THAMES TRANSPORT

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 189, 12 August 1933, Page 10

THAMES TRANSPORT

IMPORTANT APPEAL.

CO-ORDINATED SERVICE.

RESIDENTS' OBJECTIONS,

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) THAMES, Friday. The Transport Appeal Board is hearing the appeal of the Railways Board against the decision of the Central Licensing Authority on April 10 in granting William White and Sons. Limited, a renewal of their license for a passenger transport /service from Thames to Auckland. Mr. Justice Frazer is presiding, Mr. Mackay appears for the respondent, Mr. Aickin for the appellant, and Mr. R. P. Towle for New Zealand Newspapers, Limited, who opposed the appeal. His Honor summarised the conditions relating to the appeal, stating that the Railways Board wished to co-ordinare the trips made to Auckland by passenger services from Wailii, Paeroa and Thames at Pokeno, whence the service would be continued by rail.

Mr. Aickin said the objection was that respondent's service did not call at Pokeno. The co ordination of services would be a true co-ordination and would be treated as the Department's own service. The time-tables would be advertised in the Department's guide. The object of the appeal was principally to avoid waste, and about 93,440 miles of road travel would be saved by the co-ordination in a year. The placing of the extra traffic on the railways would be to the advantage of the public.

The Department admitted that the railway service between Thames and Auckland was not satisfactory, continued counsel, but the co-ordination system would fill every requirement. If a train was late, delays could be met by commissioning an extra carriage and engine. The proposed scale of fares for the trip from 'Auckland to Pokeno and then to Thames was 12/4 for a firstclass single ticket, and 11/ second class. Usefulness of Motor Service. This morning evidence was given •in favour of White and Sons by Mr. H. Turner, representative of Ross and Glendining. He stated that he did much business in Thames and often had to obtain parcels of samples in a hurry. He always got prompt service from the respondents. In reply to Mr. Aickin witness admitted the railway service sample hampers were good. Mr. C. J. Garland, solicitor, a director of the respondent firm, said it paid £3000 a year in taxation. If the service were terminated at Pokeno the revenue would be halved, while overhead expenses would be hardly reduced. It was impossible for the company to carry on from Thames to Pokeno. He presented petitions from Thames and Hauraki Plains residents favouring the retention of the present service. Mr. E. J. Clendon, solicitor, maintained that the proposed co-ordinated service was a stupid proposal. He would prefer to use his own car or the boat. Mr. C. S. Donovan, president of the Chamber of Commerce, entered an emphatic protest on behalf of the business community against the porposed service. Dr. J. B. Liggins 6aid he considered the proposed co-ordination would drive travellers to the steamer service. A number of other witnesses gave evidence in favour of retention of the present motor service. Mr. Mackay, counsel for the respondent, in his address, contended that tlio Railways Board had not proved its case. Mr. Justice Frazer said the Thames appeal had to be considered together with that regarding the Wailii-Paeroa-Auckland service, and judgment would be reserved.