TRAMWAYS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 225, 11 February 1913, Page 7

TRAMWAYS.

Mlt. IiEW'LEY' UKI'LY. Air. Walter Bewlcy writ erf to the editor: —in replying to yuur correspondent, .Mr. McLeod. 1 would Jii'st of all notice iliat there is an absence in his letters of that courtesy wliieh it is desirable should Lie maintained in a discussion like the present, where we are all .out, 1 hope, solely in the best interests of [ the town. lam quite prepared to admit [ and be corrected ill any mistakes I may make. Imi tu lie told that m\' statement that, tram* will inevitably be faced with motor 'bus competition is "puerile" and that 1 am "togged in my figures," savors of the unbecoming conlidenee of inexperienced youth, particularly when addressing ;i man of double his age and experience. His blunder re A lor ley street, with which 1 will deal later in this letter, will show the inadvisability of too great conlidenee in one's own opinion. Jll respect to the .so-called challenge, that heading was put in without my knowledge or approval, and I am obliged to Mr. McLeod for giving me the opportunity to disclaim any connection with it. It would partake too much of a bombastic conlidenee in my own opin-, ion to meet with my approval. Xow, with regard to my figures. In stating the loss at £1345. in round number*, I stated what appeared to me to be the gross loss, and put forward the figures with the object of ascertaining what the tramway advocates had to say 01). the. other >ide in reduction of the loss. As to ilr. Black's figures, I only accept them as a basis for comment at the present time. f certainly do not accept their accuracy yet. as so far the ratepayers have not been favored with any details to make criticism possible. Detailed estimates should be before us, and. above all. an estimate for renewals.

Your correspondent and myself agree that the present estimate of expenses is £8571.. and Mr. Black's previous estimate of revenue is £7012. h'aving a. deficiency of £ 1559. Xow.l am .quite prepared to admit that there lias been, niui will be nil increase of traffic, particularly on the town-Breakwater section, but as to the amount we totally disagree. If your correspondent will carefully read the paragraph in Mr. Black's report headed, "Supplementary Report; Maintenance and Revenue.'' lie will seej that Mr. Black says: "I find it impossible I to estimate what the increase WILL | BE." not If. Tfe goes on to say a line or two further down: "But on the Invsir,; • nes.s and- industrial activities whiolw.ait I the present moment arc OXLY ■ COMMEXCIXG." Further, lie savp: . "iji.is, increase SHOULD, I think, amount. to 1 £IOOO per annum." Does this justify at present any material deduction; fnon* the loss, dealing as it dons wholly' with , the future? Also, .from a conversation I had with a councillor a fp-.v, days ago. T; found-that thf; whole of the .Clouitoil had taken this report m t t]ic' : saine incorrect way. >!<• = If the-report is intended to |beaV',nny ■ other interpretation. I can only day that it is atrociously badly expressed, and how unjustified the estimate is. : is sljowi'i'' by my critic's reference to the 'bus traffic, to which I now refer.''■j ! ki?'' point is that the 'bus traffic has' 'increased 15 per cent, in the last: ! ;ttvo { years on .the Breakwater road. ' Xo.W let vis see what this amounts to.,''''l-VliJ;' " not know what the increase is. will', assume that the two 'huses have'pitch earned £2OO per annum more. ,It jna/' be more or less. The following can be'added to or deducted frortivai/-' cording to the correct figures:—Fifteeli. ' per cent, on £4OO is £OO.-which ,at ; Is ' for the return fare would represent I'2oo fares. Xow, I suppose the tram fhrri 1 would be Id for this scctbn. fyu,t I will say 2d, and we have the large sum of! £lO as representing the increase expressed in tram traffic durimr THE ..LASrT,, , TWO YEARS.

I now come tc\ the deduction rif. t £(i2ti lV which exhibits an extraordinary . oath - :,; sight on the part of.my Clitic. .Xyhij-t, has this traHie on Morley i,?t,rj;i>,f, t.o do, with . the ...matter.. .jxlipn .iMj"; Black's estimate of revenue is l)as(,'d on the -assumption that the , whole,, population, estimated at 75C10,. jpi}l, expend 17s per annum . ill . l.Wll. fares? On Mr. McLeod's plan, it would only be necessary to run the lines.dp.jvji, a few more streets and be could convert the loss into a satisfactory profit a.t.the. present time! I believe, however., that the 17s is an over-estimate, as 'how, will the residents of Yogeltown. Frank-, ley road ami West own. w hose chief concern is to do business in the centre of the town, contribute towards the receipts? AYe now come to the revenue from advertising in the trams. In the first place, it will be allowed that there is nothing to prevent motor 'buses from similarly earning revenue, as trams do not have a monopoly of advertising space. 1 altogether object, however, to the estimate of £3OO from this source, for if we estimate the revenue on a comparison with the population of Wanganui. not more than £'2oo tan be claimed from this item for some years to come. I will, however, allow £2OO and £lOll from increase of general traffic, and the gross loss on Mr. Black's unchecked figures is reduced to £1250. or. taking the figures given in your correspondent's letter, as £SOO. being about equal to a 1 '/>d rate, the loss will necessitate a rate of about 3 ;, / t d. ' I certainly do not, think that seeing cars running only partially filled would compensate the people who have to bear the brunt of this expenditure for such a heavy addition to the rates.

I regard the proposal with dismay, as calculated to seriously arrest the progress of the town.

Mr. McLeod's last suggestion, that the electric light profits of £ISOO should be available to wipe out the tramway loss, will. I think, be hardly acceptable to either the councillors or the public. Mr. MeLeod. however, has made another serious mistake here, for after allowing for depreciation and other charges, there was for last year only the sum of £475 5s 10d available as profit, and not £ISOO. as he states.

In conclusion. T must point out that it is practically certain that the loan for the tramways will be largely exceeded. and then there will be 5 per cent, on the excess of expenditure over the £55,000 to be added to the foregoing loss of €1250. Included in the estimate- is. T presume, the usual commission of 5 per cent, to the engineer in charge, which will amount to somewhere about the nice little sum of £2500 on the loan of £55.(KIO, as there will be some items in the loan on which commis-iou will not be payable.

A WAY OUT. "Mr. -Tames TI. Cruickshank. manager of Coilett & Co.. Ltd.. writer: Sir.—Willi your permission. I would like to make a suircrestiou in reference to the much-dehatcd question of tram v. molov 'l)ii.=. The overhead trolley trim system lias heen so thoroughly tested and Iried in all parts of the world that there is |>rac! \-:tlly nothiiiU' of all experimental or speculative nature in the system itself. f think it is pvelty well recognised that in return for a certain expenditure Xew Plymouth would irpt, a tramway s\-ti in thai would undoubtedly Hl] all the 'ci-hm a I re(|ii:renienf'' callcil for under the contract, the installation of a tramway s\-(cm to-day heini; essentially a (jueslion of cost. So much lor

th'; trams. On the other band, motor 'bus transit is of a later date, and cannot perhaps furnish the volume of data as the other system, but motor ! lms traction has made enormous strides of laic, but the nominal difference of initial outlay in the two s\V. 1 ill us quoted trom time to time in the press shows such a disparity in favor of the motor 'bus system that it seems to me, ways and means should be found to test the actual -working cost of the motor 'bus service before the town is committed to a costly tramway system, and I suggest, Mr. Editor, that the tramway scheme, be held over for a period of, say. two years, and that in the meantime the nucleus of a motor 'bus service be installed. Such a scheme, if adopted, would, in my opinion. offer the following advantages:

(1) That the actual cost of running a motor 'bus service and the general suitability of this type of vehicle to local conditions would be definitely ascertained.

(2) That the immediate interests of the public would be served by providing the nucleus of a transit service forthwith. (:)) That in the event of the motor 'bus service proving satisfactory, it would then only be a question of extending or enlarging an existing system.

(4) That if after two years' actual experience the motor 'bus system proved itself unsuitable, it could be decided to instal a tramway system, and then (lie existing motor 'buses could be utilised as feeders to the tramway system when completed.

I am aware that if a motor 'bus service is adopted, a fairly substantial sum of money will have to be expended upon the roads along the line of route, but I understand that sueii an expenditure will have to be made in this direction in any case.

TRAMWAY LOSSES. Mr. J. McLeod Avrites: —A point I inadvertently omitted in my last in computing the- profit of tlic electric light department, us a set-oil', if necessary, to the probable loss on tramways (on the basis of Mr. Bewley's figures, less the amounts I put forward as deductions), \tas the revenue that the electric light department will derive from the supply of power to the trams. I estimated that | the probable loss on the t rams will be I uniier £ooo per annum for the. first year, ■ an amount thai the electric, light departI incnt could bear without the ratepayers k'in'g called on directly to meet the deficiency- TI IC °»ly additional cost it is I'il'iiined to produce the' £BOO odd worth n't" power the trams will purchase, will bc'the transmission line (if an additional one is 'installed). The converter, etc., % already charged Against the trams. The, plant' now being installed by the 'electric light department is to provide all 'tlie power'heeded; and will generate the ~eSOO of power the. cars will take at no 'atVdltional cost' to the present, except interest on the additional plant, a matter oKi'boiit £IOO a year, showing a further profit of £7OO a year to the electric liglit' fr'oni "the 1 tf&mways. This £7OO, with:last year's nett electric light profit 0f"£475,.["wi11, show tlie nelt surplus of 'the; .electric .light at over £llOO, and a snvplus of about £(i00 over tlie tramways electric light departments coiiibinciji i, : j .-