BUS REGULATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 56, 3 September 1926, Page 4

BUS REGULATIONS

* : COMMENTS ON THE REPORT CIVIC LEADERS' OPINIONS MAYOR CRITICISES CERTAIN CLAUSES. Comment on. the Parliamentary Committee's report on the control of mo-tor-bus traffic was made by the Mayor, Mr. C. J. B. Norwood, who said that lie was pleased to sec that the Committee had upheld the bus regulations. He' said that clause 4 of the report would need further elucidation.. This clause gives bus proprietors tho right to require the local authority to take over their undertakings, whether the authority wishes to do so or not; in other words, the local authority may be quite prepared to allow any particular bus company to continue running on tramway routes without restriction, but according to the recommendation of tho Committee, in such an event tho company may elect to insist on the local authority taking over its undertaking. "It is quite clear, under these conditions, that a bus company running at a loss could unload its non-remun-erative business upon tho local authority; whilst, if running at a profit, it ,would naturally elect to carry on. I quite agree that provision should be made where any existing bus company has worked up a profitable business, and when the regulations and restrictions would make that business unprofitable, that such business should be taken over at a fair and proper value, and there should be full powers under the regulations to make that possible. I cannot, however, see in clause 4, so far as the policy of our own council is concerned, that it would place prohibitive restrictions without giving an option to the bus company to sell ■uch undertaking. "My main point is that, in my opinion, the council should have the full .right if it wishes to permit an existing bus company to continue operating on the present running conditions, or to elect to take the concern over. The position may present itself of a company losing £5000 a year seeking to compel a local authority to take over its undertaking, whilst the council may prefer to allow it to continue running under existing conditions." Clause 10, his Worship considered bad, and likely to lead to extravagance an tramway management; neither was he in favour of clause 11, which deals with the setting up of a metropolitan board of control for Auckland, dual control not being at all desirable. QUESTION OP COMPENSATION. Councillor H. D. Bennett, who placed the view of the City Council .before the Committeo which took evidence, was naturally much interested in the report presented to Parliament. He said that he had expected the report to favour the preservation of the existing tramway systems. He was of the opinion that the bommitteo, had recommended something essential when it proposed to make statutory the provision which enable-1 local todies to impose the extra 2d fare on buses running along the same routes as trams. "What is most important, too, is that clause 4 gives the bus owners the right ;td sell out to the local authorities, and, in view of the fact that it proposes machinery for compensation under the _?üblic Works Act, it appears that it becomes mandatory on the part of the local authority to purchase if the owner of an established bus service wishes to.sell. Mention is made of tho setting up'of a Compensation Court to settle such matters when they cannot be adjusted by mutual agreement. If it means that in buying out a bus owner the only thing to be considered is the mechanical value of the buses as they are at the time of purchase, my opinion, srloaking reflectively, is that such treatment might be considered to be rather on the harrh side; and yet the provision that no sum is to be allowed for goodwill seems to imply that such is the case.'' Mr. Bennett added that, in his opinion, the question of compensation should as far aB was practically possible be left to agreement between the parties concerned, and, failing such agreement, the case would go on to tho Compensation Court. "________!_«* THE GOOSE." "What I stressed before tho Committee, and I do so now, is that on no consideration must we allow anyone to kill 'the goose, that lays the golden egg.' That is what w« would be doing if-we allowed free untrammelled competition against the best paying sections of our tramways. The whole essence and kernel of our endeavour is jto maintain the maximum threepenny fare, in ordor to get the people settled in the outlying suburbs—in fresh, unpolluted air, remote from tho din of the city, and we can only do that by restraining competition and cutting out the dead-wood. This is a first consideration for the rights of tho people to live under decent conditions, and by the preservation of the tramwayß systems a sufficient safeguard is provided, and the right thing is being done as far as is reasonably possible.''