"COMMITTEE CANNOT SEE EYE TO EYE WITH RAILWAY BOARD”

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12590, 29 October 1926, Page 8

"COMMITTEE CANNOT SEE EYE TO EYE WITH RAILWAY BOARD”

The committee could not see eye to eye with this proposition. If they could substantiate this claim the only thing to do was for the licensing authority to refuse all licenses applied for hi this district. It was the opinion of the committee that the railwny was not catering adequately for the people because the ’buses ran to points several miles from the railway stations. Again, the ’bus proprietors could not go to the Government and claim compensation as the Wellington Suburban ’Bus Company had, and a grave injustice would then: have been done. It was true that when the railway went to the middle of the Hutt Valley the position would be altered, ft was due to the railway not extending to. this point that the ’buses had been placed on the road. A SURPRISE Councillor H. D. Bennett said the stand of the Railway Department was unexpected insofar as it had been made for the first time on the previous night. It was not desired to convey the impression that the council was turning its hack upon the Government for the facilities which had been provided. No intimation had been made that the Government required protection for its railway system. It had come as a surprise. It would he almost impossible to apply the protective clauses of the Act (covering tramway systems) to the railwny systems throughout the country. When applications for more ’bus licenses were made it may he that the spirit and letter of the department’s request could be applied. Councillor R. Semple said if it was fair to put ’buses off to protect tbe citv servieeh, it was equally fair in bis opinion to afford protection to the railways. Tt had been suggested that the ’buses should act as feeders to the railways. Councillor Luckie: They do that now. Councillor Semple: They go further than that. They bring the passengers to Wellington. There is not sufficient information liefor" the council. Councillor T.uckie: There is before the committee.

Councillor Semple: Well, the council has not received it. There is not sufficient information to warrant turning down the department’s request. Councillor Luckie: Then would you reluse all licenses? Councillor Semple: No; but I would as far as possible protect tbe Government institutions. and would refuse all apDlications for further licenses. Councillor Huggins said he agreed that the council should be consistent, but the committee had made tbe best of the position and acted with as great consistency as had been possible in the circumstances. The protest of the Railway was based on generalities, and no facts had been submitted to prove any contention that had been advanced. He had studied the position, and found that 27J per cent, of the passenger traffic travelled on the ’buses from a specific point in Wellington to Lower Hutt. and 374 per cent, of the traffic travelled into the city in the ’buses. It was proved that the ’buses, although to some extent in competition with, the railways, were performing a public service. for most of the people got out at points for removed from tho railway. POINT OVERLOOKED Councillor Glover said the Railway Department bad not adduced figures to substantiate its contention, and the committee had done the orilv reasonable thing.’“lf the department felt the competition so much.” be said, “why rlid it not protect itself as it protected the Iccdl bodies, when the regulations were framed?” Councillor R. McKeen said he believed that the Railway Department had deliberately let this matter slide from the Act in the fear that if it had been provided for there would have been no Act. If the ’buses went off the department would haye to pay compensation, and he believed that the department Would even now have to adopt measures for its own protection. He suggested that places in a position such as the Hutt should establish municipal ’bus services to the railwav statiqn. Insofar as Eastbourne was concerned lie hoped that something could he

dons to protect the ferry service from the competition of the ’buses. It was unfortunate that nothing had been done, but if was an anomaly which had not heen foreseen. Councillor W. H. Bennett said the Government had the matter in its own hands, end could buy out any ’bus service that might he operating, and run it under Government management *"* The Mayor said the committee could have come to no other conclusion than it did. Tne principle of the Act. however was to protect existing transport services, and to arrange the economic svstem Were the committee to consider the position, the ’hus proprietor would in effect he thrown out with nowhere to go—high and dry. Councillor Buckie said the statement of the Railway Dennrtment that if was running an adequate service was not home out hv the fact®. Tf it limited the sendees to for the trains iV - > rnr*>mittee could refuse licenses to nN '••'•nlicants. “The railway department,” he said, “has Wt T*etnne nnrl the Hutt unnerved for 20 years, and row when th« ’buses come along and fill the need the department says that its service has given rise to the onnosition. Tt now asks that the opposition should h** M ! Wl—without any compensation, and without themselves submitting any fl- - proposition for the public tie°ds.” Tbe 'report of the committee *was cdonted. Councillor T,u<*kie meHng ft clenr bis remarks were liis own personal views.