The Sun FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1927. BUS TRANSPORT CONFUSION

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 217, 2 December 1927, Page 8

The Sun FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1927. BUS TRANSPORT CONFUSION

IT appears that a purely selfish view of a community problem was taken yesterday by the secret conference of local bodies’ representatives on the subject of motor-bus transport. According to tlie official report of the conclave, the delegates completely ignored the interests of the city ratepayers and almost contemptuously flouted the Government and the Auckland Oily < 'ouncil.

It was decided to boycott the proposed commission of inquiry into the general problem of transport, and to favour the formation of a metropolitan transport board. Moreover, it was resolved to reject the proposal that the suburban local bodies should guarantee to the City Council a gross return of eighteenpenee a bus mile on the routes serving suburban areas.

These decisions are regrettable because all of them, in every way, fail to provide or even to facilitate anything like satisfactory finality on a basis of fairness to all the parties to flic transport confusion. It is to be regretted most that the conference summarily tabooed the prospective inquiry. Of course, it cannot be denied that, as a rule, commissions of investigation are expensive and exasperating futilities, but there is always the possibility of one proving to be the splendid exception. It is beyond argument to the contrary that a thorough, non-political inquiry into the extravagant muddle of municipal transport is essential. The question cannot be reduced to a simple problem of management—a problem that might be solved by the dismissal of a few officials or the dispersal of the whole administration. It involves a wide range of difficulties that are common to many other communities throughout the world, and also a measure of extremely foolish legislation and reckless interference by a meddlesome Government. Hence the necessity for an impartial expert investigation of all the muddled conditions. Doubtless the local bodies’ conference yesterday was fortified in its selfish policy by the offer from a private transport company to run bus services to some of the outer districts at reasonably low charges, including the statutory penal fare. The conference obviously was influenced by the recommendation of a Parliamentary committee in favour of establishing a metropolitan transport board. But these influences, which are crude in form and incomplete, really possess little weight. It should not have been overlooked by the conference that the City Council, as the No. 1 District Bus Transport Licensing Authority, has the right, and must exercise it as a public duty,, to insist on private enterprise showing proof of such financial ability as shall guarantee continuity of adequate bus services. Without such a guarantee it would be folly for the council to issue a licence to a company whose advent would necessitate the surrender of the municipal service at a heavy loss. Then, as to the formation of a metropolitan transport hoard, presumably apart from and independent of the tramways administration, it could not function adequately without financial support. Tt would have to accept responsibility for bus transport finance or the whole business would become an absurdity. There is every reason to believe that the City Council, which was compelled by the foolish enactment of the Government unwillingly to purchase a fleet of private buses, would gladly sell them back to the original owners on generous terms, provided there were safeguards against cut-throat competition with the trams. So far, the City Council has spent and lost an aggregate sum of £.144.000 on the wretched bus system. This cannot be permitted to go on indefinitely. The council must pi-otect the ratepayers or follow the Sydney civic administration into oblivion.