MOTOR REGULATIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12507, 24 July 1926, Page 6

MOTOR REGULATIONS

CASE FOR THE’BUS OWNERS COMMITTEE SITS FOR THIRD DAY INTERESTING EVIDENCE Tho case for the "bus owners was continued yesterday when the Select Committee of the House of Representatives on Regulations sat for the third time under the chairmanship of Mr E. P. Lee, M.P. Frederick Tice Martin, manager of tlie Royal Motor ’Bus Company. Auckland, in evidence, said that the penal fare would put them out of existence. His company ran from the Post Office mainly to Onehuiiga. To Mr Fraser: They had 29 ’buses, and their subscribed capital was £lO,000. Mr Fraser: What is the capital value of your ’buses?—l prefer not to answer that question. Mr Fraser: Why not?—l don’t see that it has any hearing on the case. All the ’buses are in first-class condition. Mr Fraser said that he had put this question because he desired to discover the financial position of the companies, and whether they were sound enough to perform the work which they had set out to do. He thought that this had a very important bearing on the case. But fie did not wish to force the witness. Further questioned by Mr Fraser, the witness said that he was not prepared to submit a balance-sheet of the company to the committee. Ho' would, however, put in a statement of hours worked by the company’s employees, and wages paid to them.. To Mr J. S. Dickson: The insurance on. one of the company’s ’buses, which had met with an accident, had been £6OOO. REDUCED THEIR FARES Mr V. Potter: When the ’bus companies began operations, did the tramway company reduce the fares?— Some months elapsed, and then the fares came down from 7<l to 4d. Mr Potter: In your opinion is that » fair remuneration for the distance travelled? — No, it is not. Mr Potter: When did the municipal ’buses come into operation.—On June 10th. Is it true that they have been running practically empty?—l have seen them with my own eyes. Why this prejudice against municipal ’buses?—l don’t know. Would you go so far as to say that the public are afraid that if the opposition ’buses are ended the fares will be raised ?- r -Ves. The insurance on his company’s ’buses under the regulations would be £390,000, said Mr Martin. He favoured a blanket policy for insurance. To the chairman : His company had had one fatal accident involving it in claims for £4OO. “A FOOTBALL MATCH” Mr Potter: What would be the result of the discontinuance of your service?—The repetition of the old football match before the Post Office each night at o o’clock. A wait of half an hour for the tram, and then need for luck if you were to get one. Mr Potter: Do you remember the tramway authorities preventing the public from standing on the rear platforms of tramcars because of the danger to the public?—Yes. Has that restriction now been removed? —Yes. Why ?—I should say to get more passengers from the ’buses. Has the operation of the ’buses lessened any danger to the public on the rear platform ?—No. To Mr J. S. Dickson: In the last six months one driver of the company had been fined for exceeding the speedlimit. The road where he had offended had a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. This man had driven at the rate of 36 miles an hour. Incidentally he was not in the employ of the company BOW. Witness stated to Mr Potter that they would be prepared to submit their finances to the chairman of the committee and to a Minister in confidence. “LIVE AND LET LIVE” On the subject of competition, Mr G. W. Forbes asked: Isn’t it a recognised thing for a competing firm to cut rates. Mr Martin: Yes; hut there is such a thing as live and let live. I maintain that a competing firm has no business to sell its goods at a loss. The chairman: The competition between your company and the tramways has not heen a competition in fares; It has heen a competition in obtaining business?—Yes. You make up your money on intervening fares, if you are restricted to a higher fare for the whole distance?— Yes. What is tlie tramway fare to the first stop served by your ’bus?—Twopence. Could you conceive anyone paying 4d for that journey by ’bus?—No. So that you would hare to go out of business?—Yes. Samuel Gray, town clerk at Mount Eden borough, said that his council also objected to the regulations, one of the grounds being that they did not think that control of the ’buses should he vested in a competing body. The ’buses had been of great service to Mount Eden, bad opened up a big area beyond that reached by the tram service, and had led to a great number of people living out that way. If the ’buses were hampered in anv way it would he most inconvenient for the peonle. Further, ’buses and trams, together, now were not more than enough to handle tho nnssengor traffic The constitution of a council m\<rht change at tho next election. Before the ’buses enmo there had been constant friction between -municipal authorities and the people; it was only since the adrant of the ’hoses that transnort serrioe _ had heen put in a satisfactory position. "SHOULD NOT GO INTO BUSINESS” Holland fChristehureh North): How do yon account for the fact that tho Auckland City Council turned a deaf ear to requests for bettor tramway service ? I’m sure I don’t know what was their motive. _ Tho Auckland City Council made itself responsible for £1.,500,000 for the purchase of the tramways. That was for the benefit of Mount Eden as well as other bodies, surely? The regulations were for the benefit of municipal bodies, and they are an ‘ indication that municipal bodies • should not go into private enterprise. ' tVhen they do they are tempted to , make use of the by-laws to improve their position as Iraders. To Me Eraser witness said that ho

was in favour of an elected traffic hoard. But whoever controlled the traffic should have no interest in any form of transportation. The ’buses might not he the last word, there might he something better. Air Fraser: Then according to your argument it. doesn’t matter whether a local body loses a tram service in which it has sunk a million and a half or not. To Mr Potter: His body was the largest outside the Auckland area. At a recent poll it had refused to amalgamate with the city. They had entered into a deed of delegation with the Auckland City Council for the maintenance of tram tracks and this had only been put into operation under compulsion. Had they failed to do so the borough of Mount Eden would have carried out the work itself and charged the city with the cost.

Vincent Robert Meredith, barrister, of Auckland, appeared as a petitioner and as an interested party, objected to tlie regulations because they were unfair in two particulars. Tlie penal fare and the licensing authority were the two things to which he took exception. If the penal fare were inflicted the company in which he was interested would go out of business. It was against all principles for an interested party to be asked to decide the fate of its competitor. Also tho relations between the municipal authorities and the ’bus companies in Auckland had been such as to create no confidence in the municipality as an impartial body. Previously tlie traffic provisions in Auckland had been hopelessly inadequate, but since the advent of the ’buses matters had heen much improved. The city bad never catered for certain areas and ’buses had been ordered to act as feeders to the tramway. They had not been used for that purpose, hut had been employed to run private ’buses off the road in areas which the City Council had never previously catered for and which now were being properly catered for for the first time. Parnell, St. Stephen’s avenue, and Point Chevalier were such places, while six express ’buses were run out to Oneliunga niglit and morning. The ’buses bad been prohibited from plying in Queen street, and next tram-fares had been reduced. 4d being made the maximum fare. Sir James Gunson had admitted in the Supreme Court that the reduction was aimed at the ’buses and that it was made on the long-distance journeys because it was thought that this would hurt the ’buses most. Such a body could esarcoly be expected to act fairly and judicially. It would appear impossible if the ’buses went off the road for the tramway to handle the traffic and transport to and from work, he held, was a matter of vital pnblie importance. Tlie roads were laid down by the public money and were not the property of the counci* either collectively or individually. The public was ‘entitled to the benefits of those roads, one of which was increased transport. Mr G. W. Forbes; Your company is perfectlv satisfied to go on?—Perfectly satisfied under present conditions (without the infliction of the extra 2d) we can continue running and pay. The committee adjourned until 10 o’clock on Tuesday morning.