MOTOR REGULATIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19802, 29 May 1926, Page 9

MOTOR REGULATIONS.

POSITION MISUNDERSTOOD. CONFERENCE A FIASCO. (P&h United Press Associaton.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 28. Evidently the authorities in Wellington who have "charge of the administration of the new motor omnibus regulations have found it hard to grasp the fact that the Christchurch City Council does not run either tramway or bus services. It was because of this difficulty that the conference of local bodies convened by the Riccarton Borough Council for the purpose ot appointing a representative of the local authorities to the Transport Appeal Board in No. 10 motor omnibus district proved a fiasco this morning. Late yesterday afternoon the town clerk of Riccarton received a telegram from Mr C. J. M'Kenzie, acting-under-secretnry of Public Works, advising him to postpone the conference, but the advice was received too late to enable the local bodies concerned to be notified. Consequently, the delegates attended at the City Council Chamber this morning. After the matter had been explained Mr Nicholson said that he was quite satisfied that the position had been met by the appointment of the City Council's representative. Other delegates concurred with this view and the gathering dispersed. CHRISTCHURCH BUSES. THE OFFER TO SELL. TRAMWAYS MANAGER EXPLAINS. (Pbr United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 28. A statement of the position in connection with the recent offer by the Christchurch motor bus proprietors to sell to (he Tramway Board was made this morning by Mr Frank Thompson, general manager of the tramways. “The offer,” said Mr Thompson, “was confidential and the board treated it as such, and is in no way responsible for the publicity, that it has since received, but now that the fact has been published the Tramwya’s Board's position should be more clearly set out. In the first place the offer was for 13 buses, and the board had to purchase the whole lot or none at all. A few of the buses included in the offer were not in possession of regular route permits from the City Council. Another point was that, while the owners of these buses doubtless would have been prepared to guarantee that they themselves would not enter the field again, there was nothing to prevent other persons coming along in the hope that they would be bought out by the board. Obviously the hoard could not commence a policy of that kind. There is this further to be said, that if the new licensing authority, acting under the new regulations, refused any of the existing permit holders a license to operate, the Tramway Board would have to pay just compensation if the refusal meant that the tramways will benefit.’’