RAIL AND MOTOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21578, 24 August 1933, Page 10

RAIL AND MOTOR

AUCKLAND TO PtJKEKOHE BUS APPEAL UPHELD NO RESTRICTION ON SERVICE NEED FOR SINGLE CONTROL The opinion that the only satisfactory way in which the road and rail services in the Auckland suburban and outersuburban areas can be operated without waste and overlapping is by placing them under one control, is expressed by the Transport Appeal Board in a reserved judgment concerning two appeals against a decision of the No. 2 Licensing Authority with regard to the Auckland - Papakura - Pukekohe motor services. . In delivering judgment, the chairman, Mr. Justice Frazer, said the authority decided to reduce the number of daily trips between Auckland and Pukekohe from 14 each way to eight each way. The Auckland Provincial Motor-bus Company appealed against this decision and the Railways Board appealed for a further restriction in the direction of co-ordination of the road and rail services at Papakura, thereby eliminating the road service between Auckland and Papakura. The majority of the board was satisfied. stated the judgment, that such coord iriation of road and rail services in the suburban and outer-suburban areas was undesirable, for a number of reasons. The population was relatively dense and was fairly well distributed along the route. Between Pukekohe and Papakura the read, along which most of the settlement existed, ran at a considerable distance from the railway, and in the more closely-settled area between Papatoetoe and Papakura a large part of the settlement was not within easy distance of railway stations.

Spacing ol Stations In this portion of the area, although the railway stations were spread at short intervals, the spacing was not close enough for a regularly-patronised suburban service, by which a very largo percentage of the passengers travel to and from the city daily. It was obviously impossible to increase the number of stations, for that would diminish the usefulness of the railway service by reducing its speed. The majority of the board was compelled to accept the contusion arrived at by the authority, that both the road and the rail services were necessary. The railway provided a cheap and efficient service for those residents who lived within easy distance of the stations, and the road operators provided a convenient service for the residents , who, although living near the line, were at some distance from a station, and also for those residents who lived on or near the road and at a distance from the railway line. In the case of suburban and outersuburban services, the factors of timesaving and convenience weighed more, heavily than in the case of services by which passengers made only occasional journeys. The company's service, in addition to catering for the requirements of residents at their home terminal, brought them through the city and disembarked them at convenient stopping places, instead of bringing them all to the Newmarket and Auckland stations. Difference in Pares The majority of the board considered the railway service between Auckland and Papakura was sufficiently protected by the margin between its fares and those authorised for the road services, and that the elimination of road .competition betweeji Auckland and Papakura would not be desirable in the public interest. The lower rail fares must influence a number of regular passengers, for whom the road service would, on the whole, be more convenient, to travel by rail, and this, in the nature of things, afforded a substantial degree of protection. To go further than this would impose an undue hardship on residents in the area lying between Papatoetoe and Papakura.

Dealing with the company's protest against the reduction in the number of trips, the majority of the board was inclined to think there was room for a reduction of trips by both road and rail between Auckland and Papakura, but, in so far as the road service was concerned, it was impossible to eliminate any particular trip, for the more lightly-patronised trips in either direction were all balanced by heavily-pat-ronised return trips in the opposite direction. It was impossible to revise the company's schedule on a restricted basis without materially impairing its usefulness to the residents of the area served.

Wasteful Competition All members of the board were convinced that to avoid waste and overlapping both road and rail services in the suburban and outer-suburban area should be placed under one control. An element of wasteful competition doubtless existed and it could be eliminated only by making a careful survey of the distribution of the residents along the road and rail routes and noting the frequency of travel in the different parts of tho area, and then re-arrang-ing road and rail services in such a manner as to cater, efficiently and economically for the reasonable needs of the public. Tho appeal of the company was allowed and that of the Railways Board disallowed. The company was granted £lO 10s costs and £5 disbursments against the Railways Board.

CONFERENCE IN WELLINGTON CARRIERS AND OFFICIALS [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] ■WELLINGTON, Wednesday Important questions affecting tlio coordination of road and. rail transport wore discussed to-day at a conference, arranged by master carriers, between representatives of master carriers and officers of the Railway Department and Transport Department. The Minister of Transport, Mr. Coates, was present. No statement was issued.