MOTOR-BUS FARES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 471, 4 June 1932, Page 9

MOTOR-BUS FARES.

Inter-City Service Wins Appeal. TRAM BOARD CRITICISED. An appeal against the decision of the Christchurch Licensing Authority in regard to the minimum fares to be charged on the North Beach-to-Christ-church route was made before the Transport Appeal Board by the Inter-. City Motor Service this morning. The appeal was opposed by the Christchurch Tramway Board. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Messrs Thomas Jordan, of Masterton, representing the municipal authorities, and Lisle Anderton, of Auckland, representing the motor associations. It was submitted to the board that the licensing authority fixed the following minimum fares for the motor service: First section, 4d: second section, sd: third, fourth and fifth sections, 6d; sixth section, 9d, and seventh section lOd. The appellant desired the fares. to be fixed on the following scale: First section 4d, second and third sections fourth section sd, fifth sections 6d, and seventh section 7d. Dispute Outlined. Counsel for the appellant traced the history of the dispute between the Inter-City Motor Service and the Christchurch Tramway Board. There had been twenty appeals, and the appellant had won all but one of them. The chairman of the Tramway Board was a member of the licensing itypenalty Fares. Counsel for the Tramway Board submitted that where the Inter-City bus route was in direct competition with the tram service the Act made it necessary that a penal fare should be imposed on the bus service. There was competition on the first and second sections, and also on the sixth and seventh sections, the penalty being twopence. The third, fourth and fifth sections serviced by the motor service were in the Wainoni area. It had been found that the third section did not affect the interests of the tram service, but the licensing authority had fixed a fare of 6d on this service. There was no dispute concerning the fourth and fifth sections. In regard to concession fares, provision should be made in any finding to fix an amount greater than the tram fares that was considered proper in the discretion of the board. “Appellant Entitled to Win.” “ The Tramway Board appears to be persisting in its determination to oust the Inter-City service,” said his Honor, in granting the appeal. He added that prior to the start of this bus service the Tramway Board refused to run a service, and the appellant was entitled to win because it had pioneered the route and serviced a local need.

His Honor pointed out that in the limits of the city there was competition with the trams, and it was obvious that over the short distances the appellant did not want to attract too many passengers to the exclusion of the long-distance passengers. The fares would be fixed in accordance with the appellant’s request, with the exception that over the sixth and seventh sections they would be 7d and 8d instead of 6d and 7d. The return fares would be fixed at Is on week days and Is 3d on Sundays, and the appellant would be allowed to retain the twelve-ride concession ticket. Costs were allowed against the Tram.way Board.