APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 70, 15 December 1932, Page 9

APPEAL SUCCEEDS

Sight-seeing Bus Runs BELL COMPANY Shorter Route Granted On November 22 the Wellington Metropolitan Transporting Licensing Authority renewed the license of the Belt Bus Company for its 5/- sight-seeing trip of 30 miles round the bays and Happy Valley, and granted the Trainways Department a shorter route — practically via eastern suburbs, about 18 miles —at a fare of 2/6. The bus company applied for a shorter route in the event of a license being granted for the shorter route to the Tramways Department, but asked that the fare tie made 3/6 for both. This was refused. The Bell Bus Company then appealed, asking that the license be pot granted to the Tramways Department, or if the license be granted it should be at a fare of not less than 3/6 for adults and 1/9 for children. Further, that if such a license was granted to the Tramways Department a similar license should be granted to the appellant. The Appeal Board, consisting of Mr. Justice Frazer, president; Mr. Lisle Aiderton, Auckland; and Mr. T. Jordan, Masterton, allowed the appeal, increasing the fare for the City Council bus to 3/-, and allowing a license to the Bell Bus Company for a shorter route at the same fare, 3/-. Mr. F. C. Spratt appeared for the appellant company, and Mr. J. O'Shea tor the Tramways Department Pioneers of Service. The Bell Bus Company pioneered the sight-seeing service in 1921, said Mr. Spratt, and it had never been interrupted. The corporation commenced a 5/trip in September, 1926, ceased during the winter months, and recommenced in November, 1927, and continued up to June, 1931. The Tramways Department then recognised that there was no room for two services during the winter. Mr. O’Shea retorted that that was a misstatement. The City Council could stand the loss of having their buses laid up better than Mr. Bell, and by way of indulgence, so that Mr. Bell, a private person, should not be crippled, the department stood down and allowed him to take the run. That was done without prejudice, so that the corporation could tfisume again if desired. Mr. Spratt referred to a report of proceedings in which Mr. Cable, manager of the Tramways Department, said that owing to the depression, there was not sufficient business for two services. The City Council did not want the 5/route, and went out by mutual agreement. Mr. O’Shea submtted that the appellant was trying to create a monopoly out of what was a mutual arrangement. Mr. Spratt proceeded that after June, 1931, the City Council commerced the half-crown service for the first time, being the same as the Bell Bus service, but leaving out the hills. The Bell Bus Company continued the 5/- service, the corporation acting as booking agents on a commission basis of 10 per cent. Counsel then outlined particulars of the application made to the City Council in February, which was varied in April, and a formal application made in June, and then dealt with the case as presented to the metropolitan authority for the longer route, and the variation to the shorter route. Running Costs.

Mr. Spratt submitted that the City Council was carrying on the short route service without profit, if not at a loss. Going by the figures published by the Corporation the cost of running the buses was 16d a mile, without allowing for depreciation. Last year the city bus services showed a loss of £10,009 and in the preceding year £13,000- Only £250 was allowed for the housing ot 25 buses for the year, which was too

low. The City Council showed the cost of maintenance for 25 buses for a vear at £2169, while Mr. Bell’s figures for ten buses were £2401, which included mechanics’ wages. . Norman Bell, the appellant, gave figures bearing out counsel’s statement regarding costs. In reply to Mr. O’Shea he said the running costs pet mile of his Khandallah service was 14.894 d, and depreciation was —aJoci a “Mr. O’Shea suggested that it was not until the appellant found that the City Council was carrying on the route via Mount Victoria tunnel successfully that he made application for a similar license. The City Council pioneered the sight-seeing by means f the trams in 1910 He submitted that appellant wished’to bring his application under section 28 as of right, and then ob.a.n 1 Mr O’Shea proceeded to refer to the short' route and said the tramway department contributed £oooo toward the cost of the Mount Victoria tunnel, but the Bell Bus contributed nothing. Motor interests were at work to prevent tramlines being laid down. He (Mt Mr. Bell th a Corporation buses off the loan. Mr R O Peterson, assistant general manager and accountant of the tram-, wavs department, said the total receip > on ‘the short sightseeing route for the rix months’ period that the service was running were £444. The mileage was 5236, and the average receipts per bus mile were 20.3 d. The number of passe gers carried was 3626. That wa< the most successful part of the city > bus operations. The 16d per bus mile was a correct figure. Board’s Decision. In giving the decision of the board Mr. Justice Frazer said the board agreed that there was a demand for•the shorter route, as shown by the City Council figures of 600 a month. The attributed no importance to the tunnel route. They did, however, consider the o/6 fare too low, and thought it should be 3/-, which would be in some ratio to the 5/- fare. The appeal would be allowed to the extent that the City Corporation fare would be raised too/-, and the Bell Bus Company should be ■wanted a license for the shorter distance as set out in its application at the same fare as the City Council, 3/-. If the Citv Council were granted n monopoly of the shorter route it would to some extent invalidate the automatic license of the Bell Bus Compani on the longer route. The Bell Bus Com pany would be allowed £5/5/- costs, tappeal fee, and expenses. In reply to Mr. O’Shea the presides said the corporation would be entitle' to apply for a license for the longe> route when it considered conditions litiimproved to warrant it.