Appellants: (a) Auckland Bus Co. Ltd.; (b) Transport Bus Services Ltd.
Service: Continuous passenger services to New Lynn and Titirangi
Decisions Appealed Against: Decisions of the No. 2 Transport Licencing Authority dated July 10, 1953 concerning the bus services to be operated to New Lynn and Titirangi respectivly.
This decision concerns four appeals by Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. and one appeal by Transport Bus Services Ltd., all of which arise from decisions of the No. 2 Transport Licensing Authority concerning services to by run by the respective companies in the New Lynn and Titirangi districts.
It is necessary to have regard to the history of these services which for some years have been conducted by Transport Bus Services Ltd. under two separate licences. The first of these licences provided for a route from Auckland bus terminal to Lynwood Road, New Lynn, and vice versa, with restrictions on picking up and setting down between the bus terminal and Whau Bridge, which is virtually on the boundary of New Lynn Borough. Though in form providing only for a service to Lynwood Road, this licence has in practice been understood to authorise the servicing of the borough generally, and, in fact, Transport Bus Services Ltd. has run to four terminal points - namely, Lynwood Road, Pleasant Road, Golf Road, and Lawson's Corner, two of these points being a little beyond the boundary of the borough in the direction of Titirangi. The second licence held by Transport Bus Services Ltd. was for a service from Auckland bus terminal to Titirangi and Laingholm, but with similar restrictions on picking up and setting down between the bus terminal and the Whau Bridge. It will be seen, therefore, that the operator of the Titirangi licence has the right to pick up and set down passengers in New Lynn Borough, though for practical purposes New Lynn was considered to be served by the first-mentioned licence.
In February 1953, Transport Bus Services Ltd. gave formal notice to the Transport Department of its intention not to seek a renewal of either of these licences when they expired on August 31, 1953. It is abundantly clear from the files that this intimation was a cause of great concern to the Department and was the subject of considerable discussion with the company, which appears however, to have refused to reconsider its decision. The Department therefore advertised in the Press for persons willing to take over the New Lynn - Titirangi - Laingholm service or any part thereof. In due course, a Mr Potter applied for a licence for the Laingholm district, and he was granted a licence to operate this service from August 31, 1953. In the meantime, the Auckland Bus Co, Ltd, applied for a licence to take over the balance of the services previously operated by Transport Bus Services Ltd, - namely, those in respect of New Lynn and Titirangi. It appears that Transport Bus Services Ltd. decided at a later stage that it could carry on in respect of New Lynn, and it therefor applied for a renewal of its first licence above mentioned, which, as already stated, had been treated as covering the Borough of New Lynn.
The competing applications of the appellant companies came before the No. 2 Authority and were the subject of a lengthy hearing. The Auckland Bus Co Ltd. contended that, in order to make the services pay, it would be necessary for that company to serve both New Lynn and Titirangi. Transport Bus Services Ltd., on the other hand, claimed to be entitled as of right to a renewal of ite New Lynn service, though it acknowledged that a service to Titirangi alone would be uneconomic.
In the result, the No. 2 Authority gave Transport Bus Services Ltd. a renewal of its New Lynn licence without amendment, and granted the Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. a licence for Titirangi in substantially the same terms as the previous licence under which Transport Bus Services Ltd. had been running to Titirangi and Laingholm. The result of this decision was to give both companies the right to pick up and set down passengers in the Borough of New Lynn. Both companies have appealed against this decision.
It appeared at the hearing of the appeal that Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. was principally concerned to see that the routes of Transport Bus Services Ltd. in New Lynn were more specifically defined. Transport Bus Services Ltd., on the other hand, asked for the deletion of the right to pick and set down in New Lynn from the Auckland Bus Co's licence, and claimed that competition along the main road through New Lynn would make it impossible for Transport Bus Services Ltd. to carry on its New Lynn service. The substantial issue before is whether the Auckland Bus Co. should have rights to pick up and set down in New Lynn, or in any part of the borough. Other subsiduary subjects of appeal are dependent upon the determination of this main issue.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of counsel and to the evidence given before the No. 2 Authority. Having regard to its official initimation that it would not seek a renewal of the New Lynn and Titirangi licences, Transport Bus Services Ltd. is not entitled to complain because the Auckland Bus Co Ltd. has applied for these licences, and in the public interest it is a matter for satisfaction that another operator has been prepared to take them over, nothwithstanding the apparent inability of Transport Bus Services Ltd. to make them pay. I do not agree that Transport Bus Services Ltd. was entitled as of right to a renewal of its New Lynn licence.
It was the duty of the No. 2 Authority in dealing with these applications to consider first the public interest, which called for provision of a service to Titirangi as well as to New Lynn, if that were possible. As the only applicant for the Titirangi licence was Auckland Bus Co. Ltd., the substantial question for the Authority was whether it should be given the licence for New Lynn also, or whether Transport Bus Services Ltd should be allowed to retain that licence. I think that had the No. 2 Authority been satisfied that in order to serve them both districts on a paying basis it was necessary for one operator to serve them both, he would have been entitled to grant one licence for both areas to Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. It is evident however that the Authority thought the two services could be made to pay, provided that the operator of the Titirangi licence had the right to pick up and set down in New Lynn. The decision he made was one which Transport Bus Services Ltd. cannot logically complain. The company had voluntarily relinquished its Titirangi licence but sought to retain its New Lynn licence. In accordance with its application, the New Lynn licence was renewed precisely as before, while the licence granted to Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. for Titirangi was substantially the same terms as that which Transport Bus Services Ltd. had voluntarily relinquished.
On appeal, Transport Bus Services Ltd. complains that to allow competition in New Lynn is contrary to sound principle. The company claims that it ought to be accorded a monopoly of traffic originating in New Lynn, and that it is wrong to allow competition between the two companies along the Main North Road. The company says, moreover, that if subjected to competition it will be unable to carry on.
As to the question of principle, I am satisfied that this is a case where the so-called principle must be qualified on account of the peculiar local circumstances. No complaint could have been made on grounds of principle if the No. 2 Authority had decided that New Lynn and Titirangi should be served by a single operator as in the past, and had he done so the present problem would have been solved by the grant of a licence for both areas to Auckland Bus Co Ltd.
Having decided to relinquish its Titirangi service, Transport Bus Services Ltd. was not, in my opinion, entitled to retain its New Lynn service, save subject to conditions that would enable a separate service to Titirangi to operate economically. In order to render the Titirangi service a profitable one, it was necessary, I think, for the company operating to Titirangi to be permitted to encroach to some extent upon the right claimed by Transport Bus Services Ltd. to a monoploy of the traffic to and from New Lynn.
There are, however, practical disadvantages in allowing competition between these two companies through New Lynn, and I can imagine that such competition might be so conducted as to render one or other of the services uneconomic. The proposal is the more undesirable in view of the fact that other services run by Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. traverse the same route, but without the right to pick up and set down. The present decision must result in a situation confusing to the public and difficult to control. I am accordingly of opinion that a modification of the decision which will limit the areas in which both companies have the right to pick up and set down passengers is eminently desirable. I therefore propose to amend the decision of No. 2 Authority in such a way as will, I hope avoid, the practical disadvantages above mentioned, while at the same time enabling both compaines to operate their respective services on an economic basis.
In my view, the right of Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. to pick up and set down in the Borough of New Lynn should extend only to the intersection of Titirangi Road and Great North Road instead of to the Whau Bridge, while I think that Transport Bus Servces Ltd. should no longer operate along Titirangi Rd to the south of Margan Avenue. With respect to the route to be followed by Transport Bus Services Ltd. in New Lynn, it may properly be recognised that with the exception of that part of Titirangi Road above mentioned, the company is entitled to serve any part of the New Lynn Borough. It is entitled to run its present routes and, in the case of the Hutchinson Avenue service, may reasonably ask for an extension to Golf Road as in the past. Is see no reason why these routes should not be varied or other routes instituted within the borough, provided they do not infringe the rights hereby granted to Auckland Bus Co. Ltd.
This does not conclude the matter, however, for, in addition to the appeals already mentioned, Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. has appealed against two decisions refusing extensions of its rights of picking up and setting down on its services to Henderson - Te Atatu and Glen Eden - Oratia. These services also traverse the borough of New Lynn along the Great North Road and have been operated by Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. for many years, but the company has no right to pick up or set down in New Lynn. I think that to compensate Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. for the loss of the right to pick up and set down passegers between Titirangi Road and the Whau Bridge on its Titirangi service, the company should enjoy the right to pick up and set down on its Henderson - Te Atatu and Glen Eden - Oratia services between the West Coast Road and Titirangi Road, and that this concession is necessary in order to enable it to make the Titirangi service a payable one.
The effect of these changes will be that Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. will have the right to pick up and set down on all its services in this area as far as the corner of Titirangi Road and Great North Road, but not through the remainder of New Lynn between Titirangi Road and the Whau Bridge.
One further matter that arises concerning timetables of the respective parties. In view of the adjustments which I propose to direct the measure of competition between the parties should not be greatly affected by their respective timetable , but it is, I think, desirable that when asked to approve timetables for services which even now will, over certain short distances, be in direct competition, the Licensing Authority should seek to prevent either company from securing an unfair advantage over the other by means of time table adjustment. It shuld be remembered that New Lynn is primarily the business of Transport Bus Services and the right of Auckland Bus Co.Ltd. to pick up and set down in the borough is intended to be subsiduary only to its repsonsibility to serve Titirangi and the other areas. Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. should not be allowed to initiate trips in or in the vicinity of New Lynn for the purpose of securing traffic which would normally be carried by the operator of the New Lynn licence.
To give effect to the foregoing, I allow all the appeals and direct the No. 2 Authority to amend his decision in the following respects:
Last Updated 5 August 2004