BUS V. TRAM

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 59, 11 March 1937, Page 8

BUS V. TRAM

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —The article in Wednesday's "Post" entitled "Why the Change?" which referred to "the drastic, changes" in city and suburban street transport systems now taking place in Great Britain, must have been read with keen interest by all who are firmly of opinion that Wellington tramcars must soon give way to motor- or trolleybuses.

In this connection I should like to quote from a recent pronouncement by our General Manager of Tramways (Mr. M. Cable). Writing a foreword to the last November issue of that excellent little magazine"" "The Tramway Journal," Mr. Cable concludes a most able article as follows: —"Tramcars still fulfil best the requirements of established heavy traffic routes; and. with the gradual introduction of modern cars, much of the objection to the tramcar will be removed. They are economical to operate and can definitely move the maximum number of passengers at the lowest fare. For the handling of heavy traffic the tramcar has undoubtedly proved itself up to the present time to be a safe, efficient, and economical vehicle to operate under the coiTditions prevailing in Wellington, and there are no grounds at present for considering the abandonment of any portion of the existing rail system, despite what writers to the . Press and others (who may not be purely disinterested persons) say to the contrary-"

Now compare Mr. Cable's statement regarding the alleged superiority of the tram in carrying capacity, economy, etc., to the same qualities in the motorbus, or trolley-bus, as revealed in "The Post" article,- the writer of. which quotes Mr. Stuart Pilcher, general manager of the Manchester City transport system, who, in an interview with, a "Manchester Guardian" representative, said, inter alia: — "Whatever the reasons may be, people in the mass prefer the bus. . . . I do not think anyone will dispute the statement that buses can travel through the congested parts with more ease than trams, because of their greater mobility. . . . One bus of a smaller carrying capacity does the work of a much larger tram because of its higher speed. . . V During the year ended March 31, 1936, the revenue per tram was £30 per week; per bus £42 per week. The number of passengers carried per tram per week was x 5069. and per bus 5578." Surely these figures speak volumes. Another important point, Sir, is that the ever-increasing inconvenience:: of holding up all traffic for stationary tramcars is obviated by the bus:—l am, etc.,

L. D., AUSTIN,