MOSQUITO FLEET

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 7, 9 January 1930, Page 10

MOSQUITO FLEET

WAR ON FIVE-SEATERS RAILS AND RUBBER RIVALS PASSENGER STEALING In the evidence given beforo the Parliamentary Transport Committee three months ago, one of.' the witnesses was Mr. John O'Shea, City Solicitor of Wellington, who represented the New Zealand Municipal Association. Mr. O'Shea mentionc-d a suggestion by the Auckland Oity Solicitor (who is also solicitor o.'f the Auckland Transport Board) that the definition of "motor omnibus" (Motor Omnibus Traffic Act, 192G) bo amended. The definition in -the Act of 1926 is as follows: — "Motor 'Omnibus" means a vehicle propelled 'by mechanical power, and designed solely or principally for tho carri/igo of persons exceeding seven in number, inclusive of the driver; but does not include a vehicle running <on rails, or a vehicle which, though Tiot running on rails, derives motive power from an overhead wire. Mr. O'Sbea said the suggested amendment was that tho words "exceeding seven in. number, inclusive of tho driver" be deleted. The report of the evidences (somewhat condensed) adds to tho above: —■ Tho Hon. W. A. Voitch (Minister of Transport): We are advised that what you are proposing would make a two-seater car a motor omnibus? — Witness: If they are run on regular services we think they should be so regjirded. Sir. "Veitch: Every car would bo an ormnibus? —Witness: Every car which runs on these services should bo so regarded, because whether a man runs a six or a seven-seater he should be in the same position so far as the safety of the public is concerned. Thero are people who have continually tried to invade the rights of the regular omnibuses by putting seven jieoplo in six-seater cars.

At a later stago Mr. J. A. C. Allum, chairman of the Auckland Transport Board, appeared before the Committee and supported the amendment as outlined by Mr. O'Shea. Mr. Allum said: ""Wo want to make the definition of a 'motor-omnibus' apply to any vehicle plying at separate fares, no matter how many passengers, or how few, are carried.'' A PARLIAMENTARY FIGHT. It happens that, during December the Victorian State Parliament was occupied with a proposal by the- Hogan (Labour) Government to limit the competition of motor-cars with railways. In introducing the Bill, Mr. Hogan said it provided that on railway routes "five-seated motor-cars would not be permitted to carry passengers." (The existing Victorian law, the Press explains, already prohibits private ear owners from carrying more than five passengers at a time). The operations of five-seated cars, the Premier continued, had seriously affected railway revenue. In reply to a question— "What will bo tho position of hire motor-cars which compete- with the railways on one day and perhaps feed the railways on tho next?" —Mr. Hogan said that was a, technical issue which might have to bo settled by a Court, but in any case it would bo made illegal for motor-cars to run regular services on routes in direct competition with efficient railways.

The seriousness of tho car competition with tho railways has more than once been asserted by tho Department of Railways in New Zealand; and that there is fire behind the smoke seems to be attested not only by tho strength of the Victorian Government's advocacy of the Bill but by the resistance of tho Nationalist Opposition. Sir William M'Phersou (late Premier of Victoria) replied to Mr. Hogan by emphasising the motor taxation, and by contending that if motor-car owners had paid their share of the damage that they had done they were as much entitled to ply their trado as the railways were. (Hear, hear.) The railways were now highly efficient, and that was largely tho result of the motor-car competition. He hoped that if the Bill were passed, people whoso convenience was served by motor transport would find means or! "getting round" the Bill. (Uproar.) Mr. Webber (Honorary Minister): "Ho, ho, we will remember that statement." Mr. Pollard (Honorary Minister): "Yes, it is encouraging a strike." On Christmas Eve the fate of the Bill was still in doubt, and it seemed that the Government might accept a compromise reduced to five the number of routes on which motor-cars with five (or less) paying passengers must not ply. Parallel with debates in Parliament the newspapers have been investigating the effect of the existing restrictions on vehicles with more-than-iive passengers. MOBILITY OF CARS. In the Mornington Peninsula, a Melbourne "Argus" investigator finds, the traffic to suburban and holiday resorts was worked up by private motor services, but "with the passing of ■ the Motor-omnibus (Urban and Country) Act by the Hogan Ministry in 1927 tho operations of the privately •■ owned transport facilities were so restricted that motor-buses bought by the Bailways Department at a cost of thousands of pounds were virtually given a monopoly of traffic in the peninsula

it is ebntended by residents that the taxpayer has been saved nothing by the attempt to protect a State enterprise from 'unfair competition,' and at the game time a fast-developing district has received a blow from 'which it will take years to recover unless tho ban on private motor-buses be removed. 'The privately owned motor-buses (says one of the Shire presidents) used to carry visitors to the door of their hotels or boarding-houses, but the railway buses simply deposit them .at regular stoppingplaees. : Formerly private bus owners would make as many journeys as were necessary to and from Melbourne to deal with the increased traffic at holiday times, but the Railways Department makes no such provision, and the district suffers. The hire car owners now operating on the route have had to refuse hundreds of bookings this year All- the bus owners are willing to give an undertaking that they will not pick up passengers between Mornington and Melbourne where they would be competing directly with the railways, but oven that has had no effect.' "