- 11.
-
22
raises the question of a fare war. As stated in the Clerk of Councils letter of 29th March, 1935, (pages 81 to 82),
the extensions of routes were recently approved as the
Governor in Council considered these extensions desirable
in the public interest. It was considered by Executive
Council that such extensions would provide better connections
with the Hong Kong Yaumati and other ferry services, and
were necessary in the public interest in view of the needs
of the area to be served, which is already only partially
served by the Tramways. From paragraphs 97 and 98 of the
petition it would appear, from its own admissions, that at
equal rates the Tramways should be able to compete
successfully with the Bus Company along its own route.
11.
The cost of transport in this Colony is very
high and in times of depression as at present, bears
heavily upon the public. The Tramways Company states that
one may travel for over six miles on their system for five
cents. That is so and the charge for this distance is very
moderate. In practice, however, few wish to travel these
six miles. The public require reasonably cheap transport
from point to point in the more populous parts of the City.
As stated before, the city is built on the slopes of a hill
while the tramway runs on the level at the foot. It would
be inequitable to compel the public to pay first-class fares
for such transport or to employ both tramway and bus for
one journey and pay twice where one conveyance suffices.
12.
I cannot regard the alleged financial damage
to the Tramways resulting from the introduction of second-
class fares on the buses on these routes as any more serious
than the alleged damage resulting from the introduction of
a motor bus service along Queen's Road in 1928. It certainly
cannot be proved by figures in respect of two months only
(Appendix 2). The company quotes, in support of its
contention