THE TRANSPORT BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20426, 30 November 1929, Page 16

THE TRANSPORT BOARD.

Sir, —The choicest bits of "logic" are still to be found in your correspondence columns, the two gems in Friday's issue coming from "Engineer" and "Tramway Passonger." "Engineer," having given figures whiclf 1 appear to show that otlier towns have bigger bus losses per mile than even Auckland, _then 'tells us that ho is puzzled that there should be criticism of our Transport Board, which, ho says, is handling the position ably and well. On these lines of reasoning we can take it that if "Engineer" were a shareholder of any concern which was losing money on a side line, and thus imperilling its main business, he would be perfectly satisfied so long as some other concern' in the next street was losiug even more money in the same line ? This is no false analogy, for the Transport Board claims to make a profit on trams which is more than absorbed by the £44,000 annual loss on the buses. It is admitted that some of these bus services are now to be replaced with but what about the bus services that are not being replaced by trams, such as Buckland Road, Waikowhai, and Blockhouse Bay, not forgetting Point Resolution ? The Buckiand Road buses for nearly the whole of the route are running parallel to the trams, and not more than about four minutes' walk from the trams. Mr. Allum has, as has been quoted from Herald editorials, more than 'once promised the giving up of these losing services,' but it seems that the manager cannot bear to part with them. "Tramway Passenger" says: "Do not expect an honourable body of men to work miracles." I am afraid this writer must bo indulging in a little subtle sarcasm, for to carry out promises to drop superfluous and costly bus services seems only common gumption, although it might be considered a miracle for some boards to exercise any of that quality. P. Alexander.

Sir, —The chairman of the TiUnsport Board, when giving notification of the increased fares, attributed the lower passenger totals to the increasing number of private cars in use and cheap taxi fares. It is the board's interpretation of the needs of this position that, has inspired such widespread and sustained criticism. The majority of car owners, people who can only just afford to run a car, do not use them regularly from choice. The inconvenience of travelling, perhaps some distance, from an available parking spot to their place of work, the deterioration caused by leaving a car exposed all day, and all the risks incidental to leaving a car parked so long regularly, have to bo considered, besides the actual cost of running it. It is only when other forms of transport become so expensive that car owners turn to their own vehicles for daily use, and others become car and cycle owners for the same purpose. with the board's present action, what policy would "Tram Passenger" advise it to adopt should the transport system, after a period with the present fares, still show a loss? F. GrOERTZ. ' Point Chevalier.