THE PUBLIC FIRST

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 98, 20 January 1926, Page 8

THE PUBLIC FIRST

PROBLEM OF THE BUSES

MUNICIPAL VENTURES AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE A FALSE ISSUE There has been much ado over the new draft regulations designed to control motor omnibus traffic. The general opinion appears to be that the proposed regulations go too far in several directions, and that in the desire to bolster up certain municipal transport services the interests of the public are liable to be overlooked. Unless care is taken, it is feared that the controversy may be side-tracked on to a false issue—municipal or private enterprise.

In connection with the draft regulations relating to motor omnibuses two main questions appear to arise:— (1) Whether restrictions on buses should be confined to the protection of the travelling public, and should in no sense aim at protecting municipal tramways’ and State railways from- economic competition ?

(2) Whether the restrictions proposed in these regulations go further than protecting the public, and, , if adopted, would,’ in fact, unfairly hamper bus competition to the detriment of the public. Peculiarly Worded Clause. The first question is mostly one of policy; but the second is mostly one of fact; and to inform the reader on this point it is only necessary to refer to some of the main proposals in the regulations. Here is sub-clause 19 clause 6:—

“The owner of any motor-omnibus which is running for the whole or any part of its journey in any district along or near the route of any tramway or trackless trolley shall charge its passengers for the whole, or such portion of its journey as is along or near such route, as the ease may be, not less than the fare for the time being charged by the proprietor of such tramway or trackless trolley for the whole journey along the full length of such tramway or trackless trolley on such route."

Apparently this means that if the run of a motor-omnibus at any point is near a tramway, any passenger on the bus who travels a portion of the journey must be charged not less than the tramway fare for the whole of the journey. Questions arising are : (1) Is it fair or in the public interest that a bus should have to charge for a part not less than the tramway charges for the whole ?

(2) Is it fair or in the public interest that a bus should be prohibited from under-cutting the tramway fare, not only in such cases as parallel running between bus and traniwav, but even in cases where the bus is “near” the tramway route ? (3) Is it fair or in the public interest that a bus should, in any circumstances at all, be prohibited from charging less fares than a competing tramway? Anyone who finds a negative answer to questions (1) and (2), will surely have no difficulty in concluding that the regulations in their present form wouljl unfairly hamper bus-services. Public’s Chief Interest. As to the general principle of minimum fares, can it be explained on any ground other than the protection of municipal tramways from economic competition by buses ? And is the citizen, as a sort of shareholder jn the municipal tramway, likely to gain more from tramway-protection than, as a user of transport, he would lose? So far, the extensive, patronage of buses seems to indicate that the tram-way-owning citizen* attaches more importance to convenience of transport than to his proprietary' interest in tramways. Those residents of suburban boroughs that do not own tramways have no shareholding interest; and even those citizens who have a high sense of duty towards municipal tramways may feel that, for purposes of ultimate efficiency, it is kinder to submit tramways and railways to the full blast of motor competition than to artificially shelter them from the consequences of what appears Jo be n world-wide revolution in traffic.

In any case, the extraordinary wording of sub-clause 1 of clause 6 is likely to do. a, good deal to enlighten public opinion as to the trend, of some of the draft regulations in their present form. Insuring and Licensing.

Another regulation provides tliat~ the owner of a bus must insure for £5OOO, plus £5OO for eveiv seat in excess of 10. Does this regulation exceed the legitimate aim of providing security against liability, and does it become penal on the buses 7

Under the draft regulations any local body empowered to issue licenses to buses may refuse a license over a particular route on the ground that “sufficient other facilities for the conveyance of passengers” already exist Slipuld a local body., owning tramways on this route, be a judge of their sufficiency, and be entitled to refuse, a bus license on that ground ? And, in the event of an appeal from its decision, ia the constitution of the Appeal Board such as the bus interests may rely on ? To hold the balance fairly between rival traffic interests, the creation, of an independent traffic board (free of all departmental and private interests) is advocated in some quarters. During the war and post-war periods there was a clamour for the fixing of maximum prices, to protect the public Now the public is being told that, again for its protection, minimum fares must be charged. Little wonder that the public is somewhat nonplussed by the devious methods of its protectors.