rowley does tlie consulting engineer, Mr. Black, the honor of admitting that his estimated figures for expenditure are a correct basis to go upon, but questions his revenue estimate as "wild cat finance." How does Mr. Bewley arrive at his figures that would show the first year's loss of £1545? Mr. Black in his 1010 report showed an estimated loss of £305, on an installation costing in round figures £40,000. Owing to increased cost of material, to an extension of the I Breakwater line, and to the additions of a new line from Egmont street to Morley street, the cost of the installation is'now estimated by the engineer at over £50,000, to which the Council has added for contingencies, an extra car. etc.. bringing the total of the loan to £55.000. Tn 1010 Mr. Black estimated the position as follows: —Revenue, £7012. Expenditure: Working cost £5421, interest on £30,720, £1986. a total annual cost of £7407, showing a loss on the first year's work of £305. Up to this point ,j Mr. Bewley evidently concedes that Mr. ) Black's figures may be taken as a basis. In following the mazes of the now report and the Council's plans, as presented in the paper, Mr. Bewley has been fogged. The estimated annual cost* with which Mr. Bewley agrees is now £8571, made up by working expenses £5821, and 5 per cent, interest on £55,000, £2750. On the revenue side, however, Mr. Bewley ■ altogether denies that there has been any t improvement in the prospects of the Breakwater line to justify the engineer i adding £IOOO to his estimated revenue as at 1010. I certainly think almost I anyone else would be prepared to admit j that the. traffic of the South road has greatly increased during the 2'/ 2 years ■ since the report was originally presented, and further that there will be still a greater ratio of increase within the next two years, before which the cars would not be available. There is undoubtedly . a special traffic growing up on that road, ! and I am given to understand that the ' takings of the present 'buses show an average increase of about 15 per cent, over that of two years, ago. But granting, Mr. Bewley, that there has been no improvement at all in the earning prospects of the Breakwater line, surely the line from Egmont street to Morley street is going to earn some revenue. " Mr. Bewley, whether intentionally or not. for the purposes of his argument, altogether omits to credit this line with anything. Now, at the lowest estimate it will surely earn £'2 a day, or a total for the year (exclusive of Sundays) of £O2O. Therefore, taking Mr. Bewley's estimated loss of £1545

as correct, as far as he goes, this amount

must lip deducted, leaving the loss on his ln.sis at £919. There'is another item of revenue of which Mr. Bcwley has perhaps never thought, and that is advertising rights on the cars. Wanganui earned last year from this source nearly £SOO net. and it is almost certain that this Council will be offered not less than £6O per car for the advertising rights on the six cars. This amount, I might say, is less than the average price paid for the right to control tramway advertising. Here, therefore, is, leaving the spare car out of the estimate, another £3OO of certain revenue, still further reducing "Mr. Bewlev's estimate of loss to £OIO. And that, it must be remembered, is l without allowing that the town has progressed sufficiently to earn for the trams a penny more on the main line than Mr. Black estimated in the middle of 1910. I think anyone, who has his eyes open, will admit that there has been some improvement in the actual position, and still more in the prospects, and that therefore the actual loss will not he a factor of serious moment. T\o one is optimistic enough to say that trams will pay here from iheir inception, but if the original estimates of Mr. Black are to be relied on. and they have not been seriously disputed, certainly a very good case can now be made for the prospects. Worked out on that basis, it appears to me, that the actual loss on the first year's working will be somewhat under £SOO. which, would necessitate a rate, were it to be called up. of about iy 2 d on the present valuation, possibly not more than a penny on the new valuation when completed. To answer the second part of Mr. Bewlev's question with another, I would ask him if he considers this too much to pay for the convenience of a tramway system. I have met large ratepayers in the town who express the opinion that the trams would be cheap at £IOOO a year for a start; and it must not be forgotten that the parent department of the trams, the electric light, is showing a profit of well over £ISOO per annum, which of itself would wipe off any loss on the combined department, and scarcely miss it. To Mr. Bewlev's question re amount of power available. T will only say at present that there never was any doubt that all the power needed is available, and to his oilier question, that T have no doubt the money will be raised when needed without trouble. Of these matters, however. I will deal in my next, as meantime T have utilised enough of your space.