BUS SERVICES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3818, 17 May 1927, Page 31

BUS SERVICES.

j REFUSAL OF LICENSE.

TRANSPORT BOARD HEARS APPEAL. A sitting of the Transport Appeal Board, which is constituted under the Motor Omnibus Traffic Act. 1926, was held at the Supreme Court on Thursday, when an appeal by Keith Webling was _ heard against the decision of the Dunedin City Corporation, as the licensing authority for No. 12 district. His Honor Mr Justice Frazer was the chairman of the board, and ho had associated with him Mr J. R. Marks (district public works engineer), Mr G. A. Lewin (town clerk), Mr F. J. Wiliams (consulting engineer to the Green Island Borough Council), and Mr G S. Kirby (secretary of White Star Motors, Ltd.). Mr 11. E. Barrowclough appeared for the City Council and Mr J. B. Callan for the appellant. His Honor said that the appeal wa s against the decision of the City Council, and that the appeal was based on .two points.

The first pqint is that an application by the appellant in respect of proposed services from the Queen’s Gardens and the Grand Picture Theatre to Forbury Park and Tahuna Park and Logan Park on special occasions only was refused by the council.

The second part of the appeal is that the City Council has decided, in respect to Keith Webling’s application for a license for a motor omnibus service from Dunedin to Brighton and Taieri Mouth, via the Main South road and Wilkie road, that the application be granted on Sundays and public holidays only. The application dealt with had been for a regular service on every day of the week, as per a time-table submitted. Mr Callan said that in regard to the first part Keith Webling’s point of view was that there were occasions when the buses of the City Corporation were not adequate to meet the traffic available. Evidence would be given that during the Medical Congress the corporation had requested Keith Webling, and possibly other people, to undertake some of the work that it ordinarily undertook. If this was a typical instance of what might happen, despite the large number of buses the corporation possessed the view the appellants took up was that they should get a license to run on special occasions. The difficulty was to define the special occasions. Such a time as race time was certainly a special occasion. He quite realised that they must not define widely, but in such a way that there would be no danger of private buses cutting into the area marked out by the corporation for its own prerogative. That led on to the other matter. Just as the corporation seemed one way and another to have established the principle that the confines of the city were its own peculiar affair, so it seemed unreasonable to put restriction on an enterprise out of the city altogether. Keith Webling only required a license if the fare he was charging exceeded 2s Id for a single journey. The Keith Webling service had been running to Brighton, and had been running for some months, and the object of the application was to enable him to give the same service at i cheaper fare. The whole question was whether Keith Webling should be allowed to rua as cheap a fare to Brighton as he desired, and as the people living at Brighton desired. Mr Callan referred at length to the advantages of Brighton as a seaside resort, and said that a petition had been signed by 100 residents asking that Keith Webling’s service should be continued. The point regarding the fares is that the buses can run without a license from the City Corporation so long as the fares to be charged are not less than 2s Id for a single journey. Keith Webling wants a license to enable him to run to certain places at a lower fare than 2s Id. Malcolm Stevension gave evidence regarding the attractions of Brighton and the number of people who used it as a week-end resort and also as a holiday resort. The motor bus services were at tines inadequate. If Webling’s service were driven off the Brighton run the district would have fewer transport facilities than it required. They had good gravel roads to Brighton, and he could not see why they should have to pay 4s Id for a return, fare to Brighton and only 2s 6d for a return fare to Portobello. The Brighton road had a much better surface than the Portobello road.

To Mr Barrowclough, Mr Stevenson Baid that so far as he could understand __many of those who had signed the petition were merely visitors. He knew of two people who came into Dunedin daily. One of them used a car, and the other used the bus. The witness then added that there were six or seven people who came to Dunedin daily to attend to their business. He recognised that it was not fair to compare Brighton with Portobello owing to .the larger settlements on the way from the latter place. The present service licensed to Brighton by the corporation was inadequate from November to the end of February. The residents had not been satisfied with the existing service, and witness had considered the formation of a company to provide a good service. He considered such a company would be a payable proposition. Mr Lewin: I think Mr Stevenson knows too much to have anything to do with buses.

Mr Barrowclough quoted figures to show tht on occasions very few people used the buses to Brighton. He said that the 9.30 bus to Brighton that morning had left Dunedin without a single passenger. Mr Stevenson said they did not place any relianc- on these figures. Mr Barrowclough: You stilL think two services are necessary? Witness said he did. Counsel: Well, that shows what your opinion is worth. Arthur Joseph Allen, manager of Hogg and Co., said he had a place at Brighton. There were fine week-ends when Hobbs’s bus and his seven-seater car Were unable to cope with the traffic. There was a feeling of dissatisfaction at the fares charged. John Murray Mathieson, a carpenter, said he travelled by the 7 a.m. bus from Brighton, which was run by appellants.

It was well patronised, there being several other regular passengers besides himself. The 5.15 bus from Dunedin was generally half full. Robert Henry Lobb, a farmer, residing at Brighton, did not think that Hobbs could cope with the traffic offering, and appellant’s buses were always well supported. It was felt that the present fare was too high, and that it was retarding the progress of the district. James Pearman, boarding-house proprietor, Brighton, considered there was room for both services.

George Percival Cuttriss, the sole director of the Keith Webling Company, said his company owned tw’o passenger buses. These were running on the Brighton road. Witness said he would define* the special occasions on which he would like to run services as Forbury Park on the days of race meetings, Tahuna Park for A. and P. shows and football matches, and Logan Park on particular occasions. Witness said he did not desire to enter into unfair competition with the City Council. If it was considered unreasonable for him to apply for a license then, of course, he must abide by the decision of the board.

His Honor: I take it that he position is that you do not want to skim off the traffic, but to take what the city vehicles cannot handle? Witness: That is so. _

Witness said that he had commenced to run a service to Brighton during the Exhibition period. The fare had been 5s return and 3s single. That was the general charge. _ His firm had taftcn over Wilson’s service in November of last year, and had been carrying it on ever since. The charge at the first was 5s for return and 3s for single. - The fare had then been reduced to 4s return, but he had been informed that he was putting himself in a difficulty, legally. He was quite satisfied with his returns and quite satisfied to carry on. He considered that the present fares were exorbitant, and were the highest he knew of, over a similar route, in any part of New Zealand. He would prefer to run to Brighton at 2s than to Portobello at 2s 6d. The capital value of his two buses was £2200. He would give a bus a life of 10 to 12 years.

His Honor: That is contrary to all experience. Do j*ou allow for the fatigue of the steel-crystallisation?

Witness: We are able to take out one engine and put in another engine. ffis Honor: It is not just the engines. I hey have a reciprocating action which plays up with the steel. Witness said he thought that on a moderately decent road a bus would have a life of 200,000 miles. In answer to a question, witness said he could not say what Hobbs’s buses were charging. Mr Barrowclough said that the law on both sides had not been strictly complied ! iad better keep out of that. Witness said that if he did not get a license he would have to nut his buses to some other use. The Brighton people were under the impression that a license would be granted.

Mr Barrowclough said that the application to run buses on “special occasions’’ was too vague. He did not think the corporanin’ 'r° U w P, revent the appellant from runForbury on race days. u agree 1 < ? that thc application put in by the appellant was too vasue. p ? lr Lewin said he could say that the SnniS’of n • WOU,<l not ob J ect to the Ris kl, f S A er j’ff on s P e «fied days. His Honor: And the appellant would have to run on those days. It was decided to pas s over the noint Josit?o°n. 0r Stating that they recognised the

Witness was examined at length on the BXhton 1 ' 1 Wl?ich had come into IS Brighton service. He said his buses had Ca Mi- ed n abOUt i l5OO , peo P le during January. . B . arl ;°Y c lot>gh said that, takmg two buses, six trips each per day, they had an average of a little over four passengers per bus for the month. ° Witness said if he got a license he intended to charge Is 9d for a single fare and 3s for a return fare, with 10 3 per week for a workers ticket. H e reckoned the cost per bus mile, including a ll expenses, pas over Is 6d. It would cost him on this basis over IBs for a trip to Brighton. Witness admitted that at Is 9d per head he would require an average of 10 people 18- tllP to 81Ve b ' m a return °f about

Mr Barcowclough said that the appellant was heading for the bankruptcy court, if they took, these figures as a guide. The Witness: I thank you for warning me. (Laughter.) He mentioned that he was making a profit on the business. He considered he would carry more than lu passengers per trip if he were given a license. He ran other services as well. Mr Barrowclough said that there was, he understood, no need for him to go into the question of “special occasions’’ as regarded the other part of the application. Counsel said that the object of the Act was that where the existing traffic was slight, as. it was in. this case, and there were existing facilities for carrying the passengers, a license should not be granted. Counsel said that Hobb* had a stake in Brighton, and that Cuttriss ■ had not. It had not been proved that Hobbs was charging an excessive fare, seeing the expense of running buses and one could not imagine that if the traffic was there Hobbs would not take steps to meet it. Cuttriss had been offered a license to run to Brighton on Sundays and holidays and had declined the offer. Counsel referred to the possibility of Cuttriss lowering the fares and putting the other man off the road and of then not being able to carry on himself. He would bring evidence to show that the residents were satisfied with the service supplied by Hobbs. The Green Island Borough Council and -the Taieri County Council were opposing the application on tlie ground that the present transport facilities were quite sufficient and that they did not Want the roads knocked about unnecessarily. Evidence was given by Albert Leslie Burk (clerk of the Green Island Borough Council) and John .Logan (clerk to the Taieri County Council), and the court then adjourned till this morning.