TRAMWAY LOAN

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26263, 7 November 1950, Page 5

TRAMWAY LOAN

Sir,—As a 'guide to the citizens of Christchurch in the coming tramway poll, would it be possible for you to inquire from the appropriate authority, and publish in your columns, information as to whether the Opawa-Fendal-ton bus route has been paying its way in the months since the change-over from trams to buses? If this route is now paying, similar results might be expected from a changeover on other routes.—Yours, etc., RATEPAYER. November 3, 1950. [ln the first six months after the change-ovei from trama to buses on the Fendalton-Opawa route there had been an increase of 12,000 in the number of passengers carried and an increase of £lOOO in revenue, said the general manager (Mr J. F. FardelD when this 'letter was relerred to him. Mr Fardell said that operating cost! on the line were being met.]

Sir.—As one of 350 resident* who signed a petition for a bus service for this area (Innes road) in off-peak periods. I would like some intimation of the board's policy. We have not yet got a service, but more recently built up areas have been given a service since the petition was lodged. Are we like several other areas asked to vote for a poll to increase our rates and not even get a skeleton service? So far I have not heard of the board’? proposals for the use of the loan money and would like answers to the following questions:, what sum from the lean is to be spent on removing existing tracks, etc.? How many vehicles are to be purchased for what sum? What are the routes for the new vehicles? Will they only replace existing services?—Yours, etc., KT v W. STANBURY. November 6, 1950. I“A brochure has been issued to all householders giving details of the proposals. said the general manager (Mr J. F. Fardell), referring to this letter. "Any further information required will be gladly given if the writer cares to call at the Tramway Board office.’ ]

Sir,—Who is paying for the large advertisement asking for support of tiie tramway loan? H t.he Tramway Board, would it not be better to spend any surplus money it has in repairing the tracks. If a private company were running our tramway system I can see it being stopped until the tracks'were put in condition. Surely the advertisers cannot expect the public to entrust them with the large amount of money asked for, when the shocking condition of the outfit is a measure of their competence to handle an enterprise.—Yours, etc.. WT • ONLOOKER. November 2, 1950. * '

[‘‘We are asking for the money to get over the difficulty of the tracks—that is the whole object of the loan,” said the chairman of the Tramway Board (Mr J. E. Jones) yesterday, commenting on this letter. To renew the tracks would cost nearly £2.000,000. which would be far more than the present proposal, and there would be no rolling stock, he said. "Onlooker” in his letter had- not made it clear to what advertisement he was referring.]

Sir,—The trarps served the public and paid, until the Labour Party discovered they could run the trams in any inefficient way, and make the ratepayers pay. They did it; but higher rates meant higher rents. The Citizens’ Association soon took the same plan of taxing the ratepayers, who are fair game for all who can get away with exploiting them. Private enterprise can run Jouses outside the city area, and make them pay, even at lower mileage charges Buses controlled by local bodies will never be able to do that.—Yours, etc., • R. November 6, 1950.

Sir,—lf we are to have a new transport system without charges to the ratepayers, surely no loan is necessary. The correct procedure should be that the present board liquidates its assets, a public company of a million or so is formed to purchase new buses, and take over from the Tramway Board what assets it requires. The- new company, run on business lines, would charges fares to not only cover ’running costs, but also to give a fair and reasonable return to shareholders, as is done by other transport companies. The present system of low fares and making the ratepayer foot the bill for losses should no longer be tolerated. A' ratepayer to-day can pay a 4d fare, but by the addition of his tramway rates, his transport actually costs him 6d a trip. Yet a fellow-passenger, not a ratepayer, has only 4d to pay. Why not charge both sd? Then fairness results, and ratepayers are not penalised.—Yours, etc., T NO LOAN. November 6, 1950.

Sir, —Four final points. (1) Once approved, it would be long indeed before trolley-buses could be got rid of, and we could hardly hope for good radio reception again within our lifetime. (2) Apart from radio, remember that the board dared not make public its own experts’ report on its proposals. For an inefficient scheme we would have to pay extra, in fares and rates, merely to save the face of the board. (3) If the board plucks up courage for a last-minute statement, consider whether one deliberately made too late to be answered can safe.y be accepted, particularly in view of the present board’s amazing record in such matters. (4) Remember that this proposal can be defeated, to make room for another, only by voting against it and urging others io vote against it.—Yours, etc., THROW IT OUT. November 6, 1950.

Sir,—Over a period of years the tracks and rolling stock have deteriorated, with little or no maintenance work being carried out. The financial position is similar the board’s commitments in loan repayments and interest being a heavy burden; of these we read nothing in their pamphlet advocating the sanction of the loan. If the proposal tis successful the liabili-, ties will be greater, with no additional revenue. The board has the rate demand to add its losses to. An investigation by a qualified accountant would show that we would have a grand and modern service at an added charge to the traveller or the ratepayer.— Yours, etc., xt u » R - WILKINS. .November 6, 1950.