Increased Tramway Fares

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25147, 31 March 1947, Page 6

Increased Tramway Fares

The decision of the Christchurch Tramway Board to increase the fares over its service is no doubt one that the board reached with the greatest reluctance; but it is one to which the board has been forced inevitably by the pressure of economic circumstance. The board has done well (it could be said that it has no option) to explain frankly why its decision has been made. In essence, the reason is that in recent years it has had to contend with such steeply rising costs outside the sphere of its control that it is losing £lO6O a week, or £52,000 a year, and is faced with the prospect of losing even more; for new awards may add to its costs another £62,000 a year. Even with the most prudent

management—and the board can fairly claim that its conduct of its affairs has been prudent—it could not hope to overtake so great a deficiency without adding to its revenue. In July last year the board found it necessary to strike, in addition to the general rate, a special rate to yield £43,836 to cover partly the deficiency that it then faced. Since then, costs outside of the board’s control have risen enormously. It had two courses open to it—to strike a higher rate or to increase fares. On the principle that the users of its services should carry some part of the burden, the board came to the decision under discussion; and it is difficult to see what other conclusion it could have reached. The primary concern of the secretary of the Christchurch Tramway Employees’ ftjnion (Mr N. R. Forbes), in comment on the decision, appears to be its effect on forthcoming proceedings before the Arbitration Court; and he complains that the union has not been consulted about the raising of fares. It is pertinent to ask why the union should be consulted on a matter that is not its affair and, particularly, not its responsibility, especially since Mr Forbes is anxious to acquit the members of his union for any responsibility for the increase. Mr Forbes’s concern for the effects of the rising costs of transport on “ the “workers” generally is no doubt shared by the board, as it will be shared by everyone who is perturbed by the rising cost of every service and every commodity. But the board has a responsibility to the public as the administrator of a public service; and it cannot accept that of running its service into bankruptcy. Higher wages and increased prices of materials mean higher costs; higher costs must be met by higher fares; and that is a burden which every tram-user must share. That is the inescapable logic of the situation. Whether higher fares will mean fewer passengers is a risk that the board is bound to take; and it must take it boldly, as it has done.