CONFLICTING VIEWS

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

CONFLICTING VIEWS

PRIVATE BUS AND PUBLIC TRAM

FARES AND CONTROL

CONFEBENOE CONCLUDEa

The conflicting view of the private motor-bus owners and local authorities owning tramway concerns upon the question of transport competition were further heard at.the motor-bus regulations conference this morning. After argument similar to that which took place yesterday, it was realised that widely different views were held between the opposing parties, and that agreement was impossible, and the conference concluded. The Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department (Mr. F. . W. Furkert) reported the result of a discusssion last night by a committee set up to consider the question of the Transport Appeal Board, and the fixation of fares. As chairman of the committee, he reported that they had been unable to come to ( a unanimous decision. The bus proprietors moved that there should not be any other licensing authority but the appeal board, the licenses to be issued by the local authority on the recommendation of an advisory board comprised of an independent chairman appointed by the Government, a representative of the tramways or public, omnibus proprietors, a representative of the local bodies not owning tramways, and a representative of the private omnibus ownersi This was defeated by ten votes to four. It was then moved that the constitution of the board as laid down in the regulations should be adhered to, and this was carried with the same voting. A slight alteration was made in the Appeal Board provision eliminating the definite reference, to a Magistrate as chairman of the Appeal Board, and making it simply an independent chairman appointed by the Government, and leaving it open to the .Government to appoint whatever man was -deemed fit. Mr. Furkert said the impression he gathered from the committee proceedings was that the bus proprietors might have to swallow something, but the,y could not swallow the regulation of fares and the fixation of a bus faTe higher than that charged on the trams. "CANNOT SWALLOW THE WELLINGTON COUNCIL." Mr. "W. G. M' Donald, one of the Wel-^ lington omnibus proprietors' representatives, said that thte position of the .Wellington Suburban Motor-bus Company was that it could not swallow the local authority as the licensee. His company had been definitely refused permission to use Ghuzriee street, yet two months later the City Council gave its own tramway concern permission to use that street. How, then, could they swallow the local authority as the* licensing body. The Appeal Board was really a carrot in front of •the donkey's nose. It was an attempt to give the private bus owner something which amounted to nothing at all. If the^Gbvernment, as father of the regulations, was going to insist upon buses charging more than the trams, he would be expected to run a bus at!such a fare that the people would not patronise it. The community his company was serving was a working community, and cheapness was the essence of'the contract. If the proposal was carried the private buses must go out of business.

Mr. Coates: " Will you state -' your actual position. Tor how long do you think it would be reasonable to exempt you from the full fares?" Mr, M'Donald said the bus companies would go into liquidation under the higher fare proposal. His company had 14 buses, with about £14,000 involved, and had not attempted to run in streets where danger would be caused to the public. They certainly ran along the tram routes in some places, and, charged tram fares, and in'present circumstances they were making a success of their business. "I would go out of business quite joyfully," he said, "at the end of five years, perhaps seven; that would give us a chance,to recoup our initial outlay." '' Say we gave you a couple of years," suggested Mr. Coates. Mr. M'Donald: "Well, that would be bettor than nothing." He condemned the regulations as panic legislation brought about by an unjustified agitation by the tramway authorities. CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL. j The Wellington City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) denied that the City Council had authorised its buses to sun in Ghuznee street. If it did so, he said, it would be breaking its own bylaws. 110 mentioned that ■ suburban resident had ■taken a concession ticket from a bus company which was'defunct. The ticket was of no further use, and the resident had applied to the City Council for relief. The council wished to bring that' before the Government for consideration 1 and regulation. Mr. J. F. Cousins, 1 representing the New Zealand Motor Trades Association, suggested an independent tribunal to deal with local matters as well as general matters. ' \ Mr. E. H. Potter (Auckland)) asked that the central licensing authority shouW be authorised to delegate its powers to adjacent local authorities. Sir Edwin Mitchelson admitted that the bus had come to stay, but it must not be allowed to pirate the legitimate traffic which should fall to 'the tramways. Mr. G. Campbell (Auckland), said that unless the private buses were able to take fares along the tram routes they could not ply beyond the tram termini without increasing .the fares for the shorter distances. Mr. T. Bloodworth (Auckland City Council) pointed out that the majority of the lower wage earners lived in tho inner areas served by trams. If tlio bus interests continued to filch revenue from the trams the tram, proprietors could not afford to reduce fates along the inner routes which served the workers. A voice: They reduced them in Wellington two months ago. Mr. Bloodworth said that the private bus owners admitted that they had nut cheapened fares to the working class, and in effect they were preventing tho tramway concerns from doing so. "AN ATTITUDE OF AUTOCRACY." At this stage Mr. Hammond intimated that he wished to close the case f<>r the 6us proprietors. They had approached the conference with a feeling of optimism, prepared to place their cards on the table, and to act with a spirit •of compromise, expecting that the tramway delegates would do likuwise. ■ The local authorities, however, had made no attempt to meet them i.-i the same spirit and would offer no a 1 tentative "to the ■ transport tribunal proposed in the regulations. Their ro prcsentatives on the committee appointed last night refused to deal wJHi anything but tho Transport Board suggestion, contending that that was the only matter referred to the committee for consideration, notwithstanding tho Prime Minister's . suggestion tluit should the committee think lit to discuss any other matters in dispute tboy t should do so. The bus owners had bcuii ' prepared to discuss the minimum Xave

question, but the tramway representatives had remained "pat" on their own proposals and would not deviate from them. "Their attitude throughout," said Mr. Hammond, "bn been one of autocracy- They ait among tho high and mighty and stand by the Government's regulations. It is surprising that the regulations should be so unanimously approved by the local bodiei, and yet have emanated from the Government. We have the satisfaction of knowing that the local bodies have declared they are out to kill competition." In conclusion, he thanked tie Prime Minister for inviting them to attend the conference and put thoir case, and expressed the hope that in the course of time the tramway proprietors would become less obsessed with their own case and less blind to the claims of others. '. ■ The Hon. J. Barr pointed out that the regulations entailed certain expenditure to the municipal undertakings. What they asked was that there should be a chalk line from which all parties should start off. He asked for the regulations, to be put into force as soon as possible. ! In twelve months they would know where they all stood, and if there was any need for an alteration he for one would not oppose a change in the form of the tribunal for the. issue of licenses. He remarked to Mr. Hammond that no innovation had ever been introduced without the fear being expressed that it would spell ruin. The conference passed a vote :of thanks by acclamation to the Prime Minister for calling the conference and conducting proceedings. DUTY TO THE PUBLIC. Mr. Coates said his object in calling the conference had been to hear the different poi-.s of view in regard to the regulations. Mr. Hammond had represented the bus interests splendidly, but what he had really wanted was to hear the effect of the regulations upon those concerned. The information gathered would be of great assistance to the Government. There was no doubt in hjs mind that regulations were essential, so as to put the competing interests on proper ground. He was glad to hear that the bus proprietors considered regulations necessary. Whether the Government ; could fit everything in to suit all parties was another matter, but no doubt they would be able to finalise regulations which at any rate would be in the interests of the community as a whole. He trusted that the regulations enforced would be fair to all, but ,he did not expect they would please everybody. "We are not going to treat the bus proprietors as so much dirt, as has been almost suggested," Mr. Coates, "but we t are going to do what we consider .is bur duty to the public and what is best for the proper control of transportation."