TRAMWAY ADMINISTRATION.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18239, 25 November 1924, Page 12

TRAMWAY ADMINISTRATION.

LABOUR'S "INDICTMENT." REPLY OF BOARD'S ACTINGCHAIRMAN. The manifesto issued on behalf of the Labour candidates for seats on the Tramway Board formed the subject of a statement made at vestorday's meeting of the Tramway Board by the acting-chairman, Mr H. Pearce, who made' a reply to the indictment in the -manifesto that the administration of tramway matters had been a dismal failure. The Board decided that the acting-chairman's statement should be printed and given as wido publicity as the Labour Party's manifesto.

Have Train Users Been Exploited? The acting-chairman's statement was as follows:—

At this, the last meeting of the present Board, I had intended to review the present financial position of the system; to discuss the effect on traffic and revenue of increasing fares, and the effect of the Board's recent experiment in decreasing fares; to report expenditure during} the year from Loan Account and froiji Renewals Fund, with some reference to the future; and to refer to the question of motor-bu3 competition. The Labour Party, however, has broadcast throughout the city what they term an "indictment" of the Board's policy and present position, to which a reply must be given. Labour's charge is that "tram users have been exploited," and that the "workers have been exploited": that the Board has "misconceived its functions," and that altogether "a dismal failure" has resulted.

The critics' summary of the position is stated by them thus: (1) Capital expenditure increased £400,000; (2) car mileage increased 249,000; (3) half a million fewer passengers; (4) fares increased; (5)" wages reduced; (6) operating expenses increased £32,000; (7) j huge reserves piled up. | ' 'lncrease of £400,000 In Capital Expenditure." What has this been spent on! Extension of Spreydon line; new track in Lichfield street, with the object of relieving congestion and minimising shunting in Cathedral square; double track on half of Riccarton line to facilitate the handling of remunerative race traffic, and by- giving a speedier service to minimise as much as possible motor-bus competition, and at the same time give further conveniences to Riccarton residents; double track on Cashmere line to increase popularity of hill residential and holiday service; trailer sidings at various places to enable trailers to be parked clear of Toad traffic; power substations at Fendalton and Cashmere to enable cars to travel more quickly and to relieve the overload at the main station; improvement in power feed distribution; fire prevention appliances in car shed, new road roller and track grinder; new electric cars and trailers; new motor-buß; lifting jacks on electric cars for use in case of accident; to find cover for these new cars and others previously parked in the open, an extension of the car shed was arranged involving removal of repair works to new site, and installation of necessary new repair plant; the erection of offices in Cathedral square, and the conversion of old office into billiard and social rooms, including improvements in bathing and dining facilities for workmen. Yet the Labour Party, in criticising the Board's policy, say "that a public enterprise mus6 be judged by the service rendered.'' I accept that challenge under this, as well as under subsequent heads.

"Car Miles Increased 249,000.'< Why not? The records show the following expansion, of transport services rendered the public:—l9l9, 2,714,239. car miles run; 1920, 3,144,000 car milesrun; 1921, 3,285,483 car miles run; 1922,; 3,353,539 car miles run; 1923, 3,457,036 car miles run; 1924, 3,392,801 car =miles run. The Labour Party says "the euccqss of a public enterprise must -be judged by the service rendered-" I agree. "Half a Million Fewer Passengers.' Labour obtains this figure by comparing with 1920, an abnormal year in many . respects. Passengers- carried in 1924 totalled 25,411,673. What about other years? 1919*—21,623,692 (in 1924 therewere 3,787,981 more). 1920—25,973,655 (in 1924 there we're 561,982 less). 1921—24,592,998 (in 1924 there were 818,675 more). 1922—24,971,762 (ia 1924 there were 439,911 more). 1923—25,188,624 (in 1924 there were 223,049 more). 1924—25,411,673. Is it fair criticism for Labour to broadcast in large type the statement "562,000 less passengers carried," and to suppress the above facts? "Faxes Increased." * In 1920, tho abnormal year, Christchurch fares were increased, in common with other systems, but not to the extent of Auckland and Wellington, whose examples with respect to the giving of higher wages is commended. Wellington and Auckland still charge 2d for penny sections, 3d for twopenny sections, 4d for three-penny sections, and so on. Thd increase in Christchurch on week-days was confined to the jsingle-section riders. The other sections have remained the same, but seaside excursion tickets were increased. No note is made by Labour of • the subsequent reduction —15 onc-sec-tion rides purchaseable from conductors with no time limit, for Is Cd, or . 1 l-5d per section, and tho reduction in seaside tickets. Labour's manifesto compares Christchurch with other centres in respect of operating expenses and other items, but omits the following:—Cash fares, .week-days: Average's. Per Mile, d. Wellington ... .. 1.22 Melbourne ~.. ..1.20 Auckland .. .. 1.17 . Christchurch .. ... 1.03 Dunedin •..» .97 Brisbane .. ~ H .97 , Adelaide .. .88 Sydney .. .73 On Sundays, Dunedin is higher than /.Christchurch, while Auckland and WclWSSt.on arc a little lower.

Concession Tickets. Per Mile. Melbourne .. .99d Wellington — All classes .. .. .95d "Workers" only «. ,79d Auckland .>. .SSd Dunedin .. .77d Christchurch .. .. .66d Sydney ("Workers" only) .52d When all classes of tickets are averaged, including some not mentioned above, the result is:— Per Mile. Melbourne 1.20 d Wellington .. 1.13 d Dunedin .. .» l.lOd Auckland ..• •-. 1.07 d Adelaide .•• 1.03 d Brisbane .. : >< .97d Christchurdih. ■. „> .97d Sydney .. .. ."3d In spite of the above figures, the Labour Party affirms that "tram users are exploited." It also says "a public enterprise must be j'udged by the service rendered." I again accept that challenge. Labour's representatives were supplied with the above information as to low Christchurch fares. Why was it not published in its manifesto? "Wages Beduced." This is one -of the charges made against the Board. Labour prefers 1920 as its year of comparison. Let us commence there. ! Motormen and conductors have received the following increases since the Arbitration Court made, the award in June, 1920: 1920, April —Cost-of-living bonus, lid an hour increase. 1920, August—Cost-of-living bonus, id an hour increase. 1920, November —Cost - of - living bonus, ljd an hour increase. 1921, January—Cost-of-living bonus, 1-Jd an hour decrease. 1922, May—Cost-of-living bonus, Id an hour decrease.

To-day, motormen are receiving Is 10|d an hour, as compared with Is 9d in 1920, Labour's favourite year for comparison. . An increase of lid; yet it says that the Board has reduced wages! What about tho 'decreaso of Id in 1922? This was the result of an industrial agreement. The cost of living was falling; the Union agreed to a reduction of Id providing that no further reductions under pronouncement of tho Arbitration Court should be made.for the following two years. As it turned out, these subsequent pronouncements totalled 2d, so that tht) Union gained' Id an hour by its agree-' ment with the Board.

"What are the present earnings? per fortnight. Hours. £ s. d. Motormen—--Ist and 2nd year ••. 108 10 5 1 After 2nd year .. 106 10 11 8 Fifth year .. 105 10 16 'll Eighth year .. 105 11 G 7 Conductors — Ist and 2nd year ..• 109 919 11 After 2 yeara .. 106 10 210 Five years .. JOS 10 11 7 Eight years .. 107 10 17 10 They are guaranteed 96 hours each fortnight throughout the year. When Sunday is worked, a weekday off is given. They receive free uniforms and are carried to and from work freo. They receive from eight days to thirteen days " annual holiday on full pay. The Board and State subscribe to an employees' .superannuation to the extent of 4s 6d per week per man. Other employees range from £7 19s 6d per fortnight for labourers to £lO 18s 6d for car equipment adjusters for a 44hour week. Present wages are now under review by the Arbitration Court. Mechanics are paid as provided in their trade awards.

f' Operating Expenses Increased £32,000." There again Labour selects one year (1920) and suppresses others. 10iiO £142,913; in 1924 £32,475 more was spent. 1921 £186,089; in 1924 £10,701 less was spent. 1922 £186,754; in 1924 £11,366 less was spent. < 1923 £177,405; in 1924 £2017 less was spent. 1924 £175,388. , The Labour Party was supplied these figures. "Why did .they suppress them, and make a misleading statement? Labour quotes Operating Costs per Car Mile thus: — Sydney . « r ..] 22.40 d Melbourne .. 19.03 d Adelaide .. 16.92 d ' Auckland .. •» < 22.32 d Wellington .-i 21.86 d Christchurch - .. 12.40 d (Dunedin, 13.42 d, was omitted). The Manifesto refers to the cheaper power in Christchurch, 2.94 d per car mile less than Wellington, 2.65 d less thau Auckland. The Manifesto also quotes the Christchurch flat service as costing 2.905 d less for all operating expenses than on the hills. The difference in hill operating costs generally is largely due.to increased power costs, and Auckland and Wellington's difference in power costs is arrived at from figures, including' hill services. So that the two are intertwined. To include both means "double-banking" the allowances to the northern cities to ! a con- : siderable extent, b'ut I will ueverthe-' less do so. Even when theso liberal allowances are made to Auckland- and Wellington, the operating costs of each place are:— Auckland .. 16.77 d per Car Mile Wellington 16.02 d ~ « Christchurch 12.40 d „ This indicates careful and economical administration in Christchurch, but the Labour Party, strangely enough, uses it to support is contention that the Boatd haa "misconceived its functions" and is "a dismal failure." They support this by the statement that the Board has failed to induce Christchurch people to travel to the extent they do in the north, and quoto these figures:—

Average Number of Passengers Per Car Mile Eun. Passengers. Sydney .. .. 10.88 Melbourne .. .. 10.19 Adelaido .. .. 9.53 Auckland .. .. 11.11 Wellington .. .. 11.48 Christchurch .. 7.49 Why has Christchurch fewer passengers per milo run? (a) Because there is less "overcrowding" iu Christchurch. If Christchurch permitted overcrowding, as in Dunedin and Wellington, would not the Labour writers have usod it to proclaim the Board's carelessness respecting the comfort and safety of passengers and employees! (b) Because the flat country aud the climate here induce bicycling'and walking to a much greater extent than in the north. (c) Christchurch has 53 miles of streets traversed by trams as against Auckland's 30 miles, and Wellington's 28 miles, yet Labour says that, judged by services rendered, the Board is a "dismal failure." For each mile traversed in Christchurch, 2156 people are served, whereas in Auckland there ate 3934, and iu Wellington 3392. Is it surprising that the average number of passengers per car mile is less! Another point is that the layout of the city offers a great choice of street approaches, whereas in the north the configuration of the country confines people to a few main routes, along which trams run, and in which they are consequently induced to ride.

Tlie Opinion of British Experts, v, A S. Tavlor, the chairman of the Board -just returned from England, wrote'with much tramway informacalled on Mr A. L. C. Fell, the General Manager of the London_C°nnty Tram-ways. Like Mr Dalrymplo, the manager of Glasgow he was surprised to find us in Christchurch making a <U*i"""» «»? J?' 85 y?«a with bo small a population, ne said he did not know of a system anjnliere operating under like conditions.

■ Receipts per Car Mile. Per car mile. (1. Sydney secures 27.66 Adelaide *• Melbourne >• -^l° Wellington « .. • Auckland .. >• Dunedin ... •• ■ Christchurch • • In arguing that the low operating costs per car mile in Christchurch justified much lower fares, the Labour manifesto disereetlv omits the above "table of "receipts"'per car mile. Receipts ,per car mile are lower in Christchurch because fares are lower, because the number of people travelling is smaller for the reasons given, and because there is less overcrowding. There is only a margin of »4id per car mile now between profit and loss. Would it be wise for tiie Board to adopt Labour's plunging policy of reduce fares and hang the consequences, particularly as experience lias shown that reduced fares do not mean increased revenue? •

"Huge Reserves Piled Up." There are three positions in which a father at death may leave his children: (a) Leave debts for them to pay; (b) leave nothing for them but a clean financial sheet, making it necessary for them to carry their own burdens only; or (c) leave a fortune enabling them to live a life of ease. With respect to tramway reserves for the future, the Board is endeavouring to follow the second course. It objects to a policy which would place an undue burden on posterity. On tho other hand, it does not wish to establish reserves at too high a figure. The system is now 18 years old. Effect of depreciation can now bo clearly estimated. A recent examination of 708 separate items of assets enabled th§ Board, on actuarial advice, to reduce the rate from 4 per cent, to 3 per cent., but this is only possible by the abandonment of the old policy of using reserves for capital expenditure free of interest. Every penny must now be invested in interest-bearing securities. The cumulative effect of interest compounded is very great. This is one of the principal factors in enabling the reduction to be made. In future all new expenditure must be met by now loan money, as witness the special order loan of £12,000 now being authorised; and revenue will have to pay tho intorcst. Tho depreciation in a big undertaking such as Glasgow, the model municipal system of tho world, would bo greater in respect of permanent Aray and overhead because of the more frequent service run. Their revenue ia required to contribute 7£ per cent, for this. On other assets the depreciation is more like Christchurch, but Glasgow sets aside 8 per cent, for these, whereas the Christchurch rate for both is 3 per cent. No one with any knowledge of the facts will declare that Christchurch is setting aside too much. The Labour manifesto declares that "the success of a public enterprise must be judged by the service rendered." On the facts which I. have submitted, I contend that, from every point ef view, the Board lias no reason to be ashamed of its work in the past.

THE DISCUSSION. The Hon. J. Barr commended the acting-chairman upon the brevity of his statement, aa there were quite a number of other matters that could have been mentioned, such as the fact that in Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin the cars picked up traffic com* ing and going. Thanks were due to the Labour representatives for giving the acting-chairman a text for his very admirable statement. He moved: "That the acting-chairman's statement be printed, and that the question of the'best and most economical mean! of distributing it to the public bo left to the acting-chairman and the general manager." He added that the manifesto, which contained very serious accusations, had been distributed to all householders.

Mr J. A. Flesher, in seconding the motion, said that there was a good doal of misleading matter in the "indictment." It was just as well to bear in mind that one million and a quarter of money had been sunk in tramways in Christchurch, and that there were loans aggregating £750,000 maturing ,in 1934, and another of £300,000 ten years later. Durijig the past two years the Depreciation Fund had been drawn on to tho extent of £58,763, iu order to keep the system up to standard; from the Eenewals Fund there had been drawn £71,960. These withdrawals showed distinctly that tho time had arrived when depreciation and renewals were making themselves felt, and that at a very rapid rate. As to the increase in operating expenses, they all knew that the great proportion of these expenses consisted of the wages paid to the men operating the trains. In 1918 the Board spent in wages £36,745; in 1924, £71,197; wages had increased 57.6 per cent, in the period mentioned, whilst revenue had increased only 37.7 per cent. In other words, the wages of motormen and conductors had increased 20-per cent, faster than the Board's revenue. Practically twothirds of the Board's reveuuo was absorbed by operating expenses. If it had not been for the extra revenue from advertising on cars, sale of current, rent of power-house, charges for carrying luggage, and other services, totalling £8904, the Board's surplus of £6737 last year would have disappeared. Another factor had been the reduction from 4 per c-ent. to 3 per cent, to cover depreciation and renewals. In 1923 the sum of £40,283 was set apart for those purposes; in 1924 it was £33,585, a reduction of £G69S, and that amount represented the surplus last year. Another important factor was the increased interest charges. Last year they increased by £15,696; and these charges would go on increasing until the loans matured. Tho Board was not out to mako profits, and the reserves set aside were not unreasonable. The comparison of Chvistchureli with other cities in the Dominion was not a fair one, as local conditions were not tho same. Other cities were hilly, and people were drivon to use trams. If the tramways in Christchurch were restricted to a radius of three miles the Board could show wonderful results. Mr D. Sykes: It would be a gold mine! Mr Flesher added that the policy of the Board was to give the best service at the lowest possible cost. The act-ing-chairman was to be commended for taking the first opportunity to deal with the Labour Party's wonderful indictment, and he agreed with Mr Barr that the" statement should be placed in the hands of every person in the city.

,Mr D. Sykes accused the Labour Party of juggling with figures in respect of the Board's capital expen&i-

ture and its total reserves. He said that for 1924 the total reserves (including Sinking Fund) was £539,835, and the capital expenditure £1,179,843. The Board had been running about twenty years, and had arrived at the renewal stage, especially with respect to the permanent way, and the cost of renewals was 200 per cent, higher on some items than was the original cost. There were 78 miles of single track, the. bulk of. which would have to be renewed within the next four or five years. He as "rot" the Labour Party's idea of capturing the bicycle traffic by introducing penny fares. For sixteen years, he said, they had penny fares, and never captured that traffic except on wet days at rush hours; and they still got that traffic. The motion was agreed to.

TO mi EDITOR OP "TBI TRESS." Sir, —The manifesto of the Labour Party on tho tram service is so lacking in honesty that one would greatly fear for tho public interests if the men whom it supports gained control of the Board. It is dishonest because, while it makes a main - plank of the fact thau, iu proportion to population, there are fewer tram riders in Christchruch thaJi in the other New Zealand cities, it ascribes that deficiency to a doubtful clftim that fares here are higher, and entirely fails to mention the real cause, which is, that Christchurch is a flat city and ideal for motors, bicycles, and for walking, whereas the other cities are so liilly that train riding is almost compulsory. Then. ag;un, in "Wellington and Dunedin the business area isi mainly on one long street and much, time would bo wasted in walking tho long distance between the many business houses. Here, on the contrary, business is largely concentrated m many central streets and trams are entirely unnecessary to take one from offico to office.

Going from home to shop, office or factory, who in Christchurch wants to walk first to a tramline and there wait for a car, rido to the nearest stoppingplace, and then walk again ta business premises, when by "bicycle or motor yon can ride from your gate to worlcingplaco more easily and in much shorter time? On the other hand, who would ■cycle or walk to or from business up and down the steep hills of Wellington. Ihinedin, or Auckland; especially with' a hard day's work before or behind one? Christchurch. with its flab surface, is an ever-present invitation to walk. There are probata 13fifty bicycles and twenty motors hew for every one in the other cities and would still be so if the tram fares were reduced hy one-half. Let every voter picture in his mind what it would be like if Christchurch was built on a. hill, with its streets undulating up and down deep valleys and spurs, and lie will quickly decide why the other oity dwellers use the trams so much more than lie does.

I suv again that the Labour manifesto is dishonest because it deliberately fails to mention this important reason. It may have been good politics if not found out; but Having been exposed, tho voter will know how to meet such tactics at the ballot box oh Thursday.

The Labour manifesto bases much of its argument on-the assertions that:— 1. Too large a sujn has been put aside for reserves.

2. That fares are unduly high. 3. That the system is run for profit and not for service. ■<. . I would point out that the percentage for reserves was fixed! by the earlier Boards, and that the Board of to-day has recognised that they were excessive and have reduced them. Then why blame the Board that has corrected the error, if it was an error. The latter has _ got to be proved, as it is quite possible that the advance of the motor bus and of railless cars may make it necessary to scrap the whole tram system in the not distant future. If this occurs, ratepayers should note that they will then have to pay the whole of itlie interest and sinking fund out of a tramway rate.

Untepayers should' also examine* tlie question as to whether our tram fares are too high. Tramway officials claim that they are the lowest in New Zealand, and are certainly the lowest rates at which the service can he made to pay its way. Experience under lower fares has proved that although more passengers are carried, the total revenue was less, and the service could not l>e continued without a loss. If the Labour Party's claim for lower fares is granted, it Imeans that the ratepayers must pay a tram rate in order that the tram riders may travel below cost. Are our trams run. for service? surely the only aswer is yes. It is a service' of convenience run into many thinly populated districts for the benefit of the whole community. This cannot be denied'. It would have been quite simple to have made the system one of profit and not of service if, as in Dunedill, the lines had been restricted to thickly populated areas, and. if, as there, only one extension had been made in twenty years. Ask Dunedin residents what they think of their city's conservative policy. Cheap fares is the Labour cry. They should have finished the sentence and; printed it "Cheap fares at the rate- : payers' cost." A. P. DRAYTON,. Chairman Citizens' Association.