NO. 1 MOTOR LICENSING AUTHORITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 75, 29 March 1928, Page 6

NO. 1 MOTOR LICENSING AUTHORITY.

This body met on Monday last, and aniflM the many matters placed before it was an application from the Auckland City Coondl to run at some future time and when warranted a service along the waterfront road from the city to the Orakei Garden Suburb, me Licensing Authority are, it must be remembered, members of the Auckland (Sty Council. Had the crude application In its skeleton form been submitted by a company or private individual it would not have been considered, but ruled out of order as not being in compliance with the prescribed regulation* but the application being made by the CStr Council for the consideration of the Citv Council under the disguise of the Licensing* Authority, everything is, of course, in order. The application was favourably considered, but owing to the fact that there is no bis population at the Garden Suburb to warrant a service and also the fact that the waterfrant road is not yet completed the application was not declined but simply deferred for thica months, when it would be reviewed «fnjn According to the Motor Omnibus Act tha Licensing Authority has no power to defer an application, but must grant or refuse. However, this application is one of necessity and necessity knows no law. The application was made so as to give the City Council an absolute autocratic control over the traffic on thla route when a service waa warranted, tha application was deferred in order that it might be revived at any time should an application be made by a private company to run a service on this route. Acting on this procedure, I would suggest that the City Council m»ir» an application to run a service to every outlying district within fifty miles of the city of Auckland and then defer the application until concrete roads are made and the service is warranted. It would give the council priority over applications that may be made within the next twenty years and so keep the power control "in the hands of the counciL It is well known that the tramway department of the council will close this financial year with a deficit bus loss of not less than £40,000, which has to be met by the ratepayers. The loss is a continuing one year by year in spite of fact that the council has absolute control with no opposition. The Orakei bus route will meet with keen opposition by a cheap and fast electric railway to the city. If the City Council cannot make any one of its bus routes pay when it has no opposition whatever, how can it ever hope to make a service pay that is to run parallel to an electric railway? The City Council transport system has had a fair trial, has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and the council's duty to its ratepayers should now be to seek and assist the formation of a metropolitan transport board. L. A. TOZER.