TRAMWAY BOARD.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18402, 8 June 1925, Page 9

TRAMWAY BOARD.

TO THS MITOR Of "THK lUSS." Sir. —T had not intended to trespass further upon your space in this matter, as I felt that a considerable portion of the criticism (particularly that of an anonymous nature), was unfair and unjust, both to the Board and to the management, and I had no wish to ally myself with it. The unfair and somewhat sneering reiterations of your correspondent "Hereford Street" concerninn tho suggestion I mado as to the elimination of unnecessary stops are . such as might pass with the unthiukinn partners of this undertaking, and it; is therefore as well that the facts should be stated, and tho fallacious reasoning exposed. My statement that a prominent member of the Board had stated that it cost a penny to stop and start a car has not been controverted, and 1 know at least throe present, or ex-mem-bera of the lloard who hold that opinion. One of your correspondents recently pointed out that not a month ago (he present chairman of tho Board also subscribed to that opinion. '^ lo statement in mv letter hns not been controverted —instead, an attempt has been made to dispose of the matter by a rediictio ad absurdum. If the statement of such cost is inaccurate, surely Wl ™i all the information at the hands of the Board this could have been demonstrated to mathematical certaintylnstead of this, there has been a partial statement of fact and a reasoning based on the same, trulv remarkable. Five-sixths of the facts hjive been conveniently thrown overboard and deductions have been drawn from the remaining one-sixth —deductions which' coimnoo none except your facetious correspondent "Hereford Street." As pointed out in your leader yesterday, the car mileage standard is tho correct standard by which to measure tramway operations. ■ That being so, what are tho facts as applicable to the suggestion under 'discussion? The figures I quote are taken froju tho Board's printed accounts for 1924. the total cost of running a car a nnlo is 18.776 d. That takes all tho factors into consideration. The cost per car mile applied by the chairman as being applicable to my contention was 3d por car mile, the assumption being that the other 15d per car mile did not enter into the consideration of tho question I brought forward. Is this 3d a correct basis ? What are the facts r The wages of motormen and conductors alone ore 5.036 d per car mile—do wages ceaso as soon as a car stops and until it starts again? 7 If not, why does the chairman eliminate them? General repairs and maintenance amount to 5.223 d per car mile—are these lessoned by unnecessary stops? The total working expenses per car mile aro 12.40 M, | but this sum does not include interest and sinking fundi which amount to 3.897 d por car mile. Do these chargescease to run as soon as a tram stops till it starts again? Depreciation and renewals cost 2.376 d per car mile—should not these charg©9 do included? In all the total cost per car mile is 18.776tt. I ask, is it a fair method of meeting my contention to take 3d, not one-sixth of the total cost, and say that that, and that only, is the portion of cost referable to a stop? Wages, power, interest,: renewals, depreciations, aro I submit, legitimate costs to include in that estimate, and if my suggestion can only be disposed of by eliminating these, then there must be something in my contention.

"Hereford Street," however, goes much further than the chairman. His letter to-day almost asks your readers to assume that 3d is the total cost por car mile. He states: "The average cost is 3d per car mile, and if the. costs I were a» Mr Wright stated (Id per stop), three stops cut out, . . would reduce the running, costs to a vanishing point." Is that fair or honest criticism? How the elimination of three stops at Id per stop can eliminate the running expense of 12.406 d per mile or 18.776 d the total expense per car mile, I leave "Hereford Street" to prove. It is beyond me. ' *

That is not all. ' "Hereford Street* misquotes, from the Board's accounts when he says the total cost of power hauling amounts to £II,OOO, and repairs to £18,000—£29,000 in all—as if these again were the only facts to bo token into consideration. Again, what are the facts? The electric powererpenses alone are £15,336; repairs and maintenance £45,000 odd, traffic expenses (including £71,999 for wages) amount to £96,021, and the total operating cost amounts to £175,387. The statements of "Hereford Street" seem to bear the same relation to the facts of the case as his £29,000 bears to £175,387.—Y0ur5, etc., A. P. WRIGHT. Cashmere Hills, June 6th, 1925. P.S.—I invite "Hereford Street", to supply to the public the remaining fivesixths of his identity by adding his full name to his address, in which case it may discover a six-sixths member of the Tramway Board.—A.F.W.

TO THB EDITOB 0» "THE TBBSS.V Sir,—To make accounts balance there are four ways, viz.: (1) Decrease interest and standing, charges (if possible). (2) Decrease operating expenses. (3) Increase revenue by raising fares. (4) Increase both operating expenses and revenue, but in such a way as to leave a larger margin of revenue to meet standing charges. Of course, there is the possibility of combining any two or three or oven all of the four options given above. The' Board notifies its intention of meeting the position by method 3, buFT am sure the general public would have more confidence in and sympathy with the Board, if some suggestion were forthcoming indicating that the. Board intended to explore vigorously the possibilities ot' methods 2 and 4 (assuming that method lis impossible), but) while a great dual has been said by the Board (by its chairman) to justify its present (and, alas, prospective) increase in fares, where and when has the public beeu assured that methods 2 and 4 are receiving adequate attention ? It would scarcely be enough to' answer that we should take it for granted that other ] avenues are being explored. Ought not the public to have the confidence of tho Board to some extent?

Judging, from "General News" item number three of your to-day's issue, it would seem that the Board (or management) arc now going to enjoy themselves in using some of the additional half-pennies (tacked on to the 2d and 3d cash fares) and the increase's extracted from the Ion;; distance regular patrons to conduct a further stage of the war against private buses on the New Brighton route. Was it to provide funds for such laughable campaigns that fares have been increased? Will the chairman not tell the public what exploration is being; conducted along methods 2 and 4?— Yours, etc., BALANCE. June sth, 1925.