LONDON’S TRAMS

Evening Star, Issue 19025, 21 August 1925, Page 11

LONDON’S TRAMS

HEAVY DEFICIT FOR 1929-25 QUESTION OF SCRAPPING. The financial position of the tramways was the subject of a long debate at a recent meeting of the London County Council. Accounts for the year 1924-25 and estimates for 1925-26 were submitted by the Finance and Highways Committee respectively. Tho former committee reported a net deficiency for the year of £278,441, against £160,220 for 1923-24. Towards that deficiency, £40.605 was available out of the balance or the reserve fund. The balance of the deficiency, amounting to £237,836, was a charge on the special county rate account, and towards meeting it the sum of £179,818, representing the proceeds of a penny rate, was raised in the second half of 1924-25. The deficiency would be made good by rating in 1925-26. The Highways Committee estimated a net deficiency for 1925-26 of £199,111In a report on the accounts the committee pointed out that rates. on tho permanent way represented a relief to the rates of London levied by the road authorities of about .3 of a penny in the £. Tire saving to the road authorities in consequence of the obligation of the council to maintain the paving along the tramway routes was estimated to bo about £240,000 a year. Altogether in various ways rates were relieved to the extent of £330,839 a year by the trams.

COMPETITION FROM OMNIBUSES. Mr Angus Scott pointed out that the increase in the 'omnibus competition since 1923 was 60 per cent. Those extra omnibuses were, he declared, not wanted. They caused congestion in the streets, and made it impossible for other forms of traffic on the roads to pay. He understood that the frame Advisory Committee had stabilised the number of omnibuses, and that there was to be no further increase. But that did not go far enough, ine council could not make ends meet in face of that ridiculous competition. It was not known what view the Advisory Committee were taking of the tramways, which appeared to be that they were of vital interest to London. If a reasonable revenue per car-mila could be obtained there would be no trouble. The average number or passengers was only ten per car-nulo, and an undertaking of such a lum) could not be made to pay on such a small number of passengers, there were other factors which influenced receipts. A seventh of the whole ol the takings was from workmen’s lares, and those fares were run at a loss. But the omnibuses, which had increased their competition by 60 per cent., offered no such facilities to the workmen of London.' ' As to scrapping the tramways, he would point out the futility of the suggestion. It was true that the deficit for the year was equivalent to a lid rate. In arriving at the figure, it should be remembered that the tramways contributed to tho rates a. total of 1.65 d, or more than the amount which the public were paying in respect of the deficit for the year. If the tramways were scrapped there would still be the interest on £9,000,000 of outstanding capital to be paid. He denied that the tramways were bankrupt. U they were, so also were a large number of important businesses in the country. The tramways were, in fact, a great and valuable asset. After criticism from tho Labor benches, Mr J. C. Dalton said that mauv excuses had been made tor the deficit. The tramway system had' outlived its usefulness. Figures showed that they had their money in a losing business. Why not approach it in a business-like from the old Progressive days—a monument in the cemetery of foolish municipal trading. The majority of the people carried belonged to the class winch was out to got something for mitbing. The trnmears were full of people who travelled at - a loss to the council. He urged_ bis colleagues to take their courage in both hands and to consider the matter as a business proposition. They should not spend another shilling on the tramways, but look to tho day when they would bo scrapped altogether. Mr J. 2. Blake asked how the tramways could possibly be a success when the party in control was permeated with the view expressed by the last speaker. At the same time, he warned the council against any system of “ protection ” for the tramways. Ovorpielection in the long run meant inefficiency. London ,needed both tramcars and omnibuses. But for an accident the London County Council would be running both. Mr Gatti, the chairman of the Finance Committee, said that ho was unable to follow the argument that the tramways should not pay rates. They must pay like similar undertakings. As to the upkeep of track, if the tramways did not pay it would result_ m rcloiving certain boroughs and imposing rates of 3d or 4d in tho £ in other boroughs. They had had a very depressing year. Certain -difficulties were inherent," for the tramways were never laid down'as a unified system. It was a system which might be likened to a wheel with tho hub knocked out. Everywhere was the dead end. Now, however, traffic was being considered as a whole, and ho looked forward to improvement. Ho had every confidence that the tramways, although they were going through a serious period, would, in the long run, be restored to that position which, until recently, they occupied. Accounts and estimates were received.