TRAM FARES

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 9, 1 April 1927, Page 4

TRAM FARES

INCREASE ON MAY 1 ALL OVER THREE SECTIONS BLOCKING EFFORT FAILS “Your committee recommends that the new scale of tram fares come into operation on May 1," read the order-paper of the City Council last evening, and in spite of an attempt by Cr. Bloodworth to hold up the operation until June, the council decided to adopt the recommendation of the committee. The recommendation followed a decision of the City Council at its meeting a fortnight ago to increase the fares on all continuous sections after the first three. The increase was then strenuously attacked by some councillors, and an endeavour was made to have it returned to the committee for a further report, the suggestions including revision of the present section endings. Mr. Ford, tramways manager, stated the suggested increases would mean a return of £31,000, less a small amount for school ticket reductions. Only five members voted in favour of sending the recommendations back to the committee. The new scale of fares to come into operation on May 1, compared witli the rate paid at present, is as follow: Sections. Old fare. New fare. Cash. 12-trip. Cash. 12-trip

The council last evening also had before it a considerable amount of material from the tramways manager, who recently returned from a tour of America and Britain. This showed that, though passengers per car mile had dropped from 10.07 in the year ending March 31, 1924, to 9.09 in 1926 when there was ’bus competition, the figures were now improving, but the position would not be definite until the financial year closed yesterday'. The whole question of remission of fares would shortly be the subject of a report to the council. In the meantime the concession allowance in Auckland was greater than that general in America or England. The tramways manager considered the present time inopportune to introduce penny sections, and the establishment of a universal transfer system impracticable. He attributed the ratio of operating costs to revenue being higher in Auckland than in Christchurch or Dunedin to two items: (1) The cost of power, ' and (2) reconstruction of tracks and equipment out of revenue. Everything considered, Auckland actually showed a much better position than either Wellington or Christchurch. - OUTER BODIES PROTEST That many residents are not alone and unsupported in their protest at the proposed tram fares increases was proved by letters from the Onehunga Borough Council, the One Tree Hill Road Board, and the Remuera East Ratepayers’ Association. In particular Onehunga—protested against the proposed increase, particularly as it considered that it was unjust and arbitrary to take this action in so short a time since the private buses were eliminated. The road board suggested a conference of all the local bodies interested to discuss fares and length of sections, while the association suggested a thorough investigation with the object of finding leakages in the expenditure, and remedying them, as a better measure than increasing fares. Discussion on the subject arose first over the letters. The mayor, Mr. G. Baildon, moved: “That Onehunga be informed that the council having fully considered the matter decided in the interests of the tramway undertaking that an increase in tram fares was imperative.” This was carried. In reply to One Tree Hill, the mayor moved that a similar motion, concluding that “the conference would not be of any value.” This was amended to state that this question' of sections was being considered by the council. EXPENDITURE When the ratepayers’ letter came up the mayor again moved a similar motion, concluding that the council had given full consideration to expenditure before raising fares. Cr. L. A. Eady: I don’t think it has been fully considered. I don’t see the idea of saying it has been. I don’t think such a reply is in order. He moved that the letter -go to a committee for consideration! Cr. E. J. Phelan supported this and said they had not given a fair trial and did not know whether the tramways were paying or not. Cr. J. A. C. Allum said a. fair trial had been given. They were merely restoring the fare-level to slightly below what it was reduced from in 1925 to meet ’bus competition. The tramways could not make ends meet. Fares should have been increased before Christmas. Cr. A. J. Entrican said he had suggested in December that the trams be given a chance over the good three months. It had not paid, and now they were coming to worse rqonths. Cr. A. Thompson said every time tramways matters cropped up someone suggested that the council did not have information. Everything had been explained to the council, and they should know about it. He was perfectly satisfied no business in Auckland was run on better organised lines. Cr. J. B. Paterson reiterated a previous statement that the council did not know where it stood. Cr. T. Bloodworth: I have paid attention to the work of the committee, and I have not yet seen the cost of operating the system since the motor omnibus regulations came into force. It is not correct to say the council has fully considered operating costs before raising fares. I say the council has done nothing of the kind. Cr. S. I. Crooks said the council must put its house in order and go back to paying fares. The matter was deferred till the date of the coming into operation came up. At a later stage Cr. Eady said, concerning the reports and mentioning the Id. fare on small sections at Dunedin, Auckland had three times more trams than Dunedin, but employed four times as many men, and showed £14.15 per cent, greater operating costs on revenue. It seemed to him that there was some ground for hoping for lower running costs, even 5 per cent. Cr. Eady moved that the tramways manager make a comprehensive survey of the whole question of the revision costs, etc., and that the matter be referred to the incoming council for Suiuunj ‘suoitoss jo ‘soxuj jo consideration. Cr. Bloodworth said it was useless to compare Auckland with any other 1 system in New Zealand. The conditions were quite different. The tramways manager in his own report said he could not supply all the information required, not knowing the passengers per ear mile, which proved that the council did not know the position. After a long discussion the amendment was lost, and a further amendment to refer the whole matter to the new council was also defeated. DATE OF OPERATION Cr. Bloodworth, when the recom- ! mendation that the increases come into

operation on May 1 came up, moved “that the date be fixed by the council at its first meeting in June.” He said the reasons had already been given a dozen times, and were that the council did not know the position of the tramway's. It was improper that an outgoing council should saddle this thing on to the new council. He also objected strongly to the ’bus fares being increased above tram fares. It was, for instance, absolutely wrong that Point Chevalier residents should pay more because for no fault of their own they had no trams. Cr. Phelan seconded the motion. Cr. Entrican wondered how they expected a new council to deal with a matter that the present council couldn’t agree on, after all the time they had been there. It was fair to charge people who were living seven or eight miles out a fair price. The amendment was lost, Crs. Bloodworth, Phelan. Brinsden, Eady and Warnock voting for it, and the recommendation was carried.

d. s. d. d. s. d. One . . . . i 4 2 1 4 Two . . . . 2 2 3 2 2 Three . . . . 4 2 9 4 2 9 Four .. .. . . 4 8 3 5 3 9 Five . . . . 3 3 5, 4 3 Six . . . . 4 3 6 4 fi Weekly 2 9 3 3