Tramway Policy.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20107, 10 December 1930, Page 10

Tramway Policy.

The policy enunciated by Mr E. H. Andrews on his election to the chairmanship of the Tramway Board on Monday was sound, as far as it went, if we except the reference to shelters in the Square; and it is now for the Board to show that it has the capacity and the courage to translate words into action. It has far too long permitted the undertaking to be loaded with unprofitable services, largely in deference to views which, if generally adopted, would make disaster certain and speedy. If Mr Andrews's statement means that the Board is to be resolute against running services of this kind, then he has laid down for it a hard but necessary principle and may make his term of office notable for solid reconstruction. It cannot be said too often or too firmly that the Tramway Board is not a charitable institution. It has no right, and it has not the resources, to give something for nothing by providing transport at less than cost. In duty to the ratepayers, who are by compulsion underwriting its liabilities, the Board must so conduct the undertaking that revenue and expenditure will at least balance after proper provision is made for renewals, depreciation, and loan repayment reserves. To the public it hag another duty, and that is to provide the best services warranted by the business available, at charges sufficient to cover the cost. Those who say that the Board exists to provide services leave out a necessary word: the Board exists to provide economic services, and no other. Once that is foi-gotten or ignored, it is only a step to thinking and preaching that services should be provided without regard to cost, and raiding the ratepayer to make up any deficit. This step the Board must not take; nor should it persist in the sort of enterprise that threatens to make such a step attractive. The adventure into the omnibus business, for instance, hss been anything but fortunate and it would probably be as well if the Bo;-rd retired from it altogether. Indeed, if the buses cannot be run with better results than in the past, there is no question about it. They should certainly be given up, and private enterprise be allowed more scope. The Board's monopoly is not so easy to defend on general grounds that it can be defended as a means of regularly losing money; and it is to he hoped that the chairman's reference to this unprofitable branch of business will be followed by businesslike attention to it. If the trolley-buses soon to be introduced satisfy the Board's expectations, the problem of unprofitable tram sections and bus routes may be greatly simplified. The public will watch the experiment with special interest.