The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1910. TRAMWAYS AND GOVERNMENTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 928, 22 September 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1910. TRAMWAYS AND GOVERNMENTS.

■■.'.. -» .■/.■' In view pi the undisguised ambition of our own Government to obtain control, as a first step to.wards the early ownership, of the municipal tramway systems of this country,: considerable interest attaches to the news, reported by cable to-day, that the Victorian Government intends to force the Melbourne Tramway Company to reduce its fares by establishing a system of penny sections. The Company's franchise expires in 1916, and has attached to it the following obligations, amongst others: To maintain the tracks,- including about one-third of the street surface; to pay rates to the municipalities; to pay_ the. interest on-the debentures issued by the Tramways Trust for'the cost of the undertaking, and a sinking fund to redeem them at maturity, in order to hand over the lines free of cost to the municipalities in 1916. There • has for some time been an agitation for .the establishment of the. penny-section system, and, it is in response to that agitation that the i Government has determined to exorcise its power of revising the tolls and charges. _ At the' present time ■ the system in vogue is the "single-fare system. The maximum fare on any journey, is threegence,

but in most cases the fare is twopence, with concessions on six, eight, and twelve-ride tickets.' There aro also concessions to workers and children, and on certain return trips. In a'statement supplied.to the Government la-fc weok the Company points out that the single-faro system Avas originally approved by the municipalities and the Parliament as the only plan-that would enable the Company to meet the obligations imposed upon it by the terms of the franchise. It is further urged that instead of "standing rigidly on its rights" the Company has made great concessions, such as largely extending the routes by free transfers and reducing fares generally. The example ot Sydney has been quoted against the. Company, but it is replied that in Sydney there is scarcely any suburban railway competition, with the that the tramways there can • rely upon a more intense patronage, while there is no obligation upon the Sydney ■• tramways to pay off .the capital cost.. 'It might at first appear that' the penny-section system would'bring in such greatly increased, returns that the Company ought to welcome it: and no doubt the Company would have introduced the system long ago were it not weighted with the obliga- 1 . tions that restrain it from free and bold development. But the introduction of the new system would entail the provision ; of an enormous quantity of new rolling stock and power houses and machinery, and, with only six years of its. le'ase to; run, the Company.could not hope to carry.out' its obligation;to earn,the capital cost and interest, charges of new material and machinery within that time. These considerations, of course, do not 1 affect the general question of . the relative. merit's -. of the section and single-fare systems from the viewpoint of the publio or of the transport management.. It isimpossible to find' in any general principle the material for affirming the' superiority.of either, system as. ■an,ultimate ±'a6t—what advantage; one system would show in one.direc-; tion over the other system might be balanced.'by a disadvantage, of- another- kind._ In: Melbourne the new. system, while it may make for miformity in; the cost'.of transport' service received,, will: increase --the fares of'the many tens of thousands who have been led by the i present, ■scale, to . reside in ■; rthe : distant; suburbs. some of-these cases'-.the; Company will simply; lose "business: through '•' the competition of the, suburban railways, , which, it will' readily be seen, imnose a'limit upon the .increases which the -Company would - # require in the . long-distance ■fares in order-to' balance'the.-, decreases in the fares in the central area. The only hope of the Company , lies in the:-public's sense/of fairness, for it cannot rely upon the justice and moderation of politicians, who too, often exist by their willingness to rob.Peter to pay Paul wherever. Paul, has a greater- voting- power; than Tetee. , The development of-the position in Melbourne should;,'be': carefully watched by those people in New Zealand who are interested,.in I municipal; affairs, for they : mustrealise that a Government that is 'ready to encroach on' the rights.and property of the cities to the oxtcnt. marked out" in the Tramways Bill ,now before -the New. Zealand' Parliament would, not shrink,'..if its-, designs were ,tp succeed,;from further encroachments... It is'.'.ionly a .step' from the Tramways Bill: to .a further Bill,under which by being compelled,to ; charge; ruinously low; fares, would,-be-, 'driven into handing over their tramways systems' to the Government. ,;. \ .-■