BUS SERVICE TO INVERCARGILL

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25934, 14 October 1949, Page 8

BUS SERVICE TO INVERCARGILL

LICENCE NOT TO BE GRANTED

APPEAL BY RAILWAYS SUCCESSFUL

An appeal by the Railways Department against a decision of the No. 3 Transoort Licensing Authority (Mr C. L. Bishop) granting a licence to V. L. Neate to run a road transport service between Christchurch and Invercargill three times a week each way has been allowed by the Transport Appeal Authority (Judge Archer). Judge Archer said in his reserved decision that any diversion of traffic from the railways could only result in increasing the burden of the railway services on the general taxpayer or in a curtailment of existing services. It might be that the day would come when it would be desirable to have luxury coach services parallel with main-line railways, but he was not satisfied that the time was ripe for lhe development.

The apnlicants for a licence had contended that the rail service was inadequate, the judgment said, and the case was based largely upon the alleged isolation of Invercargill and of Southland generally. At the time of the hearing, day expresses were running between Lyttelton and Invercargill on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays only. but there were night trains on Friday and Sunday nights. He must consider the effect of the new “limited express” service instituted by the Railways Department since the hearing, but before the appeal, which reinstated the daily service and substantially remedied the complaint of isolation. “As a general rule an appeal should be determined on the facts proved in evidence at the hearing and having regard to the state of facts existing at the time,” the judgment continued. “Having regard to the fact that daily rail services were curtailed only as a result of the war.- their resumption, and indeed their improvement by the department is perfectly proper and is clearly. I think, in the interests of the Southland district. In such circumstances it would seem absurd for me to close mv eyes to this change in the basic situation upon which the respondent founded his case, and to the fact that the principal ground relied on in support of his application may no longer be valid.”

He was satisfied that the railway services now being operated by the department were adequate for the reasonable needs of the Southland district. and that accordingly the necessity of a road service could not be ntaintained. Alternative to Railway Some people preferred road to rail travel, Judge Archer continued, but whether it was desirable in the public interest for the preferences of such persons to be met by an alternative, road service was another matter. Any diversion of passengers from rail to road would reduce the revenue of the department without reducing its operating costs, and it was considered undesirable to involve the general public in increased losses merely to cater for the preference for road travel of a very limited class. Discussing the argument that provision should be made for a luxury coach service, the judgment said that the proposed road service ran parallel to a main line and its timetable almost coincided with that of a dailv express service. It offered little advantage in scenic attractions for tourists, and the vehicle to be provided, though no doubt of a high standard, did not appear to measure up to the standard of a “luxury coach” as the term was understood in Europe or America. Judge Archer also dismissed an appeal by Midland Motorways Services. Ltd., against the Authority’s decisions granting a licence to Neate. and refusing its application for a licence between Lyttelton and Invercargill. He was satisfied that it would not be proper for him to interfere with the decision which refused the appellant company-a licence, but because of

his decision on the appeal tjy the department his reasons were of little more than academic interest.