THE CITIZENS AND THE TRAMWAYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17189, 5 November 1923, Page 6

THE CITIZENS AND THE TRAMWAYS.

TO THE I.DITOit. ! lS ' ,r - our leader on Thursday re I ! minds ono of the old adage—YVhen you I | have no argument, abuse the othei 1 •“■do. You may be an authority on run- I ! >'”'K a newspaper, but you tiro hope- ! lessly at sea on tramway matters ! . o" advocate a. return to neilnv | tares as a. means of increasing revenue. You are perhaps not aware thaL when t fares for adults were al.nl- | tailed. the board gained ,£17.000 in j revenue, which, of course, it would lose II it accepted your advice. You quote j Dunedin, but do you not knotv that its. whole service is contained within three sections; that its mileage of ro .V, te «, R . p *shteen miles as compared with Christchurch 33 miles, and that the population per mile is consequenthi greater in Dunedin, which in other I words spells congestion, with tendency to slums and high rents. further, there is practically little or no bicycle competition in Dunedin, and the cars there are lunch moro crowded than ours. You ignore tills discomfort only when it suits you. Again, outside the . t.r-.st. section, Christchurch fares per mile are cheaper than Dunedin. Dun- , Mill's shopping centre is along one long route—Princes and George Streets

1 where®* m Christchurch shopping is I centralised. \ou never see the same | seat occupied three or four times in | the Christchurch central area as you |do in the other centres. You did not see that even in the penny fare days. „Yolr statement that Sydenham and Warrington Street riders are being driven away from the trams because they are asked to carry the loss on other lines is not in accordance with facts. This line is the only one. with Richmond, the increase of traffic on whic-h has necessitated an improved timetable this summer. The fare is still 2d to Warrington Street. Tennyson Street, and -Wilson’s Road, whereas in tlie < itv Council trams of -Auckland and Wellington (whose example you would have the board copy) the j tare for the same sections 3d. In i Dunedin the cash fare for this section i av £?*® es near, y ner cent more ilns little controversy started through a, comparison with Auckland which you published. When, however, it is pointed out to you that the Christchurch Board would take £93.000 more per annum from its passengers if it adopted Auckland rates throughout, you brush that asirle with the comment. “ it is idle to juggle with aggregate figures. 5 ' L might have reminded you too that Christchurch would gain £BO.OOO a year if it adopted the rates of the City Council owned trams in Wellington. but if I had done this you would have endeavoured to escane from your dilemma just as airily. ~Tet. us then depart from the aggregate comparisons which you loathe. What about these details of the muuicipa 1 ly-control of Wellington and Auckland which you advocate:

Aou say the board must be judged by its performances—-well, what’s wrong in saving the Christchurch tram users the amounts set forth above? It is a pill that the municipal control advocates as against the present board control will find it hard to get down. I. can give you a few more such when you are ready for then}. You complain about ‘seaside residents being carried at low fares. I am glad to admit that they are- The more we can induce people to live out in the open, and beyond the »3d section (which is Dunedin’s limit) the better for the 1 community, but you forget that on October 2 you advocated a reduction in the fares to the beaches. Aon also advocated a return to the penny fare, but you take, no account of the increased cost of operating and other charges since pre-war days. T do. which makes all the difference in our viewpoint. Tn 1913. operating costs wene £79.000. To-day they are £177.000, and even then lower per care mile than any of the municipally controlled concerns which you think are better than the board's. - I am, DAVID SYKES. Chairman. Christchurch Tramway Hoard.

Christ- A nek- Wellingbcctions. church. land. ton. . 1 2d 2d 2d 2 2d 3d '3d 3 3d Id Id •* Id -h'I od o od . (id (id 6 6d . 7d 6d ~ 7d, Is ret. --- — 8 8d, Is 3d ret. —