LICENSE REFUSED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 124, 27 May 1932, Page 5

LICENSE REFUSED.

EAST COAST MOTOR SERVICE. TRAINS DEEMED ADEQUATE. APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION. The decision of the Central Licensing Authority not to grant a license to the Bay of Plenty Motor Company, Limited, to conduct a passenger service from Auckland to Tamanga was the subject of an appeal heard yesterday by the Transport Appeal Board, consisting of Mr. Justice Frazer and Mr. L. Alderton. The appeal, which was opposed by the Railways Board on the ground that the East Coast railway service catered adequately for the traffic, was disallowed.

The company submitted that it was automatically entitled to a license under the Act of 1931, as the service under consideration was in operation on April 1, 1931, and had continued to date. The service was acquired by the company on May 7, 1931, and for at least two years prior to that date had been carried on continuously by Holman and Beckett, Limited. The service catered for passengers not adequately provided for by the railway. Facilities for All.

Counsel for the Railways Board contended that the motor service was in direct opposition to the railway, which had pioneered the route. Local bodies and public meetings in the districts concerned had passed resolutions urging the retention of the railway service.

Mr. A. W. Wellsted, senior commercial agent for the Railways Department in the Auckland district, said the East Coast line was opened in 1928 at a capital cost of £2,732,185. It paralleled good roads. Tlie annual loss was approximately £33,000. If the people wanted to keep the railway they must use it. Mr. Justice Frazer: I gather the Railways Board is prepared to run the service at a loss, provided it gets the support of the people? Mr. Wellsted: That is so. Decision Upheld. Mr. Justice Frazer upheld the decision of the Central Authority. The company, he said, was not entitled to an automatic license, as another company was conducting the service on April 1, 1931. The railway service appeared to be sufficient. Taiu-anga was a town of only about 3000 people, and yet an express train was run from Auckland daily, and three times weekly the terminus was Taneatua. The Railways Board had issued a warning that branch services must be supported by the people. It was a reasonable attitude, as the railways were being run on a business basis. A motor service to benefit only a few people was a luxury. According to the balance-sheet supplied by appellant company it had taken more than £5000 during the past eleven months, but had not made much profit. The railways could have carried all the motor passengers without the expenditure of an additional sixpence.

The Railvray Department did not claim costs.