The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1911. THE TRAMWAYS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1140, 30 May 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1911. THE TRAMWAYS.

As set forth by Mr.. Stuart Richardson in his special report to the City Council, a summary of which wc printed yesterday, the financial position of the tramways looks magnificent, so magnificent, indeed, as to make the plain citizen wonder why the engineer has thought it necessary to say that "financial success can only he assured if the civic authorities refrain from giving further concessions, and generally conserve the earning power of the tramways." Mr. Richardson is quite right to marshal every fact that tells in favour of the working of the system, but we are afraid that he has "failed to set_ forth the whole position. The magnitude of the system—the assets are given as £670,675—requires that the full facts should be set out, without depreciation, but without extenuation. Wc arc told, for example, that tho hilly_ nature of the city makes the service a costly one to run ; but no mention is made of the fact that that disadvantage must be at least counterbalanced by the fact that the bulk of thetraffic can fortunately be condensed into one main artery. In Christchurch, every route is distinct from every other: all the routes radiate, in every direction, from Cathedral Square. It is manifestly an advantage to have, as we have here, a main artery like that from the railway station to the Cuba Street intersection, which, broken there, becomes ah artery again on this side of the Basin Reserve. Much is made of the fact that certain work has been paid for out of revenue instead of out of depreciation fund; but the public is not told that if the revenue had been relieved of these sums direct, they would have had to go to depreciation anyway. Mr. Richardson could hardly 'bo expected to take account of the fact which, however, the public cannot ignore that, in order properly to realise the state of the system' as a carrying service, there should be debited against it the sum that would accrue to the general finances of the city if the system were privately owned and paid "running rights." It will be replied, of course, that that is merely a matter of bookkeeping, of money out of one pocket into another No doubt that is true; but does that not mean then that the tramway system might prove more profitable to the city if privately owned and it paid running rights and so contributed substantially to the general funds of the city? There arc several points of the same kind that can be urged against the stated profitableness of the system—the loss, for instance, from the city lands used for tramway purposes, which might otherwise be a sourco of revenue to the city—but these may'be held over for the present. All that we wish to do now is to insist that the time has arrived when the position should be frankly faced. Tho truth about the tramways can only be got at by isolating the system altogether from the general body of the city's finances, and charging against it all that goes to its working. If this wore done, there would possibly be a balance on the wrong side. Wo submit that that is what ought to be done; that this is the only proper way of looking at the position, sinco it is tho only method that takes count of all the. facts. It is the only method recognised where the enterprises owned by the State are concerned. If a profit can bo shown under these conditions, so much the better. Whether more economical management is required or increased fares—the cost of riding is, as a whole, unduly low, although on some routes it is unfairly high—is a question for the authorities to decide.