BUS SERVICES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20101, 18 May 1927, Page 3

BUS SERVICES.

REFUSAL OF LICENSE. CITY CORPORATION’S DECISION. TRANSPORT BOARD HEARS APPEAL. The sitting of the Transport APP? al Board to hear the appeal by Keith Webhng and Co. against being prevented from running their buses on the Duncdin-Brighton road (except on Sundays and public holidays) end against being prevented from running on various city routes on special occasions only was continued yesterday. The appellants desired permission to run a daily service to Brighton. His Honor Mr Justice Fraser was the chairman of the board, and he had associated with him Mr J. R. Marks (district public works engineer), Mr G. A Lewin (town clerk), Mr F. J. Williams Consultinff eßfdncei* to fch© Gresn Island Borough Council) and Mr G. 8. Kirby (secretary of White Star Motors, Ltd.) Mr H. E. Barrowclough appeared for the City Council, the licensing authority, which had refused the applications by W ebhng s, and Mr J. B. Callan for the appellant. Evidence on.behalf of the appellant was taken on Thursday, and . yesterday Mr Barrowclough submitted evidence to prove that the existing bus service to Brighton was ample to meet the passenger requirements. Charles John Hobbs said he was the proprietor of the present bus service from Dunedin to Brighton. - His firm owned tho largest boarding-house in Brighton, and ho also owned a five-roomed dwelling there, which was let. The capital value of his assets was about £SOOO. He had a 16seatcr White bus and a seven-seater Bmck car. He bad been on the Brighton service for 15 years, and had never had an accident of any kind. The whole of his business interests were centred in Brighton. He had the mail contract, and a contract to deliver newspapers. He was confident that a service to Brighton could not be run at less than 5s return. Ho would bo prepared to carrv tho local residents at 4s Id return, but lie would really be carrying them at a loss. Witness gave particulars of the population served by the buses, and said he was confident he could carry all the passengers for the whole year, except on special holidays and Sundays. Last year he had hired an extra bus, and he Was prepared to do no again. He depended on the summer takings to make up for the tosses on the winter running. He had never “let down” any passengers, and if ever ho found an unexpected number he secured a taxi to convey them. He considered he wag providing adequate facilities for tho carrying of passengers. The witness was examined by Mr Callan on the question of the stake he held in Brighton and on the time-table he ran and the running costs. Mr W. H. MacKenzie, city tramways manager, gave details of the corporation’s bus services to Brighton, which had commenced on October 26, 1925. He had never given any promise that he would run a service all the year round. There was certainly not room for two services nil the year round. It was doubtful : f there was rcora for two services even during the summer except on public holidays and the Sundays during the Christmas holidays and on till Easter. The statement that the corporation had forced the reduction of the fares was untrue. Cuttriss (sole director of Webling and Co.) had reduced his weeks before. Guitries used to advertise as the pioneer of reduced fares.

To Mr Callan: Hobbs, Outtrisa, and the Corporation had all been running services at the one time. Taking the whole year round he did not think the corporation had lost much money. The life of a corporation bus was about six and .i-bnlf years, and it ran 150,000 to 200,000 miles. H. W. Anderson (tramway inspector) said he had.no hesitation in stating that, in his opinion, there was not room for more than one servivee to Brighton all the year round. He had been _ investigating the conditions of the service for the past three months. Witness corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses. Andrew Nelson, a resident of Brignton for some years, said that Hobbs bad not, so far ns he knew “let down” any passengers. He considered that Hobbs’s service was adequate, under ordinary conditions.

To Mr Callan: He would say that anyone would be a fool to try to run another service to Brighton. Mr Callan: Have you a ‘car of your own?

Witness: Five of them—at least, four of them. I gave one away last week for nothing.— {Laughter.) Mr Barrowclough said that notwithstanding the greater population on the Peninsula the proprietors of the bus service on that route were making application to increase their fares—they could not get along on the present charge. After lengthy discussion the board decided to disallow the appeal. The board decided to represent to, the Government that in its opinion it was desirable that omnibuses that are not required to be licensed by reason of them running at fares in excess of 2s should be required to comply with the provisions of the Act in regard to inspection and insurance.