The Dominion. MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1908. THE TRAMWAYS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 230, 22 June 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1908. THE TRAMWAYS.

The very interesting discussion that took place upon the tramway finances at Thursday's meeting of the City Council well deserves the' close .attention of the city ratepayers. Municipal control of large public services is still in its infancy, in this country at any rate, and .the conditions in New Zealand are peculiarly favourable to the development of the dangerous tendencies of municipalisation. Nobody can have read Councillor Shirtcliffe's useful analysis of the past year's balance-sheet, and the subsequent discussion to which his speech gave rise, without feeling that while the tramway system is still on a sound footing, those tendencies have already begun to show themselves. In the first place, it is very clear that wastefulness is one of the characteristics of the service. , The increase in the revenue was £26,375, and the increase in working expenses, including the charges for interest, sinking fund, and depreciation, amounted to £25,033. That is to say, as Councillor Shirtcliffe pointed out, " the increased total revenue was all but swallowed up .by the increased working expenses and permanent charges." The net surplus shown in the official statement was £4085, or only J per cent., but if interest on the depreciation fund and the rates on properties used for tramway purposes had been debited against revenue,, the net balance, would have been only £3120. As the revenue included £3515 from the sale of power, it is clear that the system just failed, as a tramways system, to make ends meet.

Either the fares charged on the various sections arc too low', or the service is being run upon wasteful lines. The public will not endure any increase in the fares, and financial safety must therefore be found in a revision of the administration. The natural conditions of Wellington are in some important respects so much more favourable to success than those of the other cities that the very moderate result of the past year's working is the more surprising. .The following table, based upon figures quoted by the Chairman of the ■ Christchurch Tramways Board will make this point clear: —

Chch. D'dn Akld. Wgtn Population per milo of' single track 1407 1905 2174 - 2593 Passengers carried per mile of track 216,642 505,317 611,729 652,817 Passengers per car mile run ... , 6.D 9.7 — 9.9 Revenue per head s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. of population ... 26 5 29 7 35 3 37 1 Capital expenditure por head 132.8 152.G 172.9 ' 146.2 With' the second lowest capital expenditure per head of population, and with tile highest rcvenuo per head, the Wellington system yet fails to mako ends meet as a carrying system, even when it is aided by supremacy in those vital factors, thickness of population and popular patronage. Obviottsly there is something wrong somewhere when a system so naturally favoured is really run, as Councillor Suiktcliffe showed; at a slight-loss, while the Christchurch system, so heavily disadvantaged by the ncccsoity for a service rttdiufcins in&ll dimtinnH from & central poiati' can albady show a little profit

after making provision for the accident fund that does not exist here.

It was natural for the Mayor to toll the Council ' that they were " waiting, for a heaven-born genius." That is the customary retort when complaint is made of inferior management. Other places, without the aid of any heaven-born genius, have managed to avoid getting into a mess. If much of the tramways management is in line with the wasteful policy in vogue at the carsheds, it is small wonder that the ratepayers have little prospect, of ever getting a penny back in return for the money that they contributed to the establishment of this important public utility. With the exception of Councillor Fisher, nobody seems to have dissented from the doctrine laid down by Councillor M'Laren. Someone should havo at least pointed out, when Councillor M'Laren urged that " the ratepayers received the benefit" of the absence of profits, that it is not the ratepayers who are benefited,' but the general public at the ratepayers' expense. " The service," said this Councillor, -whose affection is for any kind of bleeding of a class for another class's benefit, " should not be. regarded chiefly as a profit-making concern, but as a convenience of the city and an agency for the development of its suburbs." At whose expense is that convenience furnished and that development scoured 1 Not, as in equity we should require, at the expense of the beneficiaries, the general public, but at the expense of the people who. pay the rates. The sole justification of any municipal project is its ability to furnish a good public service at reasonable rates, and show a fair and reasonable profit, which should then be devoted to the relief —either directly, or indircctly through disbursement on works for which otherwise a rate would be required—of the people who furnish the capital and who must niako good the deficiencic3. We sincerely trust that the authorities will take this as the governing principle of the tramways administration in future. , Councillor Fisher pointed out that, no sum is debited against revenue under the heading of running -rights, and it is unsound finance not to do so. While as yet there is no cause for anxiety, the citizens will bo well-advised to watch the tramways very closely, lest the waste of the system increase with the spread of the Socialistic doctrine for which Councillor M'Laren stands.