DEFICIT OF £2255

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21971, 21 December 1936, Page 18

DEFICIT OF £2255

TRAMWAY OPERATIONS FOR FOUR WEEKS j % f ; REPORT PRESENTED TO \ BOARD i | A deficiency of £2255 in the foarl weeks’ operation of the tramways up] to November 8 was shown in a presented to the Christchurch Tram, jway Board at a meeting on Saturday. £ The deficiency during the correspond. 1 ing period of last year was £955, and ; the substantial increase this year was, attributed to additional costs caused' by the new agreement, the restoration i of cuts, and the introduction of a 40- . hour week. | The report showed that during the » period reviewed. which included Labour Day, when the weather was \ dull and threatening, and one day s : racing, the earnings from operation were £14.757. an increase of £SOB by ; comparison with the earnings during the corresponding period of last year. Operating expenses, however, had in- ' creased £lls9—from £10.229 last year to £11,388 this year. Thus, the net earnings during the period this year were £3369. Standing charges were £5624, leaving a deficiency of £2255. The number of passengers had increased by 60,667. The report of the works and traffic committee stated that the Christchurch . City Council wished to make alterations in the Square at the approach to Worcester street west, so that the roadway between the tram track and the footpath would be widened. The ’ council had offered to pay half the . cost, up to £2OO. and at its own ex- , pense to move the safety zone used . bv Riccarton passengers. A sub-corn-mittee of the board had been set up ; and was negotiating with the council.; Reference was made in the works * and traffic committee’s report to a re. : view of the fare schedule. It was stated that the general manager (Mr -. H. E. Jarman) had recommended f slight increases in fares partially to meet increased costs caused by new wages and conditions, amounting to more than £26,000 per annum. The i committee had, however, decided to . postpone consideration of this sugges- ' tion until its first meeting next year. : It was decided to make no contriba- * tion to the cost of completing the Me- * Cormack’s Bay causeway. It was re. ported that the City Engineer (Mr A ' t R. Galbraith) had advised the works and traffic committee of a decision, f made at a recent conference of local ■ bodies concerned in the completion ol \ the causeway, to ask the board for i part of the cost. In its report on this request, the works and traffic committee stated it considered that the board had to maintain its own trackway, and . because of lack of funds was not abla , to assist. -