98
C
C
74
way and trackless trolley undertakings have sunk heavy capital expenditure in track, electrical equipment and other plant, and are unable to transfer "their services to other routes. The Committee reached the conclusion, "which was generally accepted, that so long as such undertakings are pro- viding adequate and efficient services, they are in principle entitled to some measure of protection, so far as their strictly local traffic is concerned, "from the competition of public service vehicles conveying passengers stage by stage between points served by the trams and trolley vehicles.'
CC
"
"
Sir Cyril then proceeded to deal with what is known as the Leicester case.
Briefly this was a Ministry of Transport order which forbade motor buses other than those owned by the Leicester Corporation to pick up and set down the same passenger on such portion of the route as lay within 440 yards of any Leicester tramway track.
In most areas the facts which weigh most heavily with the Commissioners are the answers to the following questions:-
(1) Who first operated the route?
(2) Is the proposed operator a person which can be relied upon to provide
a proper service and obey the various requirements of the law?
(3) Has he been regular in his past services?
(4) Has he been guilty of fare-cutting or any other method of unfair com-
petition?
(5) Is the route not already adequately served?
(6) Would the proposed new service be a sound commercial proposition and, if so, would it only be such to the disadvantage and expense of an exist- ing and long established service?
Even when the Commissioners have made their decision regarding new fares or a new bus route there is adequate machinery for appeal by any transport undertaking which has been adversely affected. Two recent cases of appeal relate to Middlesbrough. In one the decision on the Corporation's appeal in the first case ensured that the Corporation's tramway service and their omnibus service were given absolute protection over the whole length of their route which was affected for the first time by the operation of a competing motor bus service.
The second appeal was against the decision of the Traffic Commissioners to attach certain conditions to road service licences respecting fares. The decision on this appeal was that in order adequately to protect the services of the Middles- brough Corporation the minimum fare on competing bus service over the Middles- brough Municipal routes was raised from 3d. to 4d.
It was exactly such acts of injustice in England of which this company now complains that created the Road Traffic Act of 1930. Yet five years later we have the Government of Hong Kong acting in a manner which would be censured by the Home Government if the case of which we now complain were reported officially to the Ministry of Transport or about which a question were put in the House of Commons.
It is a sad commentary on the manner in which a highly efficient and long established public utility company in this Colony can be treated that it was through a Chinese newspaper that this company was first made acquainted with the startling news that a competing bus company was to be permitted by Government to reduce its fares to the lowest tram fare.
75
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the Hong Kong Government seems to be out of touch with modern policy as now being pursued by the Ministry of Transport in these matters and that such a situation as that in which we now find ourselves could not arise in England to-day. Under the Road Traffic Act of 1930, the established Transport authority for the area would be given an opportunity to submit its views regarding the probable effect on its financial integrity of any such con- cession to a second comer over its routes as are referred to in the article in "C
Wah Kiu Yat Po". It is part of the Policy of the British Government in general (and its Ministry of Transport in particular) to afford adequate protection to the long-established transport authority-particularly in the case of railways and electric tramways against wasteful competition by new companies anxious to cut into the business of the recognised undertaking operating under statutory powers.
In about 4 years' time the Government will be entitled to 25% of our work- ing profit and one would think that, as they will enjoy such a large share of the profits, the Government would take a special interest in seeing that the company received fair play. In addition to the royalty, we shoulder another very heavy obligation in respect of our permanent way. For the whole of the distance be- tween Kennedy Town and Shaukiwan, in addition to the Happy Valley section, we maintain the centre of the roadway to the extent of about 10 miles in length and 15 feet in width.
Further, we are at present engaged in spending about $300,000 on the con- struction of part of the new 100 ft. Road between Causeway Bay and Taikoo and I would go so far as to say that, unless we are given an assurance by the Govern- ment that uncontrolled motor bus competition in the future will be forbidden, the Board should seriously consider to what extent the company is justified in proceed- ing with this big commitment on the Shaukiwan route on which it has embarked. We are not only laying our tram track but are actually building the foundations of the centre of the road (and in certain parts where the sub-soil is soft we have to resort to piling operations). Are we going to this great expense partly for the convenience of the China Motor Bus Co.? In this connection one vital point should always be borne in mind if we are to continue to consider the claims of that large proportion of the Colony's population who have very slender means. There does not exist at the present time a vehicle other than the electric tramear which can economically carry passengers between Shaukiwan and Hong Kong at a rate of something under one cent per mile. It is only by carrying passengers in excess of, say, 30,000,000 per annum that such low fares remain a sound commercial proposition. Any hasty step, therefore, threatening to rob the Company of a large proportion of such traffic is calculated, eventually, to undermine the sound financial foundation upon which the Hong Kong Tramways Limited rests.
This would be a bad thing for the Colony and would ultimately lead to an increase in tram fares.
At present on the longest service, Shaukiwan to Western Market, (a distance of 6 miles) the Company could-under the Tramways Ordinance-charge 15 cents third class. The present charge, however, is only 5 cents..
With regard to the extension of bus routes now reported in to-day's Chinese newspapers to have been sanctioned by the Police it is significant that a similar application by the China Bus Company was considered (and presumably refused) by the Governor-in-Council as recently as November-December, 1933.
(sd.) L. C. F. BELLAMY, General Manager.
99