MOTOR-BUS CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 208, 29 May 1926, Page 24

MOTOR-BUS CONTROL

REPLY TO TRAMWAY CONFERENCE STATEMENT “BAD LOGIC AND BAD ECONOMICS” Replying to the statement which emanated from the contereuce of representatives ol tlie tramway authorities of the four centres tuis week, Mr. W. G. .McDonald, managing director of the Wellington Suburban Motor-bus Company, said that after sitting for two days the tramway representatives bad issued a statement in defence of the motor-bus regulations which consisted of bad logic, bad economics, and a serious mis-statement of material facts.

“They say in the course of their statement,” said Mr. McDonald, “that ■ up to the present date-there has been no form of transportation which for safety, reliability, freedom from accident, cheapness, and general efficiency can compare with the electric tramways. It therefore follows that the motor-om-nibus is less safe, less reliable, less efficient, and more expensive to operate —that is the only logical deduction to make from the claims of the conference on behalf of the trams. If that is so, those many and varied merits should surelv be sufficient to dissipate from the minds of the tramway authorities the slightest fear of any capital being lost through bus competition with their lines. Again, if such is the case, and tlie trams are so immeasurably safer, more reliable, cheaper, and more generally efficient, why is it necessary to seek’legislative protection for the tramways, as distinct from the proper and quite unobjectionable regulation of the motor-bus traffic ? Practice and Precept, “The practice of the tramway authorities of the four centres is flatly contradictory to their expressed opinion as set out in the statement supplied to the Press following this week’s conference, inasmuch as they are purchasing and operating motor-buses themselves in ever-increasing numbers. Surely, if the claim of the tramways authorities as to safety, reliability, and cheapness of tram has any solid basis of fact, the logical course for them to pursue to meet the competition of the motor-buses would be to build extensions of the tramway svstems, but, curiously enough, that is the very thing the tramway authorities, not only in New Zealand but throughout the world, are seeking to avoid. In one breath the tramway authorities utterly condemn the motorbuses as a means of transport in every way inferior to the electric trams, and in the next they go in for a policv of motor-buses to meet the competition from the very method of transport they so frankly belittle. Public v. Private Management. “I noticed that recently both the Wellington tramways department and the Christchurch Tramway Board published figures which showed that they had operated motor-buses at a loss and made profit out of their trams,” Mr. McDonald continued “If that is the case—and I cannot gainsay the official figures—the logical idea should be to concentrate on the form of traffic that shows a profit, and by extending the tramways cut out the motor-buses that are so unsafe, inefficient, and expensive to run. The fact of the matter is that a public body cannot handle a motor omnibus service as competently and economically as private enterprise. No amount of camouflage can alter that fact. “Can anything be more absurd that tlie attitude of. the tramway authorities stressing the manifold advantages of tramways, and at the same time concentrating their energies on operation of motor-buses, and ordering and building more all tlie time?” Experience Elsewhere. “In support of tlie case made out for trams as against buses, the tramways conference statement quotes opinions from the city of Manchester and the London County Council. As opposed to those opinions let me quote the case of Glasgow, regarded through the municipal world as a model of efficiency, particularly with regard to its means of transport Let us see what Glasgow has done Up to the end of March last, motor-bus competition with the trams within a certain inner area of the city was tabooed. On March 26 of this vear, however, a change came over the scene, for on that dav the Licensing Court, after formally refusing the application of the tramway authorities for the continuance of the prohibition, granted licenses to eighteen proprietors of motor-buses to run from any part of the city to the outlying districts. Under the conditions of the licenses these buses may lift and put down passengers anywhere within a fivemile radius of the city Moreover, at Sterling, where a very big through traffic operates, the electric trams have been discarded altogether, the rails have been lifted from the streets, and the motor-bus has been left in supreme command Government by Order-in-Council. ’ “The defence statement goes on to sav that the onlv regulations to which strong objection has been taken are No 3 (appointment of licensin'.’ authorities), and No 10 (which provides that in cases where buses plv along the same highways as trams the fare shall be 2d extra on the buses for the same journev). While it is true that the strongest objection is taken to these lop-sided regulations, they do not form the only ground, or even the main ground of the bus proprietors’ objections. Our main ground of objection is the method bv which the tramwavs authorities have induced the Government to put the motor-bus out of existence bv Order-in-Council, when that same Government, as can be testified bv nearly everv Chamber of Commerce in the country, was elected to support a policv that would rather encourage private enterprise than oppose it. “The defence also, alleges, in regard to the 2d extra ininuitv, that it was the only method wherebv a wasteful and unnecessary service could be eliminated. Let me suggest a much simpler and safer method—an Order-in-Council prohibiting motor-buses front running at all; for that obviously must be tlie effect of 2d extra, especially when it is remembered that the corporation buses arc not obliged to charge the extra fare.” Mr McDonald nnnh’ed for a license for one bus. under the new regulations, on Mav 17, but so far be has received no information as to whether it is to be granted or otherwise /-