Appellants: Whenuapai Bus Co. Ltd.
Service: Continuous passenger service.
Decisions Appealed Against: Decision of the No. 2 Transport Licencing Authority dated October 16, 1957 which, inter alia, amended the appellant's licence.
On November 30, 1956, and December 21, 1956, the No.2 Authority gave decisions upon certain applications affecting the respective routes and services of the appellant company and the Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. (to which I shall refer as the W.B.C. and A.B.C. respectively). By these decisions, the A.B.C. was given additional trips between Helensville and Auckland, together with the right to operate from the 1YA mast via Lincoln Road to Henderson. An application by the W.B.C. to provide a service in North Te Atatu was refused, leaving the service in the hands of the A.B.C.
From all these decisions the W.B.C. appealed, but before the appeals came on for hearing the company requested the Minister of Transport to inquire generally the position of the transport services in the areas concerned. By order of the Minister, Mr N. D. Spencer, of Auckland, was appointed to undertake this inquiry, and he in due course, heard considerable evidence both from the companies directly concerned and from the local bodies, ratepayers, and residents of the district affected.
In his report dated June 5 1957, Mr Spencer made three principal recommendations. They were:
Subsiduary recommendations were that all services of the Whenuapai Bus Co. operate via the Northern Motorway, and that Lincoln Road be traversed by both companies between the 1YA mast and Swanson Road corner.
Following the issue of this report, the Minister directed a review of the respective companies' licences, and this was the subject of a lengthy sitting by the No. 2 Authority. the decision of the Authority, which is the subject of this appeal, gave effect to Mr Spencer's recommendation for the transfer of the Kelston area to the A.B.C., and for the carrying on of that company's Helensville and Muriwai services. On the subject of North Te Atatu, the No. 2 Authority disagreed with Mr Spencer and left that area to be served by the A.B.C. In substance, therfore, the principal issues before the Authority were decided favourably to the A.B.C.
The inquiry undertaken by Mr Spencer was instituted pursuant to s. 7 ot the Transport Act 1949, which authorises the Minister to make such inquiries as he thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the improvement, co-ordination, and development and the better regulation and control of the means of transport. The scope of such an inquiry appears to include fact-finding and recommendation, but whether the recommendations made should be implemented is a matter for the Minister if legislation is required, or for Licensing Authorities as to matters within their jurisdiction. The recommendations made in this case came properly before the No. 2 Authority, and the evidence given before Mr Spencer was put before the Authority in an extended and elaborate form. In the conduct of his inquiry Mr Spencer had, I think, an advantage over a Licensing Authority in that he could make a comprehensive survey of the transport situation as a whole, while an inquiry by the Transport Authority i usaully limited to specific questions and to consideration of the evidence which the partes may chose to lay before him. having regard to the broader scope of his inquiry, considerable weight must be given to the recommendations made by Mr Spencer.
Before dealing with specific issues, there are certain general considerations to which the I desire to refer. Mr Spencer, in his report, traverses the history of the two companies. He points out that the opening of the Northern Motorway in 1955 bought major problems to them both and was, to a great extent, responsible for the drop in passengers and revenue suffered by the W.B.C. in the past two years. In dealing with matters now before me, I think I should give due weight to the history of the respective companies, and to the effect upon them of the new motorway. The A.B.C. is by far the older company, and ran from Helensville and from New Lynn to Auckland for many years before the W.B.C. was established. That company came into being in 1946 through the initiative of local residents in the district it now serves, and by reason of their dissatisfaction with the service given by the A.B.C. The licensing and growth of the W.B.C. have been constantly opposed by the A.B.C., but I am satisfied that there was ample justification for granting the W.B.C. the rights it now enjoys. the two companies have consistently maintained a degree of competition which Mr Spencer described as "open warfare", and I attempted, in Appeal 505 (dated March 23, 1949), to settle their respective rights by zoning the areas they were respectively to serve. I am of opinion that, so far as practicable, the zoning of separate areas of operation of these companies should be retained.
I believe that it is in the public interest for both compaines to continue to operate. The claim of the A.B.C. to special consideration by reason of its one-time operations in the area now served by the W.B.C. and its complaint that the W.B.C. has usurped its rights in that area are, in my opnion, equally unfounded.
I concieve that one of the reasons for Mr Spencer's inquiry was that the W.B.C. was afraid that, owing to the diversion of traffic to the new motorway it would be unable to carry on. One of the problems before Mr Spencer was whether in the public interest the zones of operation of the respective companies should be changed. though not specifically stated in the report, I conclude that it was his opinion, with which I am in agreement, that, in order to enable both companies to carry on, certain adjustments in the areas were necessary. It was to this end, I think, that the three principal recommendations were made.
With regard to the Kelston area, there is no material dispute. The A.B.C. contends that the W.B.C. should never have had the Kelston service, and views with cynical satisfaction that the company now finds itself unable to carry it on. This situation appears to be due in the main to diversion of traffic along the motorway. To the A.B.C., however, the addition of the Kelston area should be of considerable advantage, and, while the Kelston service has been a liability to the W.B.C., it should be a valuable asset to its rival company.
To decide which should operate the North Te Atatu service is much more difficult. The Te Atatu peninsula has had a very restricted service from the A.B.C. for many years. The district has progressed in recent times and has every prospect of further development. Until recently the A.B.C. did little to improve its service, and the residents ultimately became so dissatisfied that they petitioned the W.B.C. to take over the service. That company applied accordingly, but its application was declined on December 2, 1956. Before the hearing of that application, the A.B.C. had improved its service, and between the date of the decision and the present hearing the service has been further improved, so that the A.B.C. is now able to claim that the disatisfied residents have in large measure been placated. To some extent, this situation has developed since the inquiry before Mr Spencer, and I am satisfied that, having regard to the long period during which the A.B.C. has served this district, and to the fact that, if somewhat belatedly, the shortcomings of the service have been remedied, it would be contrary to the usual principles of transport licencing to take the service from A.B.C. It is contended on behalf of the W.B.C. that this unusal course is justified because it is equitable and, indeed, necessary for the company to be given some material benefit, even if at the expense of the A.B.C., in order to restre its financial position, which is to some degree due to matters beyond its control. I am conscious of the desirability of doing something to assist the W.B.C. to carry on, and I believe that this was one of the reasons for Mr Spencer's recommendation to transfer the North Te Atatu service. Having regard, however, to the reasons which have been mentioned, and which led the No. 2 Authority to refuse ti accept the recommendation, I do not feel justified in interfering with this part of the decision.
The third issue in this appeal concerns the A.B.C.'s Helensville-Muriwai service. it was submitted on behalf of the Whenuapai company that it would be reasonable for the A.B.C. to give up its Helensville service in exchange for the Kelston service. I do not regard the W.B.C.'s uneconomic Kelston service as an asset which the A.B.C. should be forced against its will to pay for by handing over its long-standing Helensville service. I do not agree, however, that the A.B.C. is necessarily entitled, as incidental to this service to pick up and set down passengers within the area zoned for the W.B.C., as it is at present permitted to do between Huapai and Henderson. The decision in Appeal 505 purported to give the A.B.C. that right in respect of certain return trips daily, but indicated that additional trips should be treated as "express" trips, on which picking up and setting down would not be permitted. This restriction on picking up and setting down to certain daily trips has not been retained and in November, 1956 the number of daily trips considerably increased, all having unrestricted rights to pick up and set down. I do not believe that the growth of Helensville has been sufficient to necessitate or warrant this increase in daily bus services save with the assistance of a greater share of the traffic from the area normally served by W.B.C. I gather that the No. 2 authority was of opinion that the two companies had at all times been entitled to share equally in this traffic. That is not my view of the position, which is that the traffic should be carried by the W.B.C., save on specific trips, where for the convenience of the public and to assist the A.B.C. (which at that time appeared to be facing financial difficulties), picking up and setting down by the A.B.C. was to be permitted. I can appreciate the view of the W.B.C. that this is unfair that its recognised zone of operation should be expected to provide intermediate traffic for the support of a large number of daily trips for the benefit of Helensville.
I have already expressed the vew that it is desirable, in the public interest, to do something to assist the Whenuapai Bus Co. in its present difficult situation. I consider the maintenance of fairly strict zoning between the two companies to be necessary in order to secure for each of them additional sources of income, and to prevent destructive competition between them. The traversing of W.B.C.'s zoned area by A.B.C's Helensville-Muriwai service is in conflict with the priniciple of zoning, and is a constant source of irritation. While, therefore, I am not prepared to transfer the Helensville licence to W.B.C., I think that if it could be effected by a voluntary arrangement between the parties it would be to their mutual advantage and in the public interest. If it cannot be achieved, I feel that the time has arrived when the Auckland Bus Co. must require its Helensville service to stand on its own feet, without the support of traffic picked up in the area zoned for the W.B.C., and that the only effective manner in which I can give to the W.B.C. the assistance it needs is to cancel entirely the right of the A.B.C. to pick up and set down apssengers between Huapai and the northern outlet of the motorway. The timetable of the W.B.C. should, if necessary, be reviewed in order to see that adequate provision is made for the requirements of residents along this route.
The question now arises as to whether it is desirable for the A.B.C. to retain the right to operate between Henderson and the junction of Lincoln Road and the motorway, and, if so, whether its present timetable is not too comprehensive. Lincoln Road is within the area zoned for the W.B.C., but was part of the route of A.B.C.s Helensville service prior to the re-routing of that service via the motorway. I am of the opinion that there was justification for extending the route of the A.B.C. to the Lincoln road-Motorway intersection in order to provide a service from that area (and by transhipment of passengers from the north) to Henderson and New Lynn. I am by no means certain however, that so many trips as are at present authorised are reasonably necessary for that purpose, and I suggest that the No. 2 Authority should reconsider this point when giving his attention to outstanding matters.
I have not referred in this decision to an alternative proposal put forward by Mr Leary on behlaf of the W.B.C. which involved the right to run through the Henderson Borough. I ruled at the hearing that an entirely new proposal could not be introduced on hearing of this appeal, but I may say that had I felt entitled to consider this proposal I would have been bound to hold there is no evidence before me to justify so drastic an interference with the long-standing rights of the A.B.C. with respect to the Henderson service.
This decision is not intended to affect any further consideration of timetables or amendments to routes which may be required to give full effect to the intentions of the No. 2 Authority, but it is intended to dispose of three outstanding appeals by the W.B.C., dated December 19 and 21, 1956 and February 1, 1957, in respect of earlier decisions related to the matters now in issue. These appeals are accordingly struck out.
The present appeal is allowed in one respect only. In Licence A.1677 (22/2/5) (Auckland Bus Co. Ltd. — Helensville – Muriwai, etc.), he conditions provided in decision of the No. 2 Authority will be revoked and replaced by the following condition:
"(1) The licensee is not permitted to carry any passengers other than —"(a) On trips from Auckland via the motorway, passengers for destinations north of Trig Road, Huapai.
"(b) On trips to Aucland via the motorway, passengers picked up at points north of Trig Road, Huapai.
"(c) On trips from Auckland vis New Lynn, passengers for destinations between the Whau Bridge and the junction of Lincoln Road with the motorway (inclusive), or for destinations north of Trig Road, Huapai.
"(d) On trips to Auckland via New Lynn, passengers picked up at points north or Trig Road, Huapai, or between the junction of Lincoln Road with the motorway and the Whau Bridge (inclusive)"
Last Updated 13 August 2004