TRAM PROFIT—BUS LOSS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 77, 1 April 1931, Page 10

TRAM PROFIT—BUS LOSS

The brief statement made by the Mayor last night concerning city transport finance does not afford sufficient information for detailed comment, but the general outline given is interesting. The year ended with a profit for the trams of £8000 and a loss on the buses of £13,000. Last year there was a tram profit of £16,032 and a bus loss of £14,578. It will be seen, therefore, that the conversion of a profit on the combined services into a loss is due to the setback in tramway results. The buses have made headway by £1500 —though, on the present accounting system, they are still far from paying their way—and the trams have lost ground by £8000. It would not be fair, therefore, to argue, as lias been argued in the past, that it is the bus service that is pulling the transport finances down this year, any more than it did last year. We are pleased to see that the Mayor last night made no such submission. Indeed, one remark which was made supported the argument we have submitted that the present system does not permit a fair comparison of tram and bus economy. "How can the buses be expected to pay (he said) picking up traffic only in the ragged ends of the city which the trams do not serve?" There are trams also which pick up traffic in the ragged ends of the city, but these tram sections arc not separated from the whole. The ragged ends are credited with a share of the profit from the inner area. In a fair system of accounting similar credit should be given to the buses. In considering methods oE balancing the . accounts these facts must not be forgotten. The Mayor frankly admitted that the reduced tramways profit was due to< the diminished surplus from the inner area. ""We depend for our profit on the twopenny fare. You cannot carry people seven miles for 3d and show a profit." Yet the Mayor hopes that, "whatever happens, the council will maintain the threepenny fare to the far-flung suburbs." We; agree that tills should be maintained if it is reasonably possible, especially if maintenance can be assured by economies which should be effected in any circumstances. But consideration must be given not only to those who benefit by the universal fare, but to those who live in the ragged ends served by the buses, and on second and third tram sections which derive little or no advantage from the universal fare. The bus-suburb residents should not be, deprived of transport on the ground that the buses are pulling the finances clown (when it is really the universal fare), nor should .the second and third section residents be expected to contribute more than they do at present (either in cash or convenience of service) to help make good llic universal fare loss.