BUS VERSUS TRAM

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 35, 10 February 1926, Page 4

BUS VERSUS TRAM

PRIVATE-OWNED AND PUBLIC INTERESTS

REGULATIONS UNDER DISCUSSION

FURTHER ARGUMENT.

Further argument between ths varieus interests affected by the motor-bus regulations took place jestorday afternoon at the conference called by the Prime'^'Minister as Minister of Public Works; The discussion largely took the form of discussion between the mo-tor-bni proprietors and representatives of local bodies having tramway undertakings.

Mr. T. Bloodworth (Auckland) contended that both at the municipal and General Elections a mandate had been given by the people for control, of mo-tor-but traffic.

Mr. F. J. Nathan (Palmerston North) deprecated the private enterprises selecting the best paying routes only, while the local bodies, running •ervices to the convenience of the ratepayer*, were obliged to provide conveyance on various routes, some of which were profitable and o,thers unprofitable. Several other speakers representing local bodies argued along the lines that the public should be protected from the competition of private enterprise.

Mr. Q. Campbell, representing the Auckland bus proprietors,' outlined the cost of bus services, and said it would be ft serious thing if they had to go off the road. "

Mr. Coates: "Do you suggest that if the Government regulations are brought in, you* buses will have to go o$E the rbadt'?

,Mrj»Campbell said he could see no-th&tg-else for it if somo of the clauses were enforced. The motor-bus, ho said, hadueaught the public > fancy, and it -•fould be detrimental to the progress of iSiy town if buses wero not allowed to §tt into districts served by the tramways. ' The buses had been the means »tf improving the tramway services 100 r^br cent.' Bus transport meant pro-

||BAMS SHOULD BE SCBAPPED. '^Replying to the Prime Minister, he ■fid that if trains could not compete on equal terms with buses thy should b£ scrapped. If the motor-busos were jiit off the tram route* people in the outlying district* would have to pay liore for their transport. HMr. Thompson (chairman of the Auckland Tramways Committee) said tti&t 4i million pounds were invested if the Auckland tramways, and it could net seriously be suggested that such a public asset should be scrapped. Trams wre the best and ■ safest transport xfetho& ItCwas all a question of private interest against public rights. *Mr. W. T. Strand (Mayor of Lower Ijutt) asked, if the bus proprietors would guarantee for five years a bus sdrvice between the city and Lower Hutt it'the same cost as the railway— 2< 3d per weoki At present they came a]ong in the middle of the day, and ejfrried people for lsfld. What was Wanted was a service which, would tifknaport large numbers of people during the rush traffic hours. The present action of the buses was "ono of the greatest steals" he knew of. Would t^e bug proprietors bo prepared to eirry people night and morning for £■ 3d a week? '.- '■'"' ••■•.' - •■■•■;■ ' ' '

;-''Mr. B. L. Hamtnond (rpresentativc of the bus proprietors): "If the railways withdraw from ' competition I hive no doubt the bus owners would give the assurance. Under present condjtiongj no." < . *■■ ■' *iThe Hon. J. Barr (representing the tifamway undertakings) said that in a ■sort ttime many of the motor buses which had been bought in Auckland' lfbnld b« thrown back on to the hands c| the, people from whom the money f#r them had been borrowed.

t THE XNSTT&AXCE QUESTION. gThe, bus proprietors agreed to the principle of insurance against' injury to persons-,or property, but disputed the amount proposed, £5000, which Mr. Hammond characterised as Bo ridiMllous as to be prohibitive', and a burdin which possibly would have the efffet of restricting services., , vO'ha.WeHington City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) said that three people were; kiijlled in the Pirie street tram accident, and it cost the City Council £500(j. in compensation. Juries, he said, now awarded damages much more liberWly: than -they did years ago.

•^Mr.T. W. Furkert (Chief Engineer o*f the Public Works Department) said h« had been told by insurance men that it was quite unnecessary to fix a. sliding scale according to the number cl passengers carried. , . ;'After further discussion the matter HW dropped. I >^' OPEN COMPETITION. '.Mr. Hammond said that the proprietors resented any control of bus fares, either minimum or ); maximum. ' They stood for open competition, and it was uadedrable both in the interests.of proprietors and the general public to have control. Open competition was the greatest incentive to service, and it wai wrong in principle to fix minimum .fares. To make a minimum for ;:a short distance at the fare charged by the tramways for the whole route was nothing short of iniquitous.

Mr. ford, manager of the Auckland Tramways, sought the addition of a new clause providing that motor omnibuses running along routes parallel or ■pear , ; to tramways should., charge not Jess JQian 50 per cent, more than the jtr^m^fare. This system was common 'throughout Britain, as he had been ofinformed from England a week iw ago. ■ ' . , ; IJ^Mt; Fiirkert quoted telegrams from High Commissioner in London to "iiEe^lfect.that the usual arrangement ijin, England where omnibus • services i*yerl«pped .tramway routes was that .^th.«L;\.buses. were required to deal with SiiagJdistaiiee traffic, leaving the trams to deal with local traffic. The omni-bus-proprietors were required to give an undertaking which usually took the form of an agreement to charge fares in excess of those charged by the *»«!•■ ' ' . Pujther quotations were made by other speakers as to the systems in the United States. Mr. A. F. Carey (Christchurch) said that the Christchurch City Council regardlsd the clause as a little too. drastic. « must be recognised that motor-bus traffic was world-wide, and must be provided; for. The licensing authority, in the "Opinion of the council, should be enabled to make exemptions where it was satisfied the traffic proposed was necessary for public travelling and was ■ot unfair to existing tramway facilities. '.-'<. ' '

The conflicting interests disagreed on the clause, which was then passed over;

PBOTEOTIOK TOR COUNCILOWNED BUSES.

"Consideration Vas next given to a clause providing that the regulations ebould not prevent publicly-owned tramways from running motor-buses for the purpose of aiding or relieving tramway traffic or for transporting passengers in the immediate neighbourhood of the tramway routo during its reconstruction or repair. '■ Mr. C. B. Agar (Christohurch) said that the opinion of tho Christchurch

City Council was it gave an unfair advantage ,to the tramways. It should apply equally all round..

Mr. Hammond said the clause was ingeniously devised with the object of excluding the publicly-owned buses from the regulations:

Mr. Barr contended that it was essential to the tramway undertakings to be able to put buses on in. the event of repair or reconstruction work, or overcrowding of the tramway business. The Prime Minister (the Right Hon. J. G. Coates) said he did not think it mattered whether the clause remained in the regulations or not. It was purely intended for emergency use. Its elimination would be considered before the proposals wore finished. While tho schedules were under discussion, Mr. Hammond objected to the age limit for the driver being fixed at 50 as unreasonable, and regarded the requirement of a medical certificate as sufficient safeguard. He pointed out also* that hardship was liable to be caused by the minimum age being fixed at 21 years. Mr. Coates said that it was intended that anyone at present employed as a driver who was below 21 should be allowed to continue such employment. A committee was set up, with representation for all concerned, to further disuess at an evening session severnl vital clauses which had been deferred by the conference, especially the board of control, the committee to report this morning.