’BUS WITHDRAWN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17455, 5 February 1925, Page 10

’BUS WITHDRAWN.

SPRINGFIELD ROAD SERVICE. An interesting development in contention with the ’bus war in progress n Christchurch took place yesterday then the private ’bus which has been mining on the Springfield Road route *as withdrawn, leaving the Tramway Board in the field. The private vehicle was transferred to observation tour business, and to the. New Brighton Tramway route- during rush periods. The position at present is that the competition hetweeu tramwav and private buses is at an end so far as the city i s concerned, but the nrivate ’bus company is still running a service on the New Brighton route, which is competing with the electric trams. The Tramway Board has nut a rover tramcar on the New Brighton line in addition to the ordinary cars. The withdrawal of the private ’bus from the Springfield Road route without notice, was responsible for an amusing incident yesterday morning. A number of residents of the district •erred by the rival 'bus services had been turning the cold-shoulder on the*. Tramway Board’s ’bus and patronising the private firtn. Yesterday morning when the tramway ’bus was coming into the city these people as usual refused to travel in it and it moved off without, them- Instead they waited *ome time for the private ’bus and as it failed to put in an appearance thov were obliged to walk a fair distance to the nearest tramwav route. STATEMENT BY PROPRIETOR. “ We are sorry to leave the Springfield Road route, hut the Tramway Board crowded us off by running two ’buses against us and by carrying passengers at concession fare,” said Mr \V. S 'Bussell, on behalf of. the Inter-City Motor iService when approached by a reporter. Mr Bussell said that until this week his firm had been able to make the service pay. but it was impossible tor any service to show a profit if concession fares were charged. The Springfield Road route was a good proposition for one ’bus, charging cash fares, but it was unprofitable with con. Mr Bussell said he claimed tl.at his firm’s two ’buses had carried more people over any given period and taken more money than any two tramway claimed that his firm had been firs* in the field on the Springfield Road route despite the claim of the Tramwav Board that it had got in first. It seemed strange that the Tramway Board had been able to obtain information of his firm's intentions in the matter almost as soon as he had applied to the council for permission to run the service. “ We are now using the ’bus that has been engaged on the Springfield Road route for observation tours and for picnic trips and for supplementing our New Brighton service.” said Mr Bussell. “ The Tramwav Board are doing their utmost to get us off the New Brighton route, but we are making it pay and have no intention of giving it up, no matter what the hoard does. We have /other plans under consideration which we don’t want to make public just yet.” Mr Russell also expressed the opinion that apparently there was one set of by-laws for the Tramway Board and another set for private ’bus owners. His 'buses were the only ones running in Christchurch, with the exception of the Tramway Board’s ’bus formerly used on the Hornby rotite, which were* fitted with centre aisles as required by the by-laws. “ T venture to say,” he added. “ that had our buses not had a centre aisle we would have been put off the streets, but.no action has yet been 1 taken against the Tramway Board.” His firm had not intended to compete with the Tramway Board in the first place, and had had three routes under consideration; namely, Bryndwr. Shirley Road and Springfield Road, when the Tramway Board started the fight by commencing the Papanui Road service. Tn view of the action of the board his firm decided to put up a fight, but only for a while. "If the competition on Papanui Road had continued much longer, it is practically certain that a serious accident would have occurred,” Mr Bussell remarked. TRAMWAY BOARD’S POSITION. When seen by a reporter last night, Mr Frank Thompson, General Manager of the Tramways, said that the centre aisle regulation referred to by Mr Bussell was a tramway car regulation. made by Parliament. He was not aware that any similar by-law of the Pity Council existed respecting omnibuses. Mr Thompson stated emphatically that, no information had come to the board or himself from the Mayor or any councillor or nav officer of the council respecting the intentions of the Intercity 'bus proprietor regarding the Springfield Road route. Any observer of the trend of affairs would have supposed that Springfield Road was a likely bus route. He had brought it under the notice of the board nearly a fortnight before application had been made to the council for it. The charge of favouritism against the council was a ridiculous one. said Mr Thompson. As a set-off to this suggestion he could say that the proprietor of the bus on hire to the board had complained to him more than once that the City < ouncil officers were more severe on him than on Mr Bussell.