MOTOR-BUSES

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 119, 13 February 1926, Page 18

MOTOR-BUSES

CITY COUNCIL'S VIEWPOINT

body politic must be

PROTECTED

In reporting to the City Council on Thursday night upon the recent conference called by the Government to consider the motor bus regulations, Councillor 11. D. Bennett explained that previous to the general conference a meeting was held in the Wellington City Council Chambers of representatives of publicly-owned tramway and transport systems throughout New Zealand That meeting, explained Councillor Bennett, decided to approve generally of the draft regulations, but in addition urged that where buses were allowed to run on parallel lines to tramwavs that the fares charged by buses should be regulated to provide protection to the public transport system. At the conference representatives of tiie council joined with the representatives of other cities and insisted upon the reservation of their rights to control all traffic on its streets and remain the licensing authority. After quoting other points stressed at the conference, the speaker said that the city councils were quite willing to let buses exploit new districts with but little interference, and they would not extend their tramway systems where buses could cater adequately for the requirements cf the people. “We, however, strongly object to buses pirating that particular volume and class of traffic which the department relies on to enable it to keep a regular service and long-distance travel at short-dis-tance fares,” added Councillor Bennett. “The great (body politic must be protected against sectional interests, and regulations arc required to allow of the use of buses under fair and equitable conditions.” Facts Lost Sight Of. Councillor Bennett read the following statement upon the position which had been prepared by the city solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) : —“Certain fundamental facts governing the position of the City Council and other authorities operating tramways seem to have been lost sight of by the motor bus proprietors and supporters in the present controversy. They may be summarised as follows "1. Local bodies have taken on the responsibility of public transport under tramway systems pursuant to Orders-in-Council, under various Tramways Acts. TheSc Orders-tn-Council prescribe the method of construction of permanent way of cars, braking. system, power to be used, maximum fares, time-tables, and many other provisions for the benefit of the public and protection of private property. “2. The Wellington City Council acts under some 20 Orders-in-Council, most of which are orders enabling the council to run trams to various routes. Under these Orders-in-Council the City Council has taken the responsibility of providing traction for the late boroughs of Onslow, Karori, Melrose, and Miramar to the city. It has, in addition, laid down the trackless tram to Kaiwarra.

“3. It is quite clear that the Wellington City Council and other local authorities in a similar position would not be hampered by opposition in these districts under Orders-in-Council for tramways under the Tramways Actj 1908. “1. All the liabilities which the local authorities, including Wellington, have accepted were accepted on the understanding that they would get a practical monopoly of tramway transport, which is still the form of transport most suitable for* the requirements of the general public in the .districts in which the tramways run. This applies particularly to' the Wellington suburbs—which are not served by railway. “5. The fact that motor traffic is in direct conflict and an infraction of the practical monopoly, is clear to everyone. The necessity for preserving the monopoly from such an infraction was not apparent .to the legislature at the time of the making of the Tramways Act or the issue of the Orders-in-Coun-cil. Can it be suggested that for this private persons are entitled to infringe this monopoly without coming under all the ■responsibilities that are imposed upon the tramways in respect to timetables, construction of buses, safety of the public, and contribution towards the upkeep of the public highways affected ? "

“6. The trams not only contribute to the cost of the public highways, but thev do not damage them. There is nothing, unless it be motor-truck traffic, that is more destructive to the public highway than the motor-bus traffic. ",7. The bus companies are under no public responsibility. . If they cannot make the business pay, they merely retire. No local bodv can do this.

“8. In the case of Wellington, an investment of over £1,000,000 of. public money is being jeopardised to give advantage to motor-bus proprietors.”