Tramway Trading.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18402, 8 June 1925, Page 8

Tramway Trading.

The letter from the Chairman of«the Tramway Board printed on Saturday and written in reply ,to our article of Friday contains nothing by way of reply to our enquiry as to why the Board, with a car-milo profit of sJd> cannot make tho service pay. Mr Pearce .mentions that the lA. difference between the local profit and that of Auckland amounts to £B4OO per annum. It was never contended that the difference would amount to less than the total sum calculated on the volume of business for the year, but the enquiry is not affected by a conversion of the *d car-' mile difference into the sum it represents on tho yoar's working. The question still stands as it stood: Why cannot the Christchurch system pay for itself on a s}d car-mile profit when the northorn cities can make both ends meet on a car-milo profit of 6d! The onfy point affecting the argument mado by tho Chairman in his letter was that tho depreciation allowance in Auckland, which with other standing charges is provided by tho profit, is H per carmile less than in Christchurch. If therefore the Christchurch. Board .allowed for depreciation on a basis similar to that operating in Auckland, the car-mile profit here would be, not 5Jd, but 6Jd, that is }d per car-mile greater profit than in the northern city, or in other words an additional annual profit to the Christchurch Board of £16,800. It may of course be quite proper for the Christchurch Board to provide for depreciation at the higher -•rate, but the ordinary practical man cannot bo blamed for arguing that by reason of the circumstances, of the two systems a higher depreciation rate would be moro necessary in Auckland than in Christchurch, whereas precisely tho contrary is tho fact. Is it to be understood that the technical requirements are of a higher standard here than in Auckland! If not, what can be the reason for the present difference? Susely it is not contended that the Auckland tramway authorities are making allowances for depreciation less than what, in the light of experience and efficient technical operation, they believe to be adequate, and if that lessor rate is adequate for Auckland why-should a higher rate be wanted here? The difference:in the" depreciation allowance would alone give strength to the suspicion troubling* the minds of so many practical business men that the Christchurch tramway system, whether the fault of the present Board' or not, is becoming so top-heavy in relation to its volume of trajle represented by the total profits for the year as to handicap the service seriously in the efficiency-and economy of its operation. An increase in the annual ■ volume of trade, provided the 54 d. car-mile profit was not reduced thereby, would of course supply the Board with an additional annual quota of revenue, but are there any signs of that increase being available?