REDUCED FARES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 290, 8 December 1931, Page 7

REDUCED FARES.

PERMIT REFUSED. BUS COMPANY'S PROPOSAL TRANSPORT BOARD DECISION. COMPETITION WITH RAILWAYS. An application by the Passenger Transport Company, Ltd., for permission to reduce fares to Otahuhu, Papatoetoe and other places, by instituting six-trip concession cards, was refused by the Auckland Transport Board at a special meeting to-day. Four members approved the application and five opposed it. Mr. J. A. C. Allum, who presided, said objections had been lodged by the Railways Board, Messrs. Wheeler and Son, Messrs, Crawford Bros., and the Transport Board. The objection of Messrs. Wheeler and Son could be met by the board also granting them permission to issue similar ,six-trip concession cards; that of Messrs.. Crawford Bros, by adjusting the -concession rates to be charged' by the;; Passenger Transport Company to coincide with the fares charged by "Messrs'. Crawford Bros, for that portion of the,, Howick route beyond Panmure Hotl to the Buckland's Beach Road; and that of the Transport Board by prohibiting the Passenger Transport Company from picking up passengers on the journeys to the city after reaching points approximately a quarter of a-mile beyond the tramway termini, and by prohibiting the company from setting down passengers on the outward journey until reaching the same points.

Regarding the objection of the Kailways Board, Mr. Allum said that if the Transport Board were considering an application- to establish a .new service, or to reduce fares to rates.lower than those charged by the Railways Board, the objection would have great weight. The board was not in that position, and was considering simply an application to charge concessino „. rates which left the fares higher than those charged by the Railways Board,. and the Passenger , Transport Company claimed that its application was based on the desire, not to take traffic from the railways, but to recover patronage which it had lost owing to the inability of the public to lay out v the larger sum necessary to purchase the existing twelve-trip concession cards.

Only a Temporary Advantage. It appeared necessary to remind the public that although low fares might be. very attractive, yet if. they resulted. in .loss to the operator they might prove to be only a temporary advantage, and eventually react against the public interest.

The. case presented on behalf of the Railways Board contained .a suggestion that unless the railway services were reasonably patronised they may be abandoned. The serious consequences' of such, action were apparent, and, while the board would deal justly by the omnibus operators, it also had the responsibility of . seeing that the Railways Board was reasonably protected in order that such action would not become necessary. Mr. Allum moved that the company be authorised to issue, instead of twelve-trip v concession cards, six-trip cards at the rates set out in their application, and that the company's attention be drawn to the special conditions attached to their Jicense in accordance with a resolution passed by the board on April 1, 1930, and .the permission wae to remain in force for the ensuing three months only. The chairman explained that the resolution passed on April 1, 1930, prohibited buses from picking up or putting down passengers within quarter of a mile from tram terminii.

The Railways' Claims. Seconding the motion pro forma, Mr. E. H. Potter said that many points in the area served by the Passenger Transport Company, were a great distance from the railway, which could not possibly serve them. The board had no right to consider the railways in con : nection with the application.

Mr. Allum pointed out that the Railways Board must be considered because' it had the right of appeal against the Transport Board's decision. The fares proposed by the company were higher than those charged by the railway. If the board were faced with the question of a reduction in the fares or a variation of the route which would seriously affect the railways, the Railways Board would have to be taken -into consideration. "Even where the railways cannot servo the areas ?" asked Mr. Potter. "It's absurd." "The railways can fight their own battles, but we must support them "to a certain'extent," said Mr. E. Morton, in supporting the resolution. "We have to take into account the fact that they belong to the people." He thought it was ■ right to prohibit the buses from picking up passengers within quarter of a mile from the tram terminii.

Only an Experiment. Opposition to the resolution was expressed by Mr. T. Bloodworth. He based his opinion on the fact that the application was for a three months' trial only. If it were of a permanent nature it would be more worthy of consideration. It seemed wrong that one company could come forward with an application for an experiment which they might want to make a permanent service. The company admitted that the concessions would not benefit the working class, but rather the people who travelled at odd times during the day. "Wβ have had sufficient experience to show that we cannot afford to consider experiments," said Mr. Bloodworth. "We have had some pretty good lessons taught us, and we should use them as a guide."

Consideration for Railways. The railways deserved every consideration, continued Mr. Bloodworth, and if the board granted the application, he thought that the Railways Board would either cut out their suburban services or raise their fares. Thus the people who patronised the railways would be .paying- for those who patronised the buses. "Suppose the company do get a trial, and get back a few passengers, not sufficient though'• to make the service pay, ,, continued Mr. "Bloodworth, "at the end of three months we can expect them to ask for permission to raise their fares generally. It would then be a case of the workers paying for those people who ..travel in the middle of the day."

Mr. H. G. R. Mason also opposed the resolution. It was unfortunate, he said, that the application should follow on the recent reduction of fares by the Railways Board. The step taken by the board was sound policy, and it should be protected./; It was not rational that the fruits of "the change should be taken away from them. Both Sleryices Essential. Both services were essential, said Mr. W. H. Nagle, in supporting the application. The company's action was siniply an effort to encourage more business in a slack period. It was the Transport Board's duty to give the people legitimate and cheap transport, and as the permission was only asked for a period of three months, he considered the board would not be- doing its duty if it did not grant, the application. On the that • the Railways Board :was making a strong attempt to regain traffic, and should be encouraged, Mr. G. R. Hutchinson opposed the application. Mr. R. G. Clark supported the.resolution, but Mr. F.'N. Bartram opposed it, as he considered the Railways Board had presented an unanswerable case.

The Company's View. A representative of the Passenger Transport Company, Ltd., said, they had been considering the question of making the • application long before the Railway Department had reduced its fares. ■He , answered • points which . had been •.raised lin opposition to the application, and criticised the action of the railways in taking away the company's passengers by'reducing fares to people who travelled in the middle of the day. As an indication of the popularity of the bus service, he pointed out that the township had grown up round the Great South, Road, ■ and not round the railway stations. Counsel for Sons asked that one of the conditions of the granting of ' the application should be that workers' tickets should be used between, the time limited for workers' tickets. Otherwise they would represent concessions under the guise of workers' tickets.The Haihvay Department adviser, Mr. F. W. Aickin, maintained that the only comparison could be made between firstclass railway fares and bus fares. The latter, he said, were luxury rates. He suggested that the companies should institute a system of feeder buses to the various stations. . •' The motion was put .to the vote and was lost, Messrs. Hutchinson, Bloodworth, Clark, Mason and Bartram opposing it, and Messrs'Allum, Nagley Potter and Morton supporting it.