RAILWAY REFORM—MR VAILE ON MR MAXWELL'S REPORT.-NO.

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2073, 20 October 1885, Page 2

RAILWAY REFORM— MR VAILE ON MR MAXWELL'S REPORT.-NO.

TO THE KDITOH. Sin,— ln Mr Maxwell's words l 'ir« will n«w consider the subject of passenger fares." 21. The impression Mr Vaile has convoyed to thu public, is that he opposes a universal reduction in pissenger fares. It in found, on investigating hi* proposals, and his scheme would largely increase * great portion of them. On the Auckland line, for instance, there were last year 411,74."> journeys due to ordinary tickets,^ and '240,351! due to season tickets. Tlieae figures of 411,745 throw a flood of light on the dishonest way in which the railway accounts are mads up. Return No. V., attacked by Mr Maxwell* reports for last year, state* that there were 187.461 " single pas* sengers" and 224,284 " return paisengers. Return to No. X, shows that on the Auckland section tlie total number of " tickets issued " was only '299,603. On investigation, I find that the 224,284 "return" give to No. Y. table in really only so many halves of returns ; that is to say that the number of return ticket* issued was only 112,142. Comment i* unnecessary. As to the 240,352 journey* said to be due to season tickets, like Mr Richardson's celebrated 10s Id, it is a purely bogus figure, created by Mr Slaxwell for a not very creditable purpose. Every season ticketholdec know* that no record is kept of the journey he takes :— 22. A six monthly season ticket-holder for stations won miles apart can travel as many journey* daily as trains permit; first-class for l)d a day, and second-class for 7d a day. Mr Vaile's lowest proposed fares for the distance ar« Gd and 4d for each separate journey. For ft fifteen-mile dmt.incc the Mvmonthly season-ticket cotta Is 4d hrnt-cla«a, and 1h \d «econd-cla»s per d.iy. Mr VailcS proposed fares are Is and 8d for each separate journey respectively. If Mr Vaile's fares were aubatituted, the lieavy increase would be objectionable on many grounds, and would diminish the ti attic. If the present uenson tickets were retained, then, as regards this section of travellers, tlioy would be unaffected, and no increase of traffic would result. This is a comparison of six-monthly season ticket fares, on the assumption that every holder would travel every day with my single ticket fares. Could a more dishonest comparison be drawn! If Mr Maxwell is so iguorant of hit profession as not to know that season ticket* could just as well be issued under my system as under his, it is auother proof of his un fitness for his post. When I took this matter in hand, the single first' class fares were — to Penrose (six miles) or Onehunga (eight miles) Is ; my proposal was 6d ; Manurewa (15 miles) 3s 8d ; my proposed fare, Is ; and yet Mr Maxwell has the audacity to say that for these distances I propose to increase the fares. 2s. The ordinary tickets, Auckland to Onehung«i for return passengers, now cost Od and 7d per journey, first-class and second-class respectively. Mr Vaile's proposal would raise them to Is Mid 8d for each journey respectively. I am sorry to be compelled to use such strong language, hut as I have never at any time, in any place, under any circumstances, either in writing or speak* mg ever proposed any other fares to Onehunga thnn 6d aud 4d, I can only characterise tins statement of Mr Max* well's as deliberately untrue, for it is impossible to im tgine it could have been in ule in error. 2\ IJetwei'ii Auckland and Otahuhu the picwut fares for return passengers arolo ..)!•] 'M, first and "econd-cln^s rtwpectiYely, lie- oneli jouiney. Mr Vailc proposes for ou:h j inni**j Is and 8d respectively. When my pionosals were first made single fares, to < •iihuhu were Is (id and Is. Any i eduction made is due to my agitation. 20. Thus for moro than one-third of the total number of the journeys, viz., for tho season ticket journny*. Mr V.ulc's proposals would, if adopted, involve an excesiivo increase in fares. Of the remaining journeys, by far the larger proportion ara fur distniicc under ten mile*, for which Mr Vailo's propo^iltt provide cither increased fares or fare* not very mateiiillj differing f i om Uior" pr«\ ailing. So that no practical increa->o in passenger traffic could be expected by adopting Mr Vaile'a proposal* hi theno respecK Mr Vaile has deceived himself, .mil has misled others by hia a\ eragew. As i have shown, the one-third here spoken of is a bogus figure. As to the remainder, it must be remembered that Mr Maxwell is now professedly comparing ■ingle fares, and states that for distances uuder ten miles I propose either to increase fares or no material reduction. They compare as follows .-—First cla»s : Present fare, three miles, 9d ; my fare, Gd. Four miles : Present fare, Is ; my fare, Oil. Six miles : Present faie, Is ; my fare, Gd. Nine miles : Present fare. Is Gd ;my fare Is. After a statement like this I should think there would be very few people found to believe Mr Maxwell's word. 27. The only ix>rtion of the passengers that Mr Vailo s proposed fares would largely affect are those travelling beyond distances of ton miles. He proposes fares which may averngo, according to his own \iews, about one-fifth tho present fares. The longdistance travellers form a small proportion only of the ordinary ticket travellers, but, being charged at a uniform scale of fare, they bring not less than two thirds of the total ordinary ticket revenue. While, therefore, the number of pa»Hong»rs is *mall in proportion to the total ordinary ft^ftkrt pawongors, the revenue affected ii 4*^b in proportion to the total revenue. 28. While no could expect no practical effect on passenger traffic within short distances, wo should have to increase tho number of long distance paasongers five tiineH to get the same revenue from that source. I have repeatedly shown that the averat/g fare paid by all travellers on our rail* ways for the year ending March, 1884, was uuder Is Qjd. Therefore it is absolutely certain that if any system — no matter what it may be— can be devised, by which sufficient inducement can be given to cause two fares to be taken where one is taken now, and that those fares do not sink below an arerage of Is each, that then we must make a profit, inasmuch as 2s must be greatly better I than Is 9jd where millions of them ara , I concerned. This I claim to have done, and many •• railway men," infinitely the superiors of Mr Richardson and Mr ! Maxwell in professional standing and ability, join in saying I have done. Mr Maxwell's talk about five passenger* being needed for one is mere rubbish, " although he may not be aware of it." 20. If mieh a passenger traffic did arise, tficre would be a heavy loss, as passenger* could not bo profitably carried for such long distances at such low fares, with the conditions under which we are working. I will reply to this in my next, aud prove that Mr Maxwell doe* uot knovr what he is talking about.—- 1 am, Ac, Sahvs& Van*