WAIUKU MOTOR-BUSES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21580, 26 August 1933, Page 13

WAIUKU MOTOR-BUSES

JUDGMENT OF BOARD APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART CO-ORDINATION AT PAPAKURA Judgment of the Transport Appeal Hoard was issued yesterday in the case in which F. G. Parker appealed against tho decision of the No. 2 Licensing Authority to refuse him a licence for conducting a bus service on the Auck-land-Waiuku route. Prior to the refusal by the authority, appellant had a licence to conduct a service on the route. At tho same hearing, P. V. Flexman, who operated on the same route, was granted a licence to operato between Papakura and Waiuku, coordinating with the rail at Papakura. Appellant did not appeal against tho licence granted to Flexman. A majority of the board is of opinion that there is a reasonable necessity for a road service between Papakura and Waiuku, states the judgment, but that there is not room for two services. The considerations that operate in favour of the licensing of a through road service between Auckland and Pukekohe do not apply in the case of a service between Auckland and Waiuku, and the . board considers, therefore, that the decision of tho authority to limit the week-day services to the PapakuraWaiuku portion of the route is reasonable.

"Adequate rail and road services run between Auckland and Papakura," states the judgment, "and it appears to be unnecessary and wasteful to licence a small service, not patronised by regular daily passengers, to run through to Auckland. The PapakuraWaiuku section, in so far as it is not adequately served by the Waiuku branch railway, can ho sufficiently catered for by means of a feeder service, similar to the Papakura-Clevedon service."

Owing to the failure of the appellant Parker to appeal against the grant of a licence to Flexman, and owing to the No. 2 Licensing Authority not having granted to Parker the licence that it was prepared to grant him if he would have accepted a licence for a service between Papakura and Waiuku, it was impossible for the board to administer even-handed justice without committing economic error.

On the merits, Parker appeared to be unquestionably the operator who should have the licence for the service. Although the board thought there was not room for both operators on the road, it had decided, by a majority, to allow the appeal to the extent of authorising Parker to operate between Papakura and Waiuku from Monday to Friday inclusive, and between Auckland and Waiuku on Saturday and Sunday. The position could be reviewed when "the current licences expired, or before that time if one or other of the operators retired. In a dissenting opinion, Mr. L. Aldcrton, a member of the board, states that he has arrived at the decision that no sufficient reason was advanced to support co-ordination between road and rail at Papakura. His opinion is that the onlv appropriate road service between Waiuku and Auckland is one of the type run by Parker prior to the appeal. TUAKAU SERVICES TWO appeals allowed BOARD NOT UNANIMOUS The decision of the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority to refuse renewals of Loughrin and Mclvor s licences to operate passenger motor services on the Auckland-Bombay-Tuakau and Auck-land-Pukekohe East-Tuakau routes has been reversed by the Transport Appeal Board. The authority was prepared to grant licences for services between Papakura and Tuakau, via Bombay and Pukekohe East respectively, but, the motor proprietors declined to accept licences for those services on the ground that they would be unprofitable and inconvenient. Appeals against the authority's decision were opposed by the Railways Board, which supported co-ordination of the motor services v ith the railways at Papakura. In delivering judgment the chairman, Mr. Justice Frazer, said appellants' services might be regarded as an extension of the Auckland-Papakura-Pukekohe service operated by the Auckland Provincial Motor Bus Company. If the appellants' services were not permitted to proceed further north than Papakura it would be necessary to raise the fares considerably, with the result that traffic would fall off and the services become unprofitable. The extent of the patronage given indicated the services were necessary for the residents of the districts. "The members of the Appeal Board are all of the opinion that during the currency of the present licensing period the appellants and the Auckland Provincial Motor Bus Company should endeavour to effect a co-ordination of their services, and so save unnecessary mileage and wear and tear of the roads," continued His Honor. "If this is not effected, this board next year may have to consider a compulsory reduction of services on some of the routes concerned. A scheme of co-ordin-ation worked out by the proprietors themselves should effect some economy in road use, without detriment to the services reasonably necessary for the travelling public." The appeals were allowed, the Railways Board being ordered to pay £lO 10s costs, together with £lO disbursements.

In a minority report. Mr. T.-Jordan, a member of the board, said lie agreed with the conclusion of the Licensing Authority that it was wasteful and uneconomic that appellants should be allowed to continue their service beyond Papakura to Auckland.