The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1912. MOTOR-BUS V. TRAM-CAR.

Waipa Post, Volume IV, Issue 159, 1 November 1912, Page 2

The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1912. MOTOR-BUS V. TRAM-CAR.

"■3»>»" ■" MODERN civilisation is replete with constant surprises, and one of the most astonishing of recent years has been the result of competition between motor-buses and tram-cars. Only a few years ago when the pioneer motor-bus appeared upon the streets of Lon-

don, it was greeted with well deserved scorn, and became the butt of every wit in the metropolis, now the last surviving horse drawn bus has disappeared, and not satisfied with its great victory, the übiquitous motor-bus has turned its attention to the tramcars and it looks by no means unlikely that the latter will suffer the same fate as the horse bus. This statement will no doubt come as a surprise to many, but of the probability of its becoming an accomplished fact there can be little doubt. The Spectator, discussing the matter in a recent issue, and quoting the arguments in favour of the motor bus, pointed out that the very fixedness of the tramcar, which is its greatest merit, is also its greatest weakness. Where the rails on which it runs are plaqed there they must remain. Traffic might prefer other lines of road, business desert one street and take another ; new neighbourhoods might suddenly become populous; neighbourhoods that had once been populous might become deserts, but the tram rails stayed where they were. With the motor, bus everyone of these changes could be met as they happened. Was a new road opened a motor bus could at once be placed on it. If the traffic did not grow as fast as was expected, it coiild at once be taken off.. It could follow close on the builders' heels, and each morning take the dwellers in the new houses back to the town, which but for this they might already have begun to regret. The early drawbacks to the motor bus in th. 3 way of noise and great weight are said to be now disappearing. The weight is stated to have been reduced by one half —from seven tons to three and a half tons—the construction has been improved, and. thus minimises the risk of breakdown; and the noise is hardly noticeable. It is claimed, in brief, that the up-to-date motor bus is very little behind the motor car in "speed, ease of running, cleanliness, ventilation, and lighting qualities. But perhaps the test that will strike most people as very significant is the fact that at the present time there are some 2000 motor buses working in London, and that about 30 new ones are being put on the streets every week. Add to this the further fact that while there is a very serious drop in the passengerreceipts of the London County Council and other tramway systems, the motor bus companies show large increases, and the outlook for the tramcar in London at any rate does not seem to be a rosy one. Summing up the situation, the Spectator makes some observations which deserve the attention of local bodies in New Zealand who are giving thought to this question of the establishment of municipal tramways or motor bus services. It says : The council tramways have cost more than four times what the motor omnibusses of the London General Omnibus Company have cost, but .the income derived from them is very much smaller. The explanation is to be found in the comparative expense of the two systems. A motor bus can/be run for something under yd a mile, while the tramcar costs lid a mile. Some, part of this last-mentioned sum may be saved by economy in this or that particular, but since the actual working expenses in two years show a reduction of a mile for the Omnibus Company, against one of a half-penny per mile for the County Council, there is not much to be looked for in this direction. If the council goes on running trams when the superior convenience of motor busses has been shown by experiment, it is not trading with the ratepayers' money, but throwing" it away.