NEW TRAMWAY POLICY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19720, 20 August 1927, Page 14

NEW TRAMWAY POLICY.

Sir, —bo far as the policy respecting fares is concerned, my criticism was mainly on two points: First, the withdrawai of tHe present, concession rstcs, and second, altering the times when workers' tickets may bo used from before 8.30 a.m. to before 8 a.m. It appears to me that Mr. A. J. Stallworthy, in his letter of 18th, justifies the criticism and brings forward very contradictory evidence in support of the new policy, if it be true, as he states, that "only 30 per cent, of tram travellers use concession tickets," and 1 know that is true—then how can it be that what is at most a 25 per cent, concession to 50 per cent, of travellers "would ultimately rum not only the workers' concession, but the whole system." 1 am concerned mostly for those who reside beyond the present second section from town. According to Mr. Stallworthy's figures these _ are as follows:—Tram users, three sections, 18 per cent.; four sections, 3 per cent.; five sections, 3 per cent. That is, a total of 24 per cent, of all tram-users travel three or more sections, and Mr. Stallworth v's argument seems to mean that only 30 per cent, of them will be users of concession cards. Now I know that argument is all wrong. If Mr Stallworthy looks into the matter a little further he will find that while 30 per cent, is the proportion of all - tramwav-users who use concession tickets, if the percentage is taken in sections the percentage of riders over three and more sections using concession tickets will b* much over 30 per cent. These people are for the most part residents, and by withdrawing their concessions an added burden is being enforced on them. If the users of concession tickets over three or more of the present sections are as few in number as Mr. Stallworthy seems to suggest, then to allow these concessions to remain could not seriouslv affect the tramway revenue, but whether the users be few or many to withdraw the concession certainly does increase the price of travelling to these people, and many of them will not benefit in any way by the introduction of penny sections or the other things Mr. Stallworthy mentions. Thomas Bloodworth.

Sir,—On the new scale of tramway fares the long-distance traveller will have to find from Is 3d lo Is 6d at least a week extra, allowing this individual one trip into town and out again per day only, whereas it must be common knowledge that the long-distance traveller comes into town or uses the tram on at least two evenings in the week in addition to regular travelling. If it were possible to collect statistics it is a fair assumption that they would disclose that the net loss to the long-distance traveller 'would average something like 2s per week, and in order to make his weekly travelling account balance he would have to take 24 additional penny rides to even things up; in other words, in addition to his ordinary travelling into town and out, he -would have to take four other rides pen day on the reduced sections to find his account for tram fares balanced. This seems to me to be the reductio ad absurdum method of reducing the cost of travelling. What the expenditure on the new scale will mean to the long-distance traveller, particularly where families are concerned, mav safely be put. down in the nature of a rent and will probably run into £lO or £l2 per annum per household. These figures are not assumed because in my own case {a family of three) they are a conservative estimate, and this imposition is placed upon the suburbanite in the face of all progressive and popular betterment principles. Let the council provide other means to mako up the losses on the buses and not draw a red herring across the scent by talking of the reduction of fares when an extra section is inserted or the section shortened. The general public can be gulled sometimes, but they can't be gulled all the time, they have to pay and they know it; and they have shewn this by voting against the loan proposals. There is no Auckland citizen who is not proud of this city; all realise it must go ahead and means of transport must be provided. If the Auckland citizen is given a clear-cut proposal and is shown that as a business proposition it will pay for itself, he will endorse it, but to expect him to swallow his medicine by the spoonful and bfl slapped on the back to see that it is swallowed is expecting too much of him. He has realised that trams and buses cannot run side by side; he further realises that buses are not an economical proposition on short-distance runs, and that the districts not served by trams must pay for their transport until economic facilities can be given them. But his greatest concern at the present time is that island and contiguous boroughs are clamouring for facilities at his expense without incurring any liability. The time has come for a Greater Auckland Transport Board, with every local authority accepting its fair share of the responsibility for any losses involved until the most economical means of transport is found; and with a view to inducing the people to live out of town in healthy and hygienic conditions a maximum fare for any distance must be seriously considered. J. Osbttrne-LIIXY.