Evening post. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1912. TRAMWAY POLICY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 152, 27 June 1912, Page 6

Evening post. THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1912. TRAMWAY POLICY

Details of the Tramway Board's report, published in The Post to-day, show that the experts have the eagerness, which we credited to them yesterday, to lift the tramways from the descending slopes of loss on to a fair up-grade of profit. On present appearances, the board seems to assume that the rate of expenditure will inevitably increase as the system grows older, and it looks rather to a raising of the revenue than to a lowering of the expenditure to improve the financial position of the enterprise. It has to be admitted, of course, that costs of maintenance increaee in proportion to the age of the plant, but the "citizens have yet to be convinced that the money required to put the tramways on the sound financial basis desired' by the board and by the community should all come out of extra revenue. We shall reserve comment on this point till we have more information. By a rearrangement of sections the board expects to get an increase cf £9750 a year on week-day traffic and £3000 from an imposition of a universal non-transfer 3d fare after midday on Sundays. A proposed general concession of fourteen penny-section rides for a shilling brings the estimated increase of revenue down to a total of £10,250, which is a large sum. Frankly, the board Btates that it hopes to make the tramways absolutely self-supporting, and borrowing is to be eliminated "except such as may be required temporarily to meet tome unforeseen expenditure too heavy to be included in the appropriations of a particular year." This statement needs some explanation for which, we hope, councillors will ask. Some expenditure, t which may be a fair charge against capital, to be gradually paid off over a period of years, should riot all be squeezed out of the present users of the trams. The ideal arrangement, in such a case, is a fair balance between present users -and "posterity" — a "posterity" which will include a large number of present users. In short, the load of expenditure, fairly chargeable to capital, should be evenly distributed. Otherwise the fares, to realise the board's "substantial profit," might preßS heavily and unfairly on the present users. There is obviously need here for careful financial adjustment. By the way, Councillor Fuller has the satisfaction of seeing the board approving such a scheme of concession tickete as he proposed some time age, but there is a difference, of course. The rearrangement of the sections ensures an increase of revenue, whereas fourteen penny-section rides lor a Bhilling, on the present route plans, might involve a loss. The board, however, has accepted the principle of Councillor Fuller's suggestion. Regarding the proposed alterations of sections, it will be generally conceded (outside of Newtown) that the twopenny fare for nearly 3£ miles is too cheap. The board suggests 3d, which the concession scale reduces to 2 4-7 d, a very reasonable charge. The Island Bay fare of 4d ie nominally stationary, but it is actually lowered to 3 3-7 dby the concession. Constable-street users have the same treatment as Newtown people. Lyall Bay and the City Boundary go up from 3d to 4d (3 3-7 d with the discount). As the Miramar Borough Council's charges are tacked on at the City Boundary, it is very probable that a large volume- of protest will be raised by people whose journeyings take in the two lines. It is very difficult to make a perfectly equitable adjustment between the variou6 users of the cars, and a long controversy on this subject is inevitable. The memory of the last one — five or six years ago — must be vivid in many minds here. We are hopeful that the council will not find it neceasaay to accept, in full, the board's recommendation about Sunday tra-ffic. The nontranefer fare of 3d for all lines would bear heavily on hundreds of families. The gain to the tramway fund, if there was much gain with such a discouraging impost, would be at a sore cost to people of limited means — people who do need reasonable facilities to get some fresh air on one day in the week. We cannot imagine that the position of the tramways is so desperate as to require severe penalising of the Sunday travellers to the suburbs. The non-transfer threepenny tariff would benefit some citizens at the expense of others. It is not easy to see how the abuses inseparable from the present system, of workers' ticket* can bo satisfactorily checked. The purpose of Parliament was to give relief to people most in need of it, but it so happens that large numbers of clerks and- other workers, not so well paid as skilled tradesmen, who start their working- day at 8 o'clock or earlier, axe shut out of this unprofitable benefit scheme. It may be found advibable to a6k Parliament to alter tho law, and Jeavo the whole matter >'i coiir^siuas of all kindfi