GOODS BY ROAD

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22004, 10 January 1935, Page 10

GOODS BY ROAD

TRANSPORT DECISION SERVICES ABOLISHED 'AUCKLAND AND THE SOUTH COMPETITION WITH TRAINS FAR-REACHING EFFECTS Important and far-reaching decisions abolishing through goods services by road between Auckland and southern districts were delivered by the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority yesterday. Except in so far as they may he delayed by the lodgment of appeals, these decisions will take effect immediately. If'appeals are lodged the services affected may be carried on as under the old licences until the appeals are heard. < They were delivered to an interested

group by the chairman of the authority, Mr. J., A. C. Allum, with whom was Mr. E. C. Blomfield. Mr. Allum explained that the third member of the authority, Mr. T. Hanna, who was ab-

senii., was in entire agreement with all the conclusions reached. The decisions had been held over on account of the legal holidays. In view of their importance a detailed explanation of the reasons leading up to them had been prepared. Some of the services affected are long established and conducted by large transport firms. They operate between Auckland and such districts as New Plymouth, Otorohanga, Hamilton and other Waikato centres, the Hauraki Plains, Thames and Tauranga. Out of, 29 applications that came before the authority only three were granted outright. These concerned two

services for the transport of stock between the Hauraki Plains and Auck- - land and one for the transport of bulk petrol between Auckland and Rotorua. Thirteen were declined and in the case of the other 13 their route licences to Auckland have been declined, but they have been granted a licence within j. their own restricted areas. Fate of Applications The following have had their applications granted:—R. W. Butcher, Hamilton; G. Sarjant, Pacroa; J. H. Sar-

gant, Paeroa. The following have been granted licences within restricted areas: H. B. Sparrow, Ngatea; F. Parsons, Te Awamutu; S. Bonnici, Waihi; J. F. Kirby, Turua; F. Plows. Whitianga; L. M. Mitchell, Thames; W. S. Gooseman and Company, Limited, Morrinsville; C. J. Trapski, Thames; A. B. Carter, Otorohanga; G. B. Neil, Paeroa; M. J. Holder and Son. Otorohanga; Maxwell and Wilson, Te Awamutu; H. T. Salter, Papatoetoe. The applications of the following were declined: —A. F. Hicks, Auckland; L. Hjorth, Cambridge; H. E. Salter, Auckland: C. T. Fearn, Thames; L. J. Shaw, Auckland; B. R. R. Taylor, Tauranga; R. Gallichan, Morrinsville; H. P. Watene, Thames; New Plymouth Daily Transport, Limited, Auckland; Hamilton Brothers, Whemiakite: H. A. Cory-Wright, Tairua; Felton Waikato Transport Company, Auckland; McClymont's Transport, Limited, Auckland.

Position of Railways

"We can come to, no other conclusion than that the competition of the road services under our consideration is, inequitable, and if allowed to continue will seriously affect the operation of the essential railways and shipping services," said the chairman in his explanatory, statement. "We are impressed by the great increases in tb« volume of goods carried by road, increases which obviously are not accounted for by normal increase in general business.

"We are of opinion that if this continues a time must soon be reached ■when, in the case of the railways, taxpayers will be called upon to meet greater losses, or the whole incidence of freight rates must be brought under review."

The provisions of the Transport Licensing Act, he said, required the authority to have regard to (a) the extent to which the proposed service was necessary or desirable in the public interest; and (b) the needs of the districts as a whole in relation to goods transport. This provision was clear, and it required applicants first to satisfy them that a service was necessary or desirable in the public interest. If applicants could succeed in that, then the authority must proceed to consider certain other matters. Convenience and Cheapness

Where an operator was put off the road in the common good, it was to bo regretted that there was no provision to compensate him _ for the position he was in at the time of the passing of tho Act, or, better still, provision fpr the co-ordination of the road services • with the railways and shipping services, wherever practicable. "All that has been shown to ns is that certain services cause convenience, and, in some cases, cheapness," continued the statement, "and we can find nothing in the legislation which allows us to grant licences on these grounds alone. Evidence shows clearly that all districts under review are served adequately with reasonable speed and cost by railways and/or shipping services operating in conjunction with local carriers. In no case was it shown that if the road operators ceased tho district served woidd be left without adequate transport at reasonable cost.

Delivery of Parcels

"In sonle cases stress was laid on the expedition with which small parcels can be delivered at wayside points. The railways were able to show that, acting in conjunction with local carriers, they' also can deliver with expedition. Then we cannot ignoro the road passenger services which can and do deliver parcels at all points on their lines of route. "If wo could find that the community can afford not only the existing es:iential railways and shipping services, but also another alternative service, then we might further consider the question of granting the applications. The evidence submitted does not, however, show that the people can afford such an alternative service, but on the contrary, county councils have to!d us that they are having difficulty in finding money for maintenance, and we cannot ignoro the heavy railway looses which are borne by the taxpayer.

Duty of Authority

"It was further suggested that if .the road services are not allowed to operate, then the railways will have a monopoly, and treat the public just as they please. It should be sufficient for us to point out that our decisions are made in the light of evidence submitted at the time, and that if circumstances change, then our decisions may change. If bv reason of a quasimonopoly the railways treated the community in a harsh or unreasonable manner —or if any licensed road operator should so act—then we should consider it our duty to take such action as would give the public relief. "We regret there should exist any idea that our function is simply to protect the railways. Our duty is to administer the Act as we find it, and that involves giving protection where it is due. We are just as much interested in protecting licensed road operators and shipping companies as in protecting. ;fche railways,^-