TRAMWAY MATTERS.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18415, 23 June 1925, Page 10

TRAMWAY MATTERS.

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. ADDRESS BY MR H. PEARCE. ■ : Tramway matters formed the subject !of ah address delivered to the Spreydon Burgess?s' Association last night by Mr H. Pcarce, chairman of the Christchureh Tramway Board. Mr G. Webb was in the chair, and there were 2-15 members of the Association present.

In opening his address, Mr Pearce 1 briefly traced the history of the Board, which had beeu set up in 1903. He wished, to stress on those present the fact that the Board had not laid down all the lines on which its cars operated. It the Board had laid down all the tram lines there would not be some routes which were in operation to-day. He :would not minee matters, he said, and would tell them that one of thc3c lines was that serving North Beach. The Board had also taken over the Sumner and North Beach routes. AVhen these lines had been taken over they had absorbed a great deal of the original loan. A rate had been levied at first and a number, of special rating districts had come into the area served by the Board. These areas requested that they be served-by tramway routes, and had guaranteed to make up any losses incurred thereon, and this they did for a number of years, but, unfortunately, the special rating areas had gone out of existence by special Act of Parliament —all except St. Martins. The Board had decided to treat St. Martins in the same way as the Government had ■ treated the other areas out of common fairness.

Finance. Dealing with the financial matters, Mr Pearec stated that the capital expenditure of the Board was £1,195,635, the revenue £266,071, and interest charges £91,248. There was a deficiency of £ 10,205 last year, and this had to bo met by 'surpluses from the previous year. He estimated that this year there would be . a deficiency of £IB,OOO. This was accounted for by the increased expenses which had to be faced by the Board. Such expenses included £IBOO for wages- and £7OOO inci_used charges for electric current. Now, stated the speaker, they came, to the question of rates. Personally, he- was absolutely opposed to the levy-, ing of a rate for the Tramway Board. He did not consider it was fair that ratepayers who did not use the trams should be asked to bear portion of the cost of their upkeep. He considered, however, that the pa: seng-crs : who u >ed the : trams should certainly pay for the service,given them. Bating was such an easy, way of making money; he said, that if once a rate were levied it would be very difficult to have it lifted aagin. Comparing the receipts of the different tramways throughout the Dominion, Mr PeaTce stated that those for Auckland were £587,769, and for Wellington; £393,565, and for Christchurch £266,071. The whole crux of the position, he said, was that the Christchurch Tramways were called upon to serve a comparatively sparsely populated area. The populations per car ■ mil© for the four' cities "were: Auckland 3934, Wellington 3571; Dunedin. 2794, Christchurch 2156. Besides this, he said, in other centres they did not have the bicycle competition which was met with in r'Christchurch, and this, too, tended considerably, to lower the Christchurch Board's revenue.

Sparse Population. Referring to the . sparsely populated areas, Mr Pearce instanced the fcSuuincr and North Beach routes' as the two best examples, and these, he said had had to be taken over by the Board when it came into existence. They assisted materially.. in raising the overhead charges. For every £IOO which was earned by the tramways in the centres the following were the operating costs: Auckland £77, Wellington £77, Dunedin, £65, and Christchurch £64. Even with its 6parse population to the mile, it could thus be seen that Christchurch had.the lowest operating costs of any other centre.

The Increased Fares. Under the old rates, he said, the Board, found that it would be impossrole to meet expenses and it had accordingly come to a decision to raise the fares-by one half-penny on the two-penny and three-penny, fares. This meant that £7OOO extra revenue was brought in and that would go a little way towards the estimated deficiency of £IB,OOO, He wished to impress on his hearers, the ' fact that,., alt hough the representatives of the central area comprised a majority on the Tramway Board and could have saddled the outside districts with the burden of making up the deficiency, they had not done so. They had been'very fait and realised that it would not be- just to raise the fares of the outside areas to a prohibitive degree. Speaking of tha time-tables run hy the different services, Mr Pearce stated that in the better populated areas a 15 minutes' service was run, and in .the other districts the service was more like a half-hourly one. It would cost the Board an additional 100 per cent, to increase those half hourly services to the fifteen minute's class. "With regard to the.stopping places of cars, Mr Pearce said in Wellington there were on an average of 15 stops to the mile and in Christchurch 17 to the mile..

Eeserve Funds. There had been a good deal of criticism, said Mr Pearce, aoout the manner in which the Board handled its reserve funds. He explained the manner in which the Government dealt with this subject and made certain stipulations to which the Board, was compelled to agree, but even, then it bad baen able to i educe its rate from four per cent to three per cent. The receipts in this fund were and the investments totalled £86,207, leaving 1 in hand a sum of £1607. After outlining the position of the sinking fund the speaker explained that the debentures of the Board fell due in 1989, and he considered that when the time of payment on these fell due, debenture holders would expect their claims to be met. Th 6 receipts of the depreciation fund, he stated were £394,900, the investments £325,113, and there was in hand £2102. He considered that interest on the. renewal's fund should be paid. For many years this fund had been invested in the Board, and its state on March 31st 1U24, was: £76,151. Eenewals of track this year had cost £6378, and the balance in the general account was £24,162. The Board possessed a fire revenue of £19,440 odd, and of this, £lO 500 was invested in the Board and £8940. of local body debentures were held. Also there was the public accident fund. The receipts of this totalled £33,136, of which sum £17,657 had been paid in connexion with accidents. £12,978 was invested in the Board's undertakings, and £2500 held in local body debentures. The speaker went on to outline the positwc of the employees' accident fund, the sick fundi etc. Mr Pearce' then read the following tables of profits and losses incurred on

(Continued at foot of next column.)

the various tramway sections under the new seales of charges:—

By these figures, said Mr Pearc.e, it could bo seen how close the Board had been cutting down its charges for the sako 'of the users of the tramways. He referred to the manner in which the Board treated its employees, and considered that they received every privilege which was due to them.

Bus Competition. . Speaking of bus competition with tho tramways, Mr Pearce stated thai some people had branded him as "bus mad.'' lie did not it was advisable, however, to auow the private owned buses to get such a hold of the Board's traffic that it could not be won back again. In Wellington, he had been informed, the tramway authorities were "up against it" in the matter of buses. These vehicles were interfering very seriously with the tramway business there, and he considered that the Christchurch Board had been wise to fight the bus opposition as soon as it made its appearance here. The Christchurch Board's efforts had been successful, he said, and part of their opposition had been run off the road at a cost of £231. Some people stated that the Board had no right to expend this sum in disposing of its opposition, but he considered it both necessary and wise.

At the conclusion. of Mr Pearce's address, Mr D. Sykes also spake of tramway matters, and criticised the' Board's action in connexion with its campaign against;opposition buses. Mr Pearce was called upon to answer a number-of questions, and at the con elusion of the meeting was accorded a very hearty vote o£ thanks.

Cost Cash £er Section. fares. lid© Profit Loss d. d. d. d. One 2 .5*8 1.02 Two 2§ 1.91 .59 Three-.. . .. 3i 2.89 .Gl -_ Four 4 3.82 .18 __ Five—ZVIt. Pleasant 5 4.59 .41 Sockburn 5 4.58 .42 — Bismaa'^5 4.99 .01 . Bexley 5 4.63 .37 — Hide Sch. .. 5 '5.07 .07 Six — Kico. Race .. G 5.19 .81 New Brighton G 5.39 .01 '— Cells street" -. ■ 6 5.61 .39 — Brooklyn 6 5.97 .03 — Hills Term .. 6 5.77 .23 j_ Seven-^Monck T s Bay 7 6.35 .65 _ Gro-nsley st 7 6.43 .57 — Eight—Ozono eoie 8 0.82 1.18 — N. Beach ter. 8 7.63 .37 ' — Sumner ter 8 7.85 .15 — Seaside Returns— . Jlonck's Bay 9 12.70 — 3.70 New Brighton ■9 10.78 — 1.78 Sumner 12 15.70 ■• — 3.70 N. Beach .. 12 15.26 — 3.2S CONCESSION CARDS. Cost-a, Sections. Fare. m.le. Profit. Loss. d. d. d. d. One 1.20 .08 .22 — Two 1.63 1.91 ' — .23 Three . ... ... 2.37 2.89 — .52 Four .. .. 3.12 3.62 — .70 Five— Mt. Pleasant .. 3.C0 4.59 — 1.03 Sockburn 850 4.58 — 1.08 Bexley. 3.50 4.63 • — 1.13 Bisman's ■■■' ' .. 3.75 4.99 — 1.24 Hilb .School 4.00 5.07 — 1.07 Six— Bice. Racecourse 3.S7 5.19 — 1.32 New Brighton .. ■ 4.C0 5.39 —■ 1.33 Ce.'ia street 4.25 5.U1 ■ — 1.33 Brooklyn 4.25 5.97 — ■1.72 HijIs Terminus 4.50 5.77 — 1.27 Seven — Monck's Bay .. 4.50 6.35 — 1.85 Grantley street .. 4.50 6.43 — 1.93 Eight— Czono Cafe 4.62 6 82 — 2.20 N. Beach Term. 5.00 7.63 ■— 2.63 Sumner Terminus 5.00 7.85 — 2.85