MOTOR COMPETITION

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 31, 5 August 1925, Page 4

MOTOR COMPETITION

The request of the tramway enterprises for legislation protecting them from unfair motor-bus competition is reasonable. It would certainly have been better if the legislation had been obtained, as we urged many months ago, before the competition began, for it ia much more difficult to impose conditions upon an enterprise in operation than to formulate conditions before competition begins. The commencement, of a competitive enterprise immediately introduces a disturbing third factor—private enterprise. If the tramway-owning Corporations had shown more foresight they might have framed their regulations when only two factors were to be considered: the tramway rights and the public interest. Now private enterprise, having entered the field, is entitled to pair play; but the tramway and the public have an equal claim, and we trust that this will be remembered when the Government find Parliament are considering the legislation which is sought. There are some members of Parliament, as Wellington has found when endeavouring to have municipal milk legislation amended, who are so bent upon safeguarding private enterprise that they arc wont, to forget or disregard the public rights. Fair play for the 'tramways and for tlaoir owuws (Uie public) u^oaiia

an embargo on unfair competition. Theoretically, a monopoly under public ownership which does not seek profits is the be v st economic system, but it has been proved that such a monopoly needs the stimulus of competition if it is to give a full measure of service. It is, however, essential that such competition shall be subject to control. The tramways are now saddled not only with track construction and maintenance, but with a share of road maintenance. Competing motorbuses must pay their share of the road cost. Tramways are required to run during slack hours so as to maintain communication with outside districts. The motorbuses may rightly be called upon to maintain a similar service and to give some guarantee that the service will continue for a reasonable period—not run for three or six months and then dropped. It is evident that varying conditions in different towns cannot be met by detailed legislation. There must be local regulation, but, with such safeguards as appeal boards, we see no reason to fear that private enterprise will be unfairly dealt with under this method. But above all other considerations it is essential that whatever may be done shall' be done speedily. If the legislation is not passed this session the difficulty of grappling with the problem will be greatly increased.