The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1926. REGULATING THE MOTOR-BUS

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 117, 11 February 1926, Page 6

The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1926. REGULATING THE MOTOR-BUS

Save on the point that regulation is necessary, the conference called by the Prime Minister to consider the motor-bus regulations drafted by the Government led to no agreement. The questions involved, however, are perhaps now in somewhat clearer shape than before the conference met. On the whole it seems likely that a nearer approach might have been made to agreement but for the unyielding stand taken by the municipal bodies which were represented at the conference as ovyners of electric tramways. These undertakings, of course, are entitled to reasonable protection and consideration, but it is at the same time obvious that the motor-bus cannot be driven off the streets and roads simply because the proprietors of existing tramways find in it an inconvenient competitor. . . Reading the conference reports it will be seen . that the three main points on which representatives of the municipal tramway owners and those of the bus proprietors failed to agree were: (1) the constitution of the licensing authority; (2) the powers of this authority, particularly in regard to the control of routes; (3) the Institution of minimum fares. . . ' These three issues are, of course, interwoven one with another. So far as the constitution of the licensing authority is concerned, the bus owners put forward proposals which might have provided at least a basis of agreement. There is little doubt that the interests of the general public will be best safeguarded by an independent chairman. A representative apiece for tramway proprietors, other local bodies, and bus owners appears to give these parties all that any of them are entitled to expect. The municipal representatives, however, preferred the proposal in the draft regulations that bus licenses should be issued by local bodies, subject to the right of appeal to an independent board. . Since, however, this board would have the last word in regard to licenses, there is no very obvious objection to the counter-proposal .of the bus owners that the board should be the sole licensing authority. The real difficulty is the personnel of the board. In regard to the control of routes, the municipalities wished the board to have power to refuse bus licenses where existing tramway services were in its view adequate. The bus proprietors objected to the licensing authority taking existing services into account. .They contended that routes should be determined from the standpoint of public safety, but agreed that buses should be required to maintain regular time-tables during the hours of tramway running. On the question of fares, the local body representatives took an indefensible stand in urging that motor-buses should be required to charge higher fares than were charged on corresponding tramway services. The bus owners offered to agree to minimum fares on the tramway scale. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of public interest, it is impossible to approve entirely the attitude of either party on this question. The root problem to be solved is that of establishing fair conditions of competition between trams and buses. Both parties apparently were able to agree that the owne.s of motor-buses cannot expect to be allowed to engage in piratical running—skimming the cream of the traffic on selected route sections during rush hours, and leaving to the tramways an unprofitable monopoly of maintaining services at other times.

An insistence on adequate service touches the heart of the problem. If a passenger-transpdrt service is given the right to run on roads and streets it ought to be committed to some definite liability to meet the total needs of the community in the area it serves. If proper safeguards are established in this respect, the question of instituting minimum fares should not arise. To impose a bar on competition by instituting minimum charges manifestly would be unfair both to bus owners and to the public. If by superior organisation and efficiency in comparison with the tramways bus proprietors can maintain adequate services on a lower scale of fares, it is evidently not in the public interest that they should be curbed in this respect. The artificial maintenance of fares at a higher level than they would be brought down to in conditions of fair and unhampered competition is a policy that could not be defended. ‘ The abortive outcome of the conference saddles the Prime Minister with a rather heavy responsibility. In dealing further with the matter, Mr. Coates no doubt will bear in mind that the powerful opposition of the municipalities to the new form of transport does not necessarily mean that they have better claims than the bus owners to be representatives of the public interest. The real issue does not turn on the fact that some six millions of capital are invested in tramway undertakings in the Dominion. It turns rather on the question of efficient service. Where existing tramways are reasonably efficient service, they have some claims, other things being equal, to special consideration. It is also obvious, however, that the motor-bus is destined to be a factor of increasing importance in the passenger transport of urban and suburban areas, and should not be subjected to unreasonable restrictions. Full consideration should be paid to this fact in putting the regulations into their final shape.