BUS SERVICE LICENSING

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24868, 7 May 1946, Page 6

BUS SERVICE LICENSING

DELAY BY AUTHORITY CRITICISED

TRAMWAY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL An attack on the attitude towards bus services and terminals by the Metropolitan Licensing Committee was made by several members of the Christchurch Tramway Board yesterday. “It is not right that a sub-com-mittee of the City Council should be allowed to hold up the work of the Tramway Board,” said Mr J. S. Barr. A request for a bus service for Huntsbury Hili was received by the board on March 25, said Mr Barr. The route was inspected on March 29, and an application for a temporary licence ■was made on April 5 so that the service could be begun immediately. The sub-committee of another local body—not a judicial body—was holding up the licence for some unknown reason. It appeared that another local body was attempting to keep buses away from the Square as far as possible, irrespective of the wishes of the people. He would be prepared to put the buses on immediately and allow the sub-com-mittee to do as it thought fit. The Tramway Board was being held up at the behest of perhaps two men. said Mr Barr. It was an awkward situation. The board could not appeal be- ’ cause the other body had not made its decision; there did not seem to be sufficient brain power in the other body to make a decision. He was getting fed up with requests day after day as to when the service was to begin. It was not fair that the Tramway Board Should “stop all these blasts” in a district where it knew the service was urgently needed. "The application was before the Metropolitan Licensing Authority last Thursday, and a decision would probably be given at the meeting this afternoon,” Mr R. A. Young said. The whole of the board’s case was directed at indicating the necessity of buses running to the Square to provide a link with other services but some members of the Authority thought that the buses should be kept out of the Square. As the matter was sub judice, board members should not comment further. The chairman (Mr H. Kitson) said Mr Barr had brought to the notice of the public the point that the delay in introducing new services was not the fault of the board. Apparently temporary licences to rim a service could t not be obtained. The application made months ago for the St. Martins service was still not heard.

“The position to me is absolutely farcical,” said Mr Barr. If more buses and altered time-tables were warranted. the board could not give the people consideration until the application was referred to this outside tribunal. The board was working on transport all the time, unlike the City Council’s subcommittee. which met only once a month or when it had sufficient business. If the board was not in a position to make up its mind, then no outside body was in a position to make it up for the board. • “Impossible Position” “We are in an impossible position,” said Mr F. C. Penfold. “We are continually at the mercy of some other authority to say what we shall do, although we are elected to run the transport. It is anomalous and something Should be done to alter it. Mr H. A. C. North: I agree with everything the speakers have said. The chairman explained that none of the remarks had reference to the No. 3 Licensing Authority,, who had always dealt with applications most expeditiously. , A report that Cathedral square as the terminal point for bus services was the point which had to be decided was made by the Works and Traffic Committee. which reported that approval by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority to the terminus was awaited. To expedite the resumption of bus operations on the St. Martins route, the change-over would be made on May 20 and the removal of the track from the bowser at Wilson’s road to the termi,Di's would be proceeded with. Mr Kitson said six buses for the St Martins route would be arriving at Lyttelton on the Catspaw which would leave Wellington on Wednesday. The buses should be ready for running •bout the middle of next week. Mr North: Catspaw seems an appropriate name for anything the board handles. (Laughter.)

AUTHORITY’S REPLY

STATEMENT BY MAYOR ..The criticism of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority made at a meeting of the Tramv. ay Board was discussed in committee at a sitting of the authority yesterday. When the sitting adjourned, the chairman, the Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews) made a statement concerning the accusations made by the board. “I am not surprised at the unwarranted attack by the particular member of the Tramway Board,” Mr Andrews said. “I am surprised, however, at the concurrence in it by certain members. It simply displays their gross ignorance of the law and the conditions. I would point but that the Metropolitan Licensing Authority is a judicial body, appointed under the Transport Department Act. The act provides as its duties:—

1. In considering any application for a passenger-service licence, the Licensing Authority shall generally give regard to (a) the extent to which the proposed service is necessary or desirable in the public interest, and (b) the needs of the district or districts as a whole in relation to passenger-transport If it is then of the opinion that the proposed service is unnecessary or undesirable, it shall refuse to grant a licence. 2. If, after having had regard to the matters mentioned above, the authority proposes to give further consideration to the application, it shall take into account (c) the financial ability of the applicant to carry on the proper service, and the likelihood of his carrying it on satisfactorily, (d) Time-tables or frequency of the proposed service, (e) The fares proposed to be charged or made ' for the carriage of passengers, (f) The transport services of any kind, whether by land or water, already provided in respect of the localities to be served and in respect of the proposed routes (g) The transport requirements of such localities including such requirements in respect of the carriage of mails, (h) The vehicles preposed to be used in connexion with the service, (i) The conditions of the roads •nd streets to be traversed on the route er routes and any restrictions of load or speed or other lawful restrictions affecting. vehicles of the type or class proposed to be used, including restrictions arising out of the classification of roads and streets under Section 166 of the Public Works Act.

“The act imposes these duties upon the authority, and rightly recognises the City Council as the body in control of the roads and streets.’* Mr Andrews continued. “The authority, is appointed from the City Council, and naturally the traffic committee is represented on it by two members, with the Mayor as chairman No Dual Control ‘The Tramway Board has always resented any supervision of its proposals. but wants to be an authority unto itself: but there cannot be dual control of the streets, and the board’s attitude, especially this latest outburst, only shows the necessity for the amalgamation of the Tramway Board with the City Council. The worst feature of the affair is the public discussion, while these matters are sub judice. and Mr R. A. Young alone, who has had much association with the authority and understands the position, pointed out that the authority was sitting that very day to make its decision. T pass oyer the reference to brain power, and leave the public to judge the paucity of brain power of those who made the attack, especially when they are looking for the co-operation of the authority. “The statements, too, are incorrect.” Mr Andrews said. “The request for the I Tiuntsbury service was not made until Easter, not March 25. That was the request for the St Martins route, and ' the Huntsbury route is simply an ex- I tension of it, and dependent on it. I There have been several conferences; with the board members and officers. f who distinctly said that there was no hurry, as the buses for the route would not be available for some time. They were definitely promised that the de-

sion would be made in plenty of time, and this has actually been done. “The trouble with the board is that it wants its own way all the time, and delays occur through its reconsideration of the authority’s proposals, which generally has taken considerable time. True, the board desires to make the Square its assembly yards, both for trams and buses, and seems to think it should have full control. The authority and the council recognise the great congestion in the Square, and that other users have their rights, and while it is sympathetic to the Tramway Board because the Square as a centre has become a habit of the people, they are compelled to realise that there is a limit to the capacity of Cathedral square. “I charge the board with being the chief culprit in the delays, for the City Council has for years been trying to confer, with the object of coming to a decision in regard *to reorganising traffic in the Square.” Mr Andrews concluded. “The board is a past master in the art of side-stepping and procrastination in this matter.”

METROPOLITAN LICENSING

DECISIONS BY AUTHORITY Termini in Cathedral Square for buses to be used on three new services -were fixed at a .sitting of the Metropolitan Licensing Authority yesterday. Applications by the Christchurch Tramway Board for licences to conduct passenger services to FendaltonRiccarton. St. Martins, and Somerfield; Spreydon were granted, the termini being Dominion Buildings, Cathedral Chambers, and Dominion Buildings respectively A further application from the Board, for a licence for a bus service to the Sanatorium was also granted, the terminus being fixed at Dominion Buildings An application from Mr F. J. Carroll, president of the Canterbury branch of the Taxi Proprietors Association, to amend the minimum fare to Riccarton racecourse from 6s to 7s 6d. and the minimum fare to the Addington Show Grounds from 3s 6d to 4s 6d was granted subject to the’anoroval of the Price Tribunal.

Continuous passenger service licences were granted Leouold Benjamin de Roo. C. Fitzgerald and H Williams Applications from George William Horton and Maurice Leslie Griffiths were declined.

It was decided, in order to make taxi fares outside the metropolitan area uniform, to amend the fares of all local ooerators’ licences to lOd a cab mile for all trips outride the meter fare area The decision was made after consideration had been given advice from the No. 3 Transport Licensing Authoritv that all cabs licensed by him were on the cab mileage fare schedule which was at present lOd a cab mile, both ways, having risen to that figure from Bd.