HIGHER TRAM FARES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20402, 2 November 1929, Page 16

HIGHER TRAM FARES.

Sir, —1 see that someone has at last hit the nail on the head. As members of the Auckland Transport Board are the fortunate possessors of free passes raised tram fares are of no concern to them. If the majority (those who travel by tram) have to suffer :tor the minority (those who travel by bus), why not those who are enforcing the increase suffer likewise and do their part to- help make up the deficiency by forgoing their free passes. So far not a word in this direction in the proposals from our worthy members, although it may be modesty on their part in not making this known. Surely this is a fair spirit for the public to expect from them. Yes, as "Do unto others" points out, leave the blind (and I should like to include the disabled soldier) their small privilege, it is little that we can do for them. As Mr. Shackelford points out, how about a little consideration to overhead expenses before taxing the public in the proposed way ? To advocate the family man living out of the city, and then confront him with a problem like this, seems hardly consistent. Service Before Self.

Sir, —May I add mv protest to the expressed and unexpressed dissatisfaction in respect to the action of the Transport Board in again increasing the fares, and to express my conviction thai; such action will only rebound upon the head of the board, as in the case of the last increase, by a diminution in revenue rather than an increase. The chairman's defence, published in your issue of this morning, is of the weakest possible character. In my opinion your correspondent, Mr. John W. Shackelford, is on the right lines when ho insists upon ei thorough overhauling of the administrative charges; thait is where the trouble lies; also a keen scrutiny as to the holders of free passes, and their recall." I am residing" on the third section, but being in possession of perfect health and strength, and still enjoying a walk, I intend leaving home a quarter of an hour earlier and walking into town. Three Score and Ten.

Sir, —I notice in your report of Mr. Allum's statement regarding tram fares, that he wishes it to be known that only 35 per cent, of the passengers will be affected by the increased fares. Surely this is inequitable. Who are the favoured, and why ? Also, why has the board not made some serious attempt to try and work with less inspectors ? Apparently it has little faith in its conductors, much less in the travelling. public; but a very great deal in the inspection brigade. Finally, it appears there is considerable want of public confidence in the present board May I suggest that if its members, or any of them, have the true welfare of the public in mind, and are really personally not ambitions in these matters, they resign their appointments and submit their qualifications to the electors, by way of the ballot-box. In this age of democracy it seems strange that anything else was attempted, and, moreover, that any person wishing to serve the public, under the circumstances would be content with a lesser warrant. Rata.

Sir, —In your issues of October 30 and 31 you have dealt with the question of tramway fares in leading articles, and I should be glad if you would permif; me to offer some remarks thereon. You say that last year's working shows a profit of £48,000 on trams and a loss of £45,000 on buses. You will remember that when the commission sat in Auckland evidence was placed before them that the allocation of revenue and expenditure between trams and buses was not correct. The commission accepted this and commented on how unfortunate this was in view of the importancQ of the figures to the question they were to consider, Now you accept these incorrect figures as part of your argument. You remark on tho fact that no statement is made about tho respective earnings of trams and buses. A fresh method of recording these earnings is supposed to have been installed this year, but so far no statement of them has been put before the board. You may ask why I have not called for this return, but it is a settled policy with the city s representatives, who are a majoritv of the board, to block any proposals made by Mr. Morton or "myself. Tho wholo discussion respecting bueses, and trams is conducted in the dark for want of information. Feeder buses cannot be made to pay. People will not enter a vehicle in order to change into another in a short time. Yet if the presont policy is continued feeder buses will bo required when the tramway extensions are made, for it cannot be supposed that Auckland will stop short at the tramway termini. I have consistently advocated that motor-buses should bo handed over to private enterprise, and flowed to run into the city, but the board, in the supposed interests of trams,, would not consider this except in 'selected areas. The increased charge for concession tickets will not put the trams on a paying basis. It is not certain that it will add anything to revenue, for it will certainly increase the tendency to travel by motor. The only policy which offers any hope ol ! success is a policy of low fares, by which the existing tramway system may be made to pay, but this, of course, rules out further extensions. Outer districts can, however, be adequately provided for by buses if these are handed over to private enterprise. The board should not deal with buses except perhaps iri the areas served by trams. It would, however, be better to allow private enterprise to run tho buses, for they seem able to make it pay, which apparently cannot bo done by public bodies. If the present system is continued it will not be long before a rate must be struck, and tho peoplie of the inner areas who will not face an increased faro will have to pay an increased rate. Unfortunately all others, will have to do the same, though they have no responsibility for the policy which has mad'» it necessary. E-. H. Potter.