INCREASE IN TRAM FARES

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26855, 7 October 1952, Page 6

INCREASE IN TRAM FARES

Transport Board’s Decision MEETING HIGHER WAGES

Since the Christchurch Transport Board approved its estimates of expenditure for the current year its employees have been allowed increases in' wares expected to coat between £12,000 and £14,008. To cover these increases the board decided yesterday to raise its fares from next Monday, The increase in fares, provided present patronage is maintained, will return £33,000. but taking into account a likely decline in patronage because of the increase a return of £20,000 is expected. Two members of the board, Messrs E. J; Bradshaw and T. M. Charters, voted against the increase.

The cash fares will be increased by Id a section from and including the third section, the nine-ride trip tickets will be increased by approximately 9d a section from and including the third section; and the 20-ride fortnightly cards will be raised by about Is a section from and including the third section. The 20ride cards will not be available on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. When the report of its works and traffic committee recommending that fares be increased came before the board, the chairman (Mr F. L. Brandt) said it contained “a very deplorable matter for confirmation —an increase in fares. Not a member here will be happy about it,” said Mr Brandt, “but it has been forced on us by necessity. You will remember that when the estimates were laid on the table some months ago, the Arbitration Court had not made its pronouncement about wages. Since then the court has made various increases and the increased wages of employees of the board will amount to between £12,000 and £14,000. That was not allowed for in the estimates and at that time J said that if there was an increase in wages there would be no alternative but to increase fares.

“For the current year, rating is estimated at £ 130,000 and in my opinion that is plenty,” said Mr Brandt. Mr R. G. Brown: Too much. “It appears to be that in future if there are further increases in wages —and goodness knows when the spiral is going to end—we shall have no alternative but to chase after them through rates or increased fares," said Mr Brandt. “I think £130,000 is the maximum for rates and I can’t see how we can get them down. I know that various members round this table would like to see them down by half. I think we shall have to give serious consideration in the future to increasing fares to meet wage increases. That may not be possible, but I feel that way.”

The deputy-chairman (Mr C. C. Holland) said he regretted that the board had to take this course, but he did not feel that there was need for apology. His view was that action on these lines should have been taken some time ago, but the previous board had been prepared to permit the position to slip with annual increases in the charge against rates. There had, he said, been no increase in rates this year to compare with those of the last three years. Onus on Users “I am one who believes that within certain limits this system should be paid for by users,” said Mr Holland. It had been suggested that the board, like the Drainage Board, might meet the whole of its expenses out of rates, but it was his view that there was no possible parallel between the Transport Board and the Drainage Board. Every householder was obliged to have his house connected to the sewerage system, but there was no compulsion to use the board’s services.

Mr Holland said the public should know that the decision to raise fares had not been reached hastily. It followed a careful examination of the administration of the undertaking, and a number of economies had been affected, which though they might npt seem outstanding individually were m the aggregate considerable. There had been a rearrangement and development of the use of one-man vehicles at week-ends: when it had been found that the 11.10 p.m. vehicles were not patronised they had been eliminated; and though the public might not know it, ordinary members of the board had agreed to a reduction of their fees by a naif. The board was still looking to its management. for further economies. Mr Holland said that private enterprise could make a transport service in Christchurch pay, but not the one the board was operating. It would need tq curtail the services so when a vehicle ran it had a load.

Jn his report on his visit overseas the general manager (Mr J. F. Fardell) had said that overseas undertakings carrying 10 to 15 passengers a mile, against three to five in Christchurch, were st ill making losses. “That is one of the penalties of living in a garden city where vehicles travel a long way through areas that are not thickly populated,” s»nid Mr Holland. “That is one of the justifications for this increase.” The increase wap not by anv means going tp cover the board’s total deficit, said Mr Holland, who seconded the resolution to increase fares, which had been moved bv the chairman. At the best it would bring in £30,000, said Mr Holland.

“This proposed fare increase is a major increase and goes further than is required to meet the £12;000 or £14.000 increase in wages,” said Mr Bradshaw, opposing the proposal. He said he felt that an increase at this time would be highly undesirable. He agreed that the principle of the user paying was sound, but it seemed from past experience that every fare increase brought a reduction in patronage, and if that went on he felt that the ratepayers, whom the board was seeking to protect, might have to carry an even greater load. “Economic Price Exceeded”

In view of the quality of the service —not too frequent, poisy and slow— Mr Bradshaw said, he felt that the economic price the public was prepared to pay had already been exceeded. When the modernisation scheme had been completed it might be that the user should then pay more. Mr Bradshaw said he would have preferred tp see the board tackle the problem by curtailing expenditure—eliminating a number of the poqrly patronised and wasted services, and using vehicles so freed to bolster up the services on the main routes. Mr Charters said he also felt that there was no justification for an im crease in fares at present. He saidan increase in fares had tp be approached carefully. Because it was a flat city, citizens of Christchurch could very easily change from trams t-' some other form of transport. Mr J. R. Smith said he felt that the board would always have to carry routes which were not a payable proposition. To eliminate any of these to recoup this wage increase would be a retrograde step, he said. “We have difficulties in front of us, but we are not going to shrink from them,” said Mr Brandt, before putting the resolution to the meeting: