Tramway Problems

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 69, 15 December 1931, Page 11

Tramway Problems

Sir, —I have to thank the Mayor for his reply to my figures, and to state that it is information that is required and not publicity. With regard to the question of “making inquiries from the town clerk’s office,” the last time I did so I was refused in a manner which struck me as rather arbitrary, and therefore I dismissed the idea of this method from my mind, and appealed through the columns of your paper. The more the public understands of the troubles surrounding the tramway and electric light departments the better for all concerned.

So as to clear the Mayor’s figures up as to the cost of electric energy per unit, will the Mayor supply through your columns the following figures:—(l) The cost of the unit purchased from the Public Works Department; (2) the cost of the unit after all the council’s charges such as breaking down, and the department’s and council’s overhead are added; (3) the cost of the unit debited to the tramways department. Just what does the Mayor mean when he makes the statement that power, or in other words the unit, is sold to the consumer as low as possible? Perhaps the Mayor will tell us at what price the council retails the unit to (a) private consumers for house lighting; (b) commercial consumers for lighting; and (c) commercial power consumers? Why is the commercial consumer of electric light charged twice as much as the private and power consumer? The publicity given through your columns, Sir, some three months ago, to the question of excessive electricity charges to commercial users of light, has had the effect of a reduction being made of one penny per unit, which, although welcome, is wholly inadequate. The attacks on the costly overhead ot the tramways are having a very desirable effect. The council is making a substantial effort to reduce costs, spurred on by the fact, however, that the revenue has fallen so considerably. What is required. Sir, is foresight and clear thinking, and a study of the up-to-date methods such as is apparent in some of our leading retail establishments. Reduced retail prices mean constant and ever-increasing trade. Letters have appeared in your columns suggesting reasonable methods of helping the tramways department out of its difficulties, but there seems a disinclination to accept any of these suggestions. Leaving out entirely the correctness or otherwise of the figures given in my letters of the 26th inst., are not my other suggestions worthy of notice?—l am, etc., "REFORMER.”

Sir, —No one suggests seriously that we should scrap our trams. The most that is seriously proposed is that they should not be extended, duplicated, or new lines laid. That they are not paying is, I contend, due entirely to overcharges and management. The reason we cannot scrap the tram system as a whole, all at once, or even by degrees, is that the burden of the loss of a million and a half of capital invested would be a further added burden to' the unbearable load the ratepayers now have to carry through the , waste, mismanagement and extravagance’ of the City Council with all its blunderings, involving thousands of pounds. The Mayor’s defence of the tramway finances is not enlightening. With economies there is no need to vary the universal fare of threepence. The Mayor admits that the cost of electricity to the city is £73,000 a year. That pays for fortyseven million units. Of that the tramways use eleven millions and pay £38,000. That on the face of it is an overcharge. The actual cost to the department is under £15,000. and the charge to the tramways is £23,000 more—fully 150 per cent, profit. Is it any wonder the trams do not pay? But the Mayor says the true, cost is £170,000. The Mayor does not say how that amount is made up. The cost of electricity is actually 1.5 farthing per unit, and the charge to the general consumer is twopence to fourpence per. unit. Striking the charge on 36 million units at. sav. 2d per unit, this gives a yield of £300.000 per annum, and the Mayor tells us that the true cost is “£170,000.” The profit apart from the tramways is enormous. The Mayor has either told us too little or too much. The overhead charges must he extraordinary if the actual or net profit is onlv £60,000 a year. The Mayor must tellus more about this electricity business, or by ratepayers and consumers the City Council’s methods will be utterly condemned. , , ~ . ~, In thirty-two weeks the Mayor tells us the net losses on the tramways is £8471, compared with last year. If the tramways were given electric power n< cost, as ought to be the case the tramways would show a profit of £lO,OOO to £12.000 on the period reviewed. I suggest there is no justification for a commission of inquiry independent of any officer of the council, town clerk or tramways manager. —I am, etc.. -G. L. WHITTOCK.