TRANSPORT APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 96, 24 April 1928, Page 12

TRANSPORT APPEAL.

ST. HELXER'S BUS SERVICE.

INCREASE Of FARES SOUGHT

An appeal against the refusal of the No. 1 Licensing Authority to grant permission to charge an increased scale of fares was made by Leonard John Keys at to-day's sitting of -the Transport Appeal Board. Appellant carries on a motor omnibus service within the Tamaki Road district. The application was to increase the fares as follows: — Weekly tickets, men, present price 6/6, proposed price 7/6; ladies, 5/6 —6/6; children, 3/6 —4/; twelve-trip concession cards: City to Meadowbank Road, 4/9 —5/3; Purewa. 6/ —7/; Public Works Camp, 7/ —8/; St. Helier's or Koliimarama, 7/6 —8/6. The ground of the appeal was that owing to the operation of the petrol tax and other circumstances materially in-creasing the cost of running the service it was impossible to run the existing time-table at the fares at present charged. It was not proposed to raise the cash fares.

Mr. Justice Frazer presided

Mr. V. R. Meredith appeared for appellant, Mr. J. Stanton appeared for the City Council as the No. 1 Licensing Authority, and Mr. Goulding appeared for the Tamaki Road Board, which had since merged into the city. Mr. Meredith 6aid the Tamaki Road Board had objected to the increase in fares, and as the Tamaki Road Board was about to be absorbed into the city it was formally agreed at the March sitting that the application be declined in order that it might be stated before the Appeal Board after the city had taken over the district. Continuing, Mr. Meredith said that if the increases were "ranted the cost to the travellers would be something less than one penny per mile. The margin of profit was not large for the past, financial year. The running cost per mile was 1/2.5713, and the revenue 1/3.0039, giving a profit of .4326 per mile. That the running cost was not [excessive could be judged from the fact that the running cost per mile on the Takapuna service was 1/3 per mile, and on the city bus service 1/5 per mile. That Mr. Keys' application was not exorbitant was proved by the Auckland City Council's requirement that a guarantee of 1/6 per mile should be given for new bus services. The new petrol tax would cost Mr. Keys £1400 a year and in addition, this year, there had been a drop in revenue of £400. In the course of an argument across the table regarding the possibility of a new city council service on the waterfront Mr. Meredith eaid Mr. Keys would be very pleased to hand over his service to the city. Mr. Keys provided a good service under exceptionally exjpensive conditions.

After discussion with the members of the board, Mr. Justice Frazer said what they proposed was that the figures might be submitted to them. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Allum, who had had considerable experience in these matters, could go into them. If the members of the board then had any doubt about the matter they could get an outside accountant to investigate the accounts more closely.

The board adjourned, and on resumption balance-sheets for the two years up to 'November, 1927, were put in.

Mr. Goulding pressed the point that if increases were to be made some system should be devised by which the concessionaires and those passengers who pay cash could be equally taxed. Those who purchased the concession tickets provided the main source of Mr. Keys' revenue, and the increases should not be solely placed on them. He submitted they had not had an opportunity to investigate the balance-sheets put in by Mr. Keys, and asked for time to do so.

Mr. Keys explained that the concessions given were greater than those usually allowed by transport authorities.

Objection by St. Helier's.

Mr. F. C. Jordan, chairman of the committee set up by meetings of ratepayers held in the Kohimarama and St. Helier's districts, objected to the increase in fares asked for by Mr. Keys. He said if they could get workers' weekly tickets as other outlying districts did they would be satisfied. The higher fares would have a serious effect on property values in the district. They would sooner have fewer trips than higher fares. , The chairman said that every bus and tram service must have enough rolling stock to carry the peak load. That was a point that many people did not realise. Mr. Jordan, continuing, said that their attitude was that a thorough investigation into the receipts and expenditure of the service should be made to see whether Mr. Keys was taking too much out of the business or whether the allowance for depreciation was too large. |

Mr. G. Grev Campbell: In other words you think that Mr. Keys is covering something up?

Mr. Jordan: I wouldn't say that. We want tdi find out whether it would not. be possible to devise some means to obviate raising the fares. Fares to be Raised. The board retired to consider the case, and on returning the chairman said that, in the opinion of the members of the board. Keys had submitted a fair and honest balance-sheet. The only comment they had to make was that it was doubtful 011 present-day values, whether the rolling stock was really worth the value placed on it by Keys. That was in Keys' favour. Coming to the merits of the Mr. Justice Frazer said it was an undoubted fact the petrol tax had added fourpence per gallon, and the proprietor was entitled to pass this on unless his profits had been such that he could place increased profits against the extra cost of petrol. "In this case risihg profits have not covered the extra cost of petrol. On the point that it was not fair to place the increased cost on the ticket-holders alone, the board was satisfied it would be uneconomic to place the increase on the cash fares. The experience of this year showed it would be suicidal to increase the cash fares, and it would not help the ticket-holders. In any case the cash passengers would kick like an army mule rather than pay broken sums in fares. The amount it is proposed to add to the concession tickets we think, is not excessive; it will only balance the extra petrol tax. We don't blame the residents for wanting to investigate the position. The appellant is entitled to what he asked for and the appeal is allowed. Every year Mr Kevs has to apply for a license, and it is' quite open to the licensing authoritv. if there is any general drop in the running cos™ to renew the matter, and the residents are entitled to ask Hi* *? s,ae ? ts » authority for a revision of fares." ° g