THE MOTOR-BUS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 89, 11 October 1913, Page 9

THE MOTOR-BUS

ITS PROSPECTS IN NEW ZEALAND PECULIAR LEGAL POSITION CAN COMPETITION BE PRO- * HIBITED? (By "Autos.") ■ The position of the motor-bus in this country, as in others also, is both peculiar and interesting at the present time. The utility, practicability, and reliability of the motor-bus as a vehicle for the transport of the public has been demonstrated now beyond a shadow of a doubt. The success of the motor-bus in London has been described and quoted so often that it is quite familiar to most readers of the newspaper. The London General Omnibus Company, in 1905, had 18,000 horses; to-day it owns none. But in their place are over three thousand motor-buses of a type that almostj approaches the ideal. They are comparatively silent, they are speedy, they are light for the number of passengerß carried, and; above all, they are exceedingly economical to run. In the last twelve months for which the London County Council tramways accounts are available, the profits on that undertaking, with no allocation for depreciation, were reduced to £475, after carrying 500 x millions of passengers. It is true that the tramways are in the unfortunate position of not being allowed access to the heart of the city and the centre of traffic, but none the less the figures are certainly ominous. IN OTHER CITIES. The motor-bus is used with success in many other parts of England, but nowhere on such a magnificent scale as in London. Nowhere are the conditions so favourable for its employment. Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, . Leeds, Sheffield, Belfast, and the other great provincial cities with populations ranging from a quarter of a million to a million inhabitants, still have highly remunerative tramway systems, against which the motor-bus has not yet started in competition. The tramways in these cities are in no way handicapped by legal barriers against access to their centres, as in London, and they hold their own wonderfully well. In Melbourne the motor-bus has already got a firm hold of the situation through the inability of the cable-cars to cope with the traffic, and by the time the lease of the Melbourne Tramways Company expires— in about three years — the motor-bus should be master of the position. In New York the street traction companies are up in arms against the intrusion of motor'buses into the avenues and streets along which the trams run. They intend to fight the question out in the courts, and the issue will be long in doubt with interests so powerful at stake. It is quite likely, and indeed probable, that similar questions will be raised in the other big American cities, where roadways are being improved at a rapid rate, while street traction companies do not give the beet service. MUNICIPALITIES ANXIOUS. This mention of the legal aspect of the position of the motor-bus comes home especially to New Zealand at the present time. This is the most interesting side of the problem to-day, and until the various questions connected with it are settled the larger municipalities in the Dominion, particularly those owning tramways, may well feel somewhat anxious.* Over a million and a-half of money is invested in municipal tramways in the three big centres, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin alone, and of the other towns, Wanganui, Invercargill, Na.pier, and Gisborne have municipal tramway systems with, an aggregate capita] outlay of over £150,000 more. If to these be added the Auckland tramways, run by a private company, the tobal capital sunk in tramways in New Zealand musb»be over two and a-quarter millions sterling. If the example of London is to be accepted as valid for the Dominion— which, of course, is doubtful— then all this capital may be jeopardised by competition from the motor-bus, which can run anywhere where there are roads and would not cost a quarter in the capital outlay of the electric tram system. NO POWER TO RUN MOTOR'BUSES. The question has received the close attention of the. Municipal Association, as well as of the municipal authorities individually. As the law now Btands, municipalities have no power to run motor-buses, and no power to prevent any private company or syndicate running them. The municipalities, especially the smaller ones, who have not yet installed tramways, want v power to run municipal motor-bus services. The larger municipalities want power to run motor-'bußes as feeders to their tramway systems, and otherwise to take advantage of this mode of traction. They also want to safeguard the ratepayers' money' invested in tramways from the competition of private motor-bus companies. Both powers have been sought from the Legislature, and the Government has consented to the inclusion in the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill, now before the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament, a clause giving power to municipal corporations to run motor-bases either as a complete service or a feeder of the tramways. But they have refused the prohibitory powers demanded as a protection from the rivalry of the motor-bus with the tramways in the cities which own tramways. At any rate, they will not stand sponsor to the inclusion of such a clause. The municipalities cannot therefore look for protection to the law in the direction of an explicit veto on the running of motor-buses in the streets of cities owning tramways. AUCKLAND'S PROTEST. A further difficulty has now arisen which threatens the existence of the former clause in the B.ill empowering councils to establish, maintain, and regulate motor-bus services for conveyance of passengers within the borough. The Auckland Tramways Company desires protection against possible municipal competition, and is endeavouring to get a proviso added to the clause to the effect that any person granted tramway concessions having such concession infringed may recover compensation in a. Court instituted under the Public Works Act for an infringement of their right or for damage doao, but no right to get an injunction. Such a proviso naturally debars the Auckland City Council from any opportunity to run motor-buses on a commercial basis, and naturally also the council is very indignant. Tho Mayor (Mr. C. J. Parr) is reported as stating that he wae willing to assume that the company had the sole right, to tramway traction, but surely it had no monopoly of other traction. Should the Amendment bo carried it would mean that the company would block any other form of traction but its own, and would prevent anybody from running motor-buses. Apparently the Tramways Compaiiy wanted to be free from competition. WHAT IS SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE— Now that is exactly the position of the different municipalities owning tramways in New Zealand. They want to be free from competition and 'to bar any other form of traction but tramway traction, unlw» it is in the hands of th« municipality. The Mayor ol Auckland,

by his statement, would cut the ground right away from the feet of his colleagues in the municipal govewunent of the three other civic centres of the Dominion. EARLY IN THE FIELD. The Kelburne Motor-Bus Company is a practical aff ail 1 . It . has its Argyll motor-bus chassis, three in number, 'already on the water, while the bodies are being built locally, to be ready for the chassia when they arrive, banning should commence before the end of November. This company is only indirectly competitive, if competitive at all, with the City Council's tramways. It' will certainly affect the revenue on the Karon Borough Council's line from the Gardens tb the Tunnel, but the loss might be made up by increased traffic through the better facilities for getting to Karori via the short cut over Kelburne. In Christchurch the motor'buses should have an excellent field, whether competitively or as feeders to the tramways. Of the financial prospects of the motor-bus generally in New Zealand, it is safest to say that they will depend largely on circumstances. There is nob sufficient data of services actually in operation to lay down a general proposition. For the small town, however, they should be ideal.