THE CITIZENS AND THE TRAMWAYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17192, 8 November 1923, Page 6

THE CITIZENS AND THE TRAMWAYS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—You have dropped the- comparison with municipal control to try and prove black is white. You say the ono thing the board cannot escape from is its deficiency for the hall year of £11.532. I stated when t-liis return was sent out for publication that practically the whole of the deficiency was accounted for by increased standing charges on new loan expenditure. I have also stated that had revenue remained as buoyant as it was when the loan was carried, there would have been no deficiency even with the low Christchurch fares. You started this controversy by advocating municipal control, and when T said that if the board had adopted Auckland and Wellington municipal control scales of fares there would hare been no deficiency, but a bumping surplus, you reply that a smoke screen of traffic figures will not obscure the issue. The public is not so flense hut they will see through the smoke screen you have, manufactured. The traffic figures quoted by me were facts, and the issue, an “elected Board.” or “municipal control' can be safely loft to the public to decide. You make no allowance in your comments on the half-year’s return for the fact that it included an influenza epidemic. and a long stretch of wet weather which spelt greatly reduced revenue, and increased cost in operating. especially in road repairs. Of course, under municipal control you get neither influenza epidemics, nor long stretches of wet weather 1 Now. sir, T don’t want, nor do 1 expect. the last word as you say. but I cannot allow your grossly exaggerated statement re the ticket inspectors to pass unchallenged. You sav they hop on every second tram. Are you speaking from personal observation? I think not. because the official return shows , that less than 10 per cent of the trips are inspected. I am afraid you have not been much outside this city when you say that no city in the world is so persistently inspected in regard to train way fares as Christchurch. You are simply playing to the gallery in belittling tho ticket inspector. Our operating expenses total £177,000 a year. After much labour you urge economy by abolishing ticket inspection—£l.9oo a year, or about 1 per cent of the total. Every tramway concern in the world of uni - size employs inspectors, even those owned hv private companies who are out for dollars only, yet you urge thatfinancial gain would result in Christchurch if they were dismissed. You say the public is left tv guess whether the board doubts its honesty, or the honesty of the tram conductor. I vet me say. sir, that 1 am proud of our traffic staff, motormen and conductors, on the whole.’ but you know that even in the best regulated of families sometimes there is trouble with odd ones, and the parents don't publish it from the housetop. Anyhow, to prevent wrong-doing is better than to detect and punish, and that is the most important function of the inspector. A few court prosecutions against jvissengers for evading fares occur now and again, but that does not make the whole community' dishonest. You need net have insulted ihe Tramway Board and them hv suggesting such a thing. I am. etc.. D. SYKES, Christchurch, November Board-