"5cdf4694-edcc-42ae-951d-9db0fe4d4f4e"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION."@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198"@en . "Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia. Legislative Assembly"@en . "2017"@en . "[1950]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0340715/source.json"@en . "Foldout Map: PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LICENCE DISTRICTS \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT\" PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nPUBLIC UTILITIES\nCOMMISSION\nNinth Annual Report\nPursuant to Section 36 of the\n\" Motor Carrier Act \"\nLicence-year 1948-49\nVICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1949. Victoria, B.C., June 30th, 1949.\nTo His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in Council\nof the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094We have the honour to transmit herewith, in accordance with section 36 of\nthe \" Motor Carrier Act,\" the Ninth Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission\nunder that Act for the year ended February 28th, 1949.\nPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.\nW. A. Carrothers, Chairman.\nD. K. Penfold, Commissioner. Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission, pursuant\nto Section 36 of the \"Motor Carrier Act,\" for the\nLicence-year ended February 28th, 1949.\nGENERAL.\nA perusal of the statistics for the licence-year 1948-49, as set out in or. accompanying this Report, will show that the steady increase during the previous years in the\nnumber of public and limited licences issued has come to a halt, the figures for buses,\ntaxis, public freight-vehicles, and limited freight-vehicles for 1948-49 being approximately the same as for 1947-48.\nThere is, however, an increase of 15 per cent, in the number of Class I private\nfreight-vehicle licences issued, which would appear to be evidence that, as new equipment has become more readily obtainable, the number of business firms who wish to\nundertake their own transportation is on the increase.\nThe number of vehicles \" replaced \" was about the same as during the previous\nyear, and there were not so many applications for transfer of licences.\nTotal revenue was $367,310.84, as compared with $333,104.04 for the previous year.\nThis increase is not, however, due to an increase in the number of licences issued, but is\nthe result of a revision of the Schedule of Fees, effective March 1st, 1948, which revision is outlined in more detail elsewhere herein. It will be noted that, although the\nnumber of Class I private freight-vehicle licences issued for 1948-49 was 11,127, as\ncompared with 9,705 for the previous year, the revenue for the year 1948-49 from this\nsource was $57,000, whereas for the previous year it was $69,000. This is the result\nof the decision to set a flat fee of $5 for a Class I private freight-vehicle licence instead\nof $1.50 per ton, with a minimum of $5 as formerly.\nCOMPARATIVE STATISTICS RE LICENCES ISSUED AND\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 REVENUES, ETC.\nIn the following pages comparative statistics are given regarding the number of\nlicences issued, and revenue therefrom, according to the various classes.\nThe following is an analysis of the various classes of licences issued during the\nlast six years, comprising new licences and licences renewed, but not including replacements and transfers:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKind of Licence.\nNumber\nof Licences\nNew and Renewed).\n1943-44.\n1944-45.\n1945-46.\n1946-47.\n1947-48.\n1948-49.\n334\n463\n1,538\n793\n6,210\n4,549\n355\n513\n1,613\n770\n6,563\n4,857\n430\n679\n1,782\n805\n7,164\n5,006\n516\n1,053\n2,260\n998\n8,318\n5,154\n637\n1,253\n2,475\n1,324\n9,705\n5,510\n632\n1,267\n2,480\n1,303\n11,127\n5,709\n13,887\n14,671\n15,866\n18,299\n20,904\n22,518\n* Includes sedan cars licensed as public passenger-vehicles.\n5 J 6\n\"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nRevenue.\nThe following is a comparative statement of revenue for the past six years, showing\nthe various sources of revenue:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKind of Licence.\n1943-44. 1 1944-45.\n1945-46.\n1946-47.\n1947-48.\n1948-49.\nPassenger (buses)\t\nPassenger (taxis)\t\n$17,986.14\n4,926.49\n103,888.20\n41,438.20\n5,249.95\n41.55\n$18,977.90\n5,527.77\n109,171.53\n44,545.29\n5,413.49\n55.28\n$23,045.10\n7,108.47\n121,050.25\n49,370.45\n6,881.24\n55.40\n$32,548.70\n12,121.04\n157,613.75\n57,480.45\n12,420.92\n28.80\n$41,512.35\n15,313.00\n191,344.48\n69,487.24\n15,412.97\n34.00\n$40,288.35\n22,315.00\n230,504.94\n57,257.95\nPermits\t\nMiscellaneous*\t\n16,425.05\n519.55\nTotals\t\n$173,530.53\n$183,691.26\n$207,510.91\n$272,213.66\n$333,104.04\n$367,310.84\n* Includes fees under Part 11 of the regulations, and fees for copies of conditions of licence, tariffs, etc.\nNUMBER OF LICENCES IN EFFECT.\nThe figures in Appendix A show the total number of licences issued during the\nyear. The following tabulation shows approximately the number of licences actually\nin effect at the beginning of each month, taking into account licences surrendered or\nexpired, etc.:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nApproximate Number of Licences in effect.*\nMonth.\nLicence-year\n1946-47.\nLicence-year\n1947-48.\nLicence-year\n1948-49.\n9,022\n12,622\n13,598\n14,050\n14,655\n15,078\n15,488\n15,822\n16,137\n16,352\n16,534\n16,513\n16,496\n10,475\n14,254\n15,535\n16,505\n17,066\n17,521\n17,813\n18,243\n18,412\n18,666\n18,762\n18,704\n18,553\n11,563\n15,665\n17,109\n17,980\n18,689\n19,286\n19,860\n20,119\n20,271\n20,433\n20,231\n20,189\n19,923\nJuly \t\nSeptember\t\n'\n* Namely, the number of licences issued, less number of licences surrendered or expired.\nAPPLICATIONS FOR LICENCES.\nThe following tabulation shows the number of applications for new or additional\nlicences actually recorded, year by year, since the inception of the \" Motor Carrier\nAct\":\nLicence-year.\n1940-41____\nNumber of\nApplications\nrecorded.\n___ 3,686\n1941-42 3,910\n1942-43 3,484\n1943-44 3,148\n1944-45 3,277\nNumber of\nApplications\nLicence-year. recorded.\n1945-46 4,075\n1946-47 5,921\n1947-48 6,812\n1948-49 6,897 REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 7\nNUMBER OF LICENCES ISSUED ANNUALLY.\nThe following is the total number of licences issued under Part V of the \" Highway\nAct \" and under the \" Motor Carrier Act \" respectively for the years stated:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPart V, \" Highway Act \"\t\n\" Motor Carrier Act \"_.\nlicence-year.\nLicences issued.*\n1935-36\n1,672\n1936-37\n7,832\n1937-38\n11,148\n1938-39\n11,970\n1939-40\n12,427\n1940-41\n13,025\n1941-42\n14,635\n1942-43\n14,425\n1943-44\n14,485\n1944-45\n15,582\n1945-46\n16,989\n1946-47\n20,196\n1947-48\n23,495\n1948-49\n24,954\n* Including licences transferred and renewed, and including replacements and substitute plates.\nTEMPORARY PERMITS.\nThe regulations pursuant to the \" Motor Carrier Act\" provide for the issue of\ntemporary permits, in lieu of licences or alteration of licences, for certain defined pur-\npoes, chiefly for operations which will not last more than thirty days or for special\ntrips not otherwise permitted by the conditions of licence.\nInspectors of Motor Carriers have authority to issue such permits on their own\nresponsibility, in general up to a period of seven days; for greater periods, specific\nauthority of the Superintendent must be obtained.\nEvery endeavour is made to ensure that the number of permits issued shall be\nkept to a minimum consistent with actual operating requirements, bearing in mind that\nflexibility in the administration of an Act of this nature is essential.\nRepair and construction of dykes in the Lower Fraser Valley, as well as road-\nconstruction work throughout the Province, resulted in an unusual demand for Class II\npermits.\nThe following is a summary of temporary permits issued during the year\n1948-49 :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nClass I permits (for temporary operation as private freight-\nvehicle only) 640\nClass II permits (for temporary operation as public or limited\nvehicle for periods not exceeding sixty days) 3,384\nClass III permits (for operation of licensed public or limited\nvehicle temporarily in a manner other than is authorized\nby the licence, or pending consideration of an application\nfor renewal, alteration, or transfer of licence, etc.) 3,161\nClass IV permits (for substitute vehicle when licensed vehicle\nis disabled) 367\nClass VI permits (for operation of school buses in connection\nwith authorized school functions \u00E2\u0080\u0094 issued by Provincial\nPolice) 183 J 8 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nFLOOD AND FROST.\nThe licence-year of 1948-49 will long be remembered by residents in many parts\nof this Province on account of the extremely severe weather conditions during the\nspring and early summer, and again during the winter.\nDuring the months of May and June, 1948, there were extensive and dangerous\nfloods in many parts of British Columbia, notably in the Lower Fraser Valley where a\nstate of emergency was proclaimed. Thousands of acres of fertile land were inundated,\nand all rail and road communication between the Interior and the Coast was severed\nfor many days. In addition, extensive damage occurred at Kimberley, Trail, Princeton,\nHedley, in the Okanagan Valley, and at Terrace and other places. By combined efforts\nof the military and civil authorities, backed by the trucking industry and volunteer\nworkers, people were rescued, much suffering was relieved or obviated, and repairs\neffected. The transportation industry was outstanding in the assistance which it\nrendered in this alarming emergency, trucks being willingly operated night and day\nfor transportation of all kinds, including bulldozers and tractors, household goods,\ncattle, construction materials (including bridge steel), food, feed, and other supplies.\nThe weather in the fall of the year was normal, but an unusually severe winter\nwas experienced, with snow and frost which lasted in Coast regions for about nine\nweeks commencing about December 18th. This was followed by a rapid thaw, resulting\nin an early spring break-up which again affected road transport, many roads being\nentirely closed for periods of varying length.\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION TRENDS.\nA perusal of the individual reports of the various Inspectors of Motor Carriers\n(see Appendix B) gives some indication of the trend of industrial development in\nvarious portions of the Province. While the lumber industry still gives employment\nfor a large number of trucks, curtailment of the British market, together with a\nstipulation, under new contracts, that only first-grade lumber shall be shipped, is\nbound to have an adverse effect on the industry, the market being already oversupplied\nwith low-grade lumber, resulting in falling prices, and this is expected to result in the\nclosing-down of a number of logging operations which are already operating on a narrow margin of profit. There has also been a curtailment of tie-cutting and hauling,\nbut Christmas-tree hauling is proving extensive and profitable, and is an important\nindustry in the East Kootenays. In the West Kootenays there has been a minor boom\nin the mining industry, which has absorbed some trucks previously engaged in log or\nlumber hauling.\nThe general situation, however, as judged from the activities of the trucking\nindustry, appears to be healthy and reflects the steady growth in population of the\nProvince.\nExtensive road-construction continues to result in employment of a large number\nof dump-trucks; the new and improved roads are also making possible a better transportation service.\nThe Okanagan fruit and vegetable crop was good, and the tonnage showed a slight\nincrease over the previous year; existing transportation facilities were able to handle\nit without difficulty.\nThe new and first-class road between Princeton and Kaleden is finished; this will\nform a part of the new road from Vancouver to Penticton via the Hope-Princeton\nHighway, the opening of which is expected to change considerably the transportation\npicture in the Okanagan. No licences have yet been issued to operate between Hope\nand Princeton, although several tentative applications have been made in the past,\nwhich are on file for later consideration. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 9\nMany of our Inspectors report that costs of operation of motor-vehicles continue\nto increase, including costs of labour, parts, drivers' wages, and new vehicles. This\nhas been reflected by numerous applications for increased rates, dealt with elsewhere\nin this Report.\nInspectors also point out that the trend is toward the purchase of heavier and\nmore expensive vehicles capable of carrying heavier loads, but that there is still a\nshortage of this class of equipment. In recent years, shortages have made it necessary\nfor carriers to buy whatever equipment they could get; with improvement of the\nsupply situation, they now carefully select their replacement equipment to suit their\nparticular needs. Factory designed and built semi-trailers are replacing home-made\nunits, and the standard of equipment, generally, is steadily improving.\nWhereas, during the recent war, competition in the transportation industry was\ncomparatively conspicuous by its absence, conditions are now approaching normality,\nas a result of which, in many districts, competition is again becoming keen, not only\nbetween already licensed operators, but because new operators are endeavouring to\nenter the transportation field, particularly for contract hauling.\nWith respect to the latter class of operator, when an application is received, the\nproposed operation is carefully studied, and if it is found that because of specialized\nequipment, experience, availability of tonnage\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, volume\u00E2\u0080\u0094the proposed operation\ncan be carried out at a lower or more economical rate than by licensed public carriers,\nlimited freight-vehicle licences have been granted. In many cases licensed carriers,\nrealizing the situation, have either purchased equipment more suited to the type of\nhauling required or have adjusted their tariffs.\nAs post-war conditions gradually become more normal, it has been observed that\ncarriers find it necessary to seek business rather than merely cater to same, as was\nthe case during the later war years and the period immediately thereafter, during part\nof which time carriers were operating under severe restrictions or were handicapped\nby lack of equipment.\nALASKA HIGHWAY.\nThe commercial importance of this war-constructed road between Dawson Creek,\nB.C., and Fairbanks, Alaska, a distance of 1,523 miles, has not perhaps been fully\nrealized. The military importance is obvious, but, in addition, there is a considerable\namount of interest being shown by United States operators with respect to the commercial aspect of this highway, as evidenced by the fact that hardly a week goes by\nwithout an inquiry being received from some point in the United States requesting full\ndetails as to the licensing requirements, permissible loads, etc.\nAlready licences have been granted to Alaska Freight Lines, Inc., of Seattle, for\npermission to transport freight the entire distance by truck from points in the United\nStates to points in Alaska (such licences, of course, being only with respect to the\nBritish Columbia portion of the highway) ; also to transport freight shipped by them\nby rail to Dawson Creek for furtherance to Alaska territory, and a similar application\nfrom another company of Great Falls, Mont., was made during the licence-year under\nreview, but this application was not dealt with during the said licence-year.\nIt has been found that the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States\ndoes not control freight moved from points in the United States to the Territory of\nAlaska, which is not a State of the Union. In order to operate over this highway, it\nis necessary to travel through the Province of Alberta and through Yukon Territory,\nas well as through British Columbia, and any successful applicant for licence to transport freight or passengers from the United States to Alaska must therefore comply\nwith the licensing requirements of the two Provinces and of Yukon Territory, as well\nas with the requirements of the various States through which the vehicles must pass.\nNotwithstanding the great distances involved, it would appear likely that, as time goes J 10 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\non, freight traffic over this highway may reach large proportions. In so far as freight\nhauled from the United States to Alaska, in bond through Canada, is concerned, provided that there is no pick-up or delivery of freight in British Columbia, it would\nappear that this is international transportation, whereby vehicles are merely using\nthat portion of the Alaska Highway in British Columbia as a corridor through which\nto move. It may be mentioned that the maintenance of that part of the highway\nwhich is in Canada is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Army; the highway is\nnot maintained by the Provincial Public Works Department.\nSKEENA HIGHWAY.\nOn pages 16 and 17 of the Eighth Annual Report various applications received for\nscheduled public freight operation over the Skeena Highway between Prince Rupert\nand points east, such as Terrace, Telkwa, Hazelton, and Burns Lake, were outlined, and\nit was stated that a decision on the applications had been deferred until the status of\nthe highway had been finally determined. These applications are still in abeyance, no\naction having been taken regarding same during the licence-year under review.\nGenerally, it would appear that this highway is somewhat hazardous during certain\ntimes of the year due to slides, etc., and subject to closure for long periods.\nThe public does not appear in any way to be suffering from lack of service.\nNEW SCHEDULED PUBLIC PASSENGER AND FREIGHT SERVICES.\nThe following new public passenger-vehicle services were authorized and commenced during the year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKamloops-Valleyview (4% miles east of Kamloops).\nKamloops-Powers Addition (2 miles west of Kamloops).\nNanaimo-Nanaimo Sulphate Pulp Mill.\nNanaimo-Extension.\nNanaimo-South Wellington.\nLocal bus service, City of Prince George.\nThe following new public freight-vehicle services were authorized and commenced\nduring the year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVancouver-Calgary.\nVancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bralorne and Pioneer Mine.\nVancouver-Osoyoos and Oliver (being extension of existing Vancouver-\nKelowna service).\nPUBLIC PASSENGER SERVICE DISCONTINUED.\nPublic passenger service between Vanderhoof and Hazelton (being part of service\nbetween Prince George and Hazelton) was discontinued.\nAIR-LINE LIMOUSINE SERVICE.\nThe steady expansion of air transport has resulted in a new type of service, generally known as \"air-line limousine service,\" restricted exclusively to transportation of\npassengers, air express and mail from nearest city to the adjacent airport, and vice\nversa, with provision for service to and from other airports when weather conditions\npreclude aeroplanes from landing at the usual terminus. Transportation charges for\nthese services (use of which by the passengers is optional) are collected by the licensee\nand are not a part of the air ticket; however, some air lines guarantee the licensees a\nminimum per trip. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J H\nThe following airport services are now in effect, licensed under the \" Motor Carrier\nAct\":\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVictoria-Patricia Bay Airport, V.I.\nCampbell River-Comox Airport, V.I.\nCourtenay-Comox Airport, V.I.\nNanaimo-Cassidy Airport, V.I.\nDuncan and Ladysmith-Cassidy Airport, V.I.\nTofino and Ucluelet-Tofino Airport, V.I.\nPort Hardy and Coal Harbour-Fort Rupert Airport, V.I.\nVancouver-Sea Island Airport.\nPenticton-Penticton Airport.\nTrail and Castlegar-Brilliant Airport.\nNelson-Brilliant Airport.\nCranbrook-Cranbrook Airport.\nKimberley-Cranbrook Airport.\nQuesnel-Quesnel Airport.\nPrince George-Prince George Airport.\nDawson Creek-Fort St. John Airport.\nFort St. John-Fort St. John Airport.\nFort Nelson-Fort Nelson Airport.\nOld Fort Nelson-Fort Nelson Airport.\nLower Post-Watson Lake Airport, Y.T.\nTRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.\nOn page 18 of the Eighth Annual Report mention was made of an application from\nseveral household-goods carriers for alteration of their licences to permit of transportation of household goods and settlers' effects to and from any point in British Columbia,\nwhich applications were refused; it was also stated: \" However, it appears that some\nchanges to the present conditions of licence of household-goods carriers by allowing\nsomewhat greater flexibility of movement would be to the advantage of the general\npublic, and consideration is being given to the proposals having this object in view.\"\nVery careful consideration was given to this matter, including briefs submitted by\nthe Automotive Transport Association, and it was finally decided that those carriers\nwho specialize in the movement of household goods and settlers' effects, and whose\nlicences permit of such transportation exculsively, should be permitted, on application,\nan extension of their licences to allow of transportation of household goods and settlers'\neffects from any point in British Columbia to any other point in British Columbia\nprovided that the distance between such points is not less than 75 road-miles (distances\nfrom any point on the Mainland to any point on Vancouver Island and adjacent islands\nto include sea mileage).\nThe granting of this privilege was in all cases subject to a suitable tariff being\nfiled naming rates on a per 100-lb. per mile basis.\nThe names of those carriers who made application for such privilege and whose\napplications were approved are given elsewhere in this report.\nLICENSING OF TAXIS.\nIt has been noted that during recent months certain municipalities are restricting\nissue of municipal licences for operation of taxis. In some cases municipalities have\nrefused to issue such licences unless the applicant holds a licence under the \" Motor\nCarrier Act\"; this applies particularly to some of the smaller municipalities where it\nis not feasible to operate a taxi wholly within the municipal limits. J 12 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nA case came to the attention of the Commission during the year where an individual who held several licences to operate taxi service was found to have leased his\nvehicles to individual drivers who were merely paying the licensee a fixed monthly sum\nfor the privilege of operating from his stand, with use of telephone. While the vehicles\nwere registered in the name of the licensee, they were actually owned, under some kind\nof agreement, by the individual drivers.\nWhile this type of operation did not appear to be contrary to the provisions of the\n\" Motor Carrier Act,\" it was felt that same should not be encouraged; therefore, the\noperator concerned was advised that, as licensee and as registered owner of the vehicles,\nhe was personally responsible to carry out the entire operation in accordance with the\nregulations; further, that the licensee must himself submit an annual report covering\nthe operation as a whole, regardless of any arrangement which he might have made\nwith his drivers.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED, BUSES.\nBy a suitable amendment to paragraph 1.1 (fc) of the regulations pursuant to the\n\" Motor Carrier Act,\" vehicles operated for the transportation of persons or property\nfor the public for compensation when such transportation is subject to regulation under\nthe \" Public Utilities Act \" are now exempt from the provisions of the \" Motor Carrier\nAct.\" As a result, buses operated by the British Columbia Electric Railway Company,\nLimited, into Richmond and Burnaby Municipalities, previously licensed under the\n\" Motor Carrier Act,\" do not now require such licence, such vehicles being regulated by\nthe Commission under the \" Public Utilities Act.\"\nORDERS AND APPROVALS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.\nApril 28th, 1948: The transfer of shares of Dench of Canada, Limited, to Canadian\nPacific Transport Company, Limited, was consented to. Dench of Canada, Limited,\nholds public freight-vehicle licences for scheduled service from Cranbrook to Kimberley,\nCranbrook to Fernie, and Cranbrook to Creston\u00E2\u0080\u0094all in British Columbia; they also\nhold licences to operate from Crowsnest to Creston, from Cranbrook to Kingsgate, and\nfrom Creston to Rykerts, which licences are for interprovincial or international transportation only.\nAugust 10th, 1948: The Commission consented to the transfer of the shares of\nNorth Coast Transportation Company from Puget Sound Power and Light Company\nto the Greyhound Corporation, such consent to become effective upon approval by the\nInterstate Commerce Commission of the United States of America of the transfer of\nthe said stock to the Greyhound Corporation.\nAugust 18th, 1948: The Commission consented to the transfer of shares of Interior\nStages, Limited, of Trail, and City Bus Service, Limited, of Trail, to Amalgamated Bus\nLines, Limited. This transfer of shares was in connection with amalgamation of the\nservices provided by City Bus Service, Limited, and Interior Stages, Limited, operating\nfrom terminal point of Trail, which services are now operated by Interior Stages,\nLimited.\nJanuary 22nd, 1949: Pursuant to section 61 of the \" Motor Carrier Act,\" the granting by the corporation of the City of Prince George to H. W. Smith, d/b/a Canadian\nTrailway Stages, of a franchise under By-law 592 of the said city to operate a bus\nservice within the incorporated limits of the City of Prince George was approved, with\na proviso that the said approval of the franchise did not constitute approval of any\nparticular routes, time schedules, or fares, which matters are dealt with separately in\naccordance with the usual procedure under the \" Motor Carrier Act.\" REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 13\nHEARINGS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.\nOn March 8th, 1948, a hearing was held at Vancouver by the Public Utilities\nCommission, respecting the application of B.C. Motor Transportation, Limited (operating Pacific Stage Lines) for consent to a general increase in basic fare structure and\nelimination of week-end fares, respecting all their routes in the Lower Mainland area,\nexcept with respect to the Vancouver-West Vancouver route. This application was\napproved.\nOn March 11th, 1948, a hearing was held at Victoria by the Public Utilities\nCommission respecting the application of Vancouver Island Transportation Company,\nLimited, for consent to a general increase in the basic fare structure respecting the\ncompany's intercity routes. This application was approved.\nOn April 21st, 1948, a hearing was held at Vancouver by the Public Utilities\nCommission on revised application of White Transport Company, Limited, for limited\nfreight-vehicle licences to be operated under contract with Canadian Northern and\nCanadian National Railway Companies for transportation of railway freight from\nKamloops to points in the Okanagan Valley, and vice versa, which application was\nwithdrawn. A further hearing on said application was held on July 9th, 1948, at\nVancouver, and the application was approved. Further details of this application are\nset out elsewhere in this Report.\nOn April 22nd, 1948, a hearing was held by the Public Utilities Commission at\nVancouver respecting the applications of the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver and B.C. Motor Transportation, Limited, for consent to increases in bus fares\nrespecting vehicles operated by West Vancouver Municipal Transportation and B.C.\nMotor Transportation, Limited, between Vancouver and West Vancouver and a revision\nof the fare zones in West Vancouver, also an application of the B.C. Motor Transportation, Limited, for consent to new and revised local fares in West Vancouver. These\napplications were approved.\nOn July 28th, 1948, a hearing was held by the Public Utilities Commission at Port\nAlberni respecting an application by the Cities of Alberni and Port Alberni that the\narea comprising the two cities should be considered as an \"exempted area\" in so far\nas the \" Motor Carrier Act \" is concerned. The application was not proceeded with;\nas, however, the meeting was largely attended by motor carriers in the district, the\nCommission took the opportunity of holding an open conference on motor-carrier problems generally at Alberni and Port Alberni.\nHEARINGS BY SUPERINTENDENT.\nWhile the actual number of applications advertised for a hearing was less than\nduring the previous year, there was a very marked increase in the number of persons\nwho attended and made submissions or who were properly represented at such hearings.\nIt is believed that this is due, in part, to increased facilities for air travel, it being\nnoted that many of the persons appearing came by air from points in the Interior of\nthe Province. There was, also, a notable increase in the number of persons who engaged\nlegal counsel to represent them.\nAs a result of the foregoing, it was considered desirable that proper verbatim\nreports of proceedings at these hearings be obtained, and accordingly a qualified stenographer is now engaged for this purpose.\nThe following is a list showing the number of hearings held by the Superintendent\nof Motor Carriers on various applications during the year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 J 14 \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\n2948 Number of Number of\nSittings. Applications.\nMarch 7 47\nApril 5 33\nMay 6 40\nJune 5 36\nJuly 4 30\nAugust 6 35\nSeptember 6 24\nOctober 4 19\nNovember 5 29\nDecember 3 15\n1949\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nJanuary 4 15\nFebruary 4 16\nTotals 59 339\nDETAILS OF DECISIONS RESPECTING CERTAIN APPLICATIONS.\nSightseeing Service, Victoria and Vicinity.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The application of Cec's U-Drive and\nSightseeing Company, Limited, of Victoria, for transfer of a limited passenger-vehicle\nlicence respecting a 13-passenger bus from C. & C. Taxi Service, Limited, to include\nnot only charter trips but also sightseeing tours, Victoria and vicinity, was refused.\nAlthough all Victoria taxi operators holding licences under the \" Motor Carrier Act\"\nare permitted to engage in sightseeing tours, for many years the privilege of operating\nsuch tours with buses has been restricted to three long-established companies, namely:\nVancouver Island Transportation Company, Limited; the C. & C. Taxi Service, Limited ; and Blue Line Transit, Limited. Approval of the application would have resulted\nin licensing a new bus operator in a field which is already well served by the existing\nlicensees.\nPublic Passenger Service, Biological Station at Departure Bay-Nanaimo.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Douglas\nMackenzie, the holder of limited passenger-vehicle licences for transportation of industrial workers, made application for permission to render public passenger service from\nthe Biological Station at Departure Bay to Nanaimo, morning trips leaving at 9.25 a.m.\nInvestigation disclosed that the applicant was rendering a charter service for the\nDominion Government transporting employees of the Biological Station from Nanaimo\nto the station in the mornings, and return in the evenings, for which purpose he did\nnot require a licence, the operation being exempt from the provisions of the \" Motor\nCarrier Act,\" being on behalf of the Dominion Government.\nThe application was opposed by Blue Line Transit, Limited, who were already\nrendering service to Departure Bay but not to the Biological Station. The application\nwas refused.\nAt a later date the application of Blue Line Transit, Limited, to give service to\nthe Biological Station was refused, as it was not considered that public convenience\nand necessity required the said service over and above the industrial workers' service\nalready being rendered by Mr. Mackenzie.\nPublic Passenger Service, Nanaimo to Points South.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Application was made by the\nVancouver Island Coach Lines, Limited, to commence service on three new routes,\nnamely: From Nanaimo southerly to Extension, from Nanaimo to South Wellington,\nand from Nanaimo to the (new) Nanaimo Sulphate Pulp Mill near Craycroft, which\napplication was approved effective October 16th, 1948. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 15\nScheduled Public Freight Service between Nanaimo and Sayward via Courtenay.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe West Coast Freight, Limited, of Port Alberni, already licensed to provide scheduled\npublic freight service between Nanaimo and Port Alberni, made tentative application\nto inaugurate a new service between Nanaimo and Sayward via Courtenay. Service\nwas already available by connecting carriers, and it was not considered that the\napplicant had proved that the granting of the licences applied for was a public necessity,\nand the application was accordingly refused.\nTaxi Operations, Alberni and Port Alberni.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Numerous applications were received\nduring the year for transfers of licences and for additional licences, etc., respecting\ntaxi service in this area.\nAs at the beginning of March, 1948, there were twelve licensed operators in the\narea, with some thirty-one cars licensed under the \" Motor Carrier Act.\" At this time\nthe Alberni District United Cabs Association was formed, and the various operators\nand their drivers each took one share in the association, with the exception of one\noperator with two cars who did not participate, and in due course twenty-nine licences\nwere transferred to twenty-nine individual members of the association, each member\nowning his own car and operating under his own name, but doing business in the name\nof the association. Furthermore, all licences were revised to allow of accepting business in either of the two cities.\nFrom reports received, it would appear that this plan has turned out to be satisfactory, as it has tended to cut down overhead costs for dispatchers, telephones, etc.,\nand has rendered it possible to arrange for the proper number of vehicles to be available at peak periods as requisite, with fewer vehicles on the stand at slack times.\nDuring the remainder of the licence-year numerous applications were received\nfrom other operators in the area for additional licences, which applications were, in\ngeneral, refused. During the summer the Public Utilities Commission held a meeting\nat Port Alberni, inter alia, for the purpose of inquiring into the taxi situation in that\narea. As a result, some additional licences were issued for operation strictly within\nthe area comprising the City of Alberni and City of Port Alberni only, the already\nlicensed operators being the only ones who have authority to operate to points beyond\nthe area comprised in the two cities.\nPublic Freight Service, Vancouver-Oliver and Osoyoos.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Country Freight Lines,\nwho are licensed to undertake scheduled public freight service between Vancouver and\nKelowna via Penticton, made application to include Oliver and Osoyoos as points of\ndelivery from Vancouver or pick-up for Vancouver. Investigations disclosed a need\nfor this service, particularly with respect to transportation of canned goods from the\nOsoyoos and Oliver districts to Vancouver, which service was not available other than\nby connecting carriers, and the application was approved.\nWhite Transport Company, Limited.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This company operates scheduled public\nfreight service between Vancouver and Kelowna via Kamloops. As outlined on page 8\nof the Eighth Annual Report, an application was received from this company for twelve\nlimited freight-vehicle licences for transportation of freight for the Canadian National\nRailway Company and Canadian Northern Railway Company comprising only such\nfreight which was to receive or which had received a part rail-haul to or from a point\noutside the area, which area comprised the area between and including Kamloops and\nPenticton and intermediate points where Canadian National Railway depots are located,\nwith the object of giving co-ordinated rail and truck service chiefly from Vancouver to\nOkanagan Valley points and vice versa, the general scheme being that freight be transported by train from Vancouver to Kamloops and then delivered by truck from Kamloops to Okanagan Valley points where a Canadian National Railway depot is located\nand vice versa. J 16 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nA hearing was held by the Public Utilities Commission at Vancouver on April 21st,\n1948, at which time, as the railway companies were not prepared to proceed, the application was withdrawn.\nA further hearing was held at Vancouver on July 19th, 1948, at which time the\napplication was objected to by O.K. Valley Freight Lines, Limited, and Country Freight\nLines, and by the Automotive Transport Association on behalf of forty-nine of its\nmember \" carriers.\" After full consideration of the evidence and argument, the application was approved by the Commission on August 3rd, 1948.\nHowever, for reasons best known to the applicant and to the railway companies, the\napplications were not completed by filing details of vehicles and payment of fees, and\ntherefore licences had not been issued by the end of the licence-year.\nScheduled Public Freight Service between Vancouver and Bridge River District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNeal Evans Transportation Company, Limited, who were already licensed to give local\nfreight service within the Bridge River district and public passenger and express service between Vancouver and Pioneer, made application for alteration of licences to\ninclude scheduled public freight service between Vancouver and Pioneer Mines\u00E2\u0080\u0094two\nround trips per week.\nThe application was approved and the service was duly inaugurated.\nAt the same time an application of a new company (Bridge River-Vancouver\nTransport, Limited) to render similar service\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, transportation of mining and\nconstruction machinery and equipment, perishable goods and household goods between\nBridge River district and Vancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0094was refused.\nAt a later date the last-mentioned company made application to transport household goods between Vancouver and Bridge River area, which application was approved,\nbut the alteration of licence did not take effect during the licence-year under review.\nPublic Freight Service between Creston and Vancouver.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Millar & Brown Transfer Company operate scheduled public freight service from Kimberley and Cranbrook\nto Vancouver via the United States, and vice versa. Their application to include\nCreston as a point of call on this route was approved, thus giving Creston direct connection with Vancouver for transportation of freight by highway. Prior to this,\nCreston was only served by connecting carriers.\nScheduled Public Freight Service between Vancouver and Seattle.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Licences held\nby the British Columbia-Seattle Transport, Incorporated, permitting of scheduled\nfreight service between Vancouver and the International Boundary, being portion of\nservice between Vancouver and Seattle, were transferred to the Los Angeles-Seattle\nMotor Express, Incorporated, as a result of which the new licensee is now able to give\nthrough freight service from Los Angeles to Vancouver, and vice versa.\nScheduled Public Freight Service between Vancouver, B.C., and Calgary, Alta.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe application of Continental Carriers, Limited, for four Class II public freight-\nvehicle licences respecting tractors and semi-trailers with carrying capacity of 12 tons\nper unit for scheduled service as above, operating most of the distance via roads in the\nUnited States, was approved in so far as that part of the route which is in British\nColumbia was concerned.\nUntil granting of these licences, the only truck service between Vancouver and\nCalgary was by connecting carriers, there being no through service.\nScheduled Public Freight Service, Vancouver-Prince George.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Approval was given\nto application of Lee's Transport, Limited, for alteration of two public freight-vehicle\nlicences (authorizing scheduled service from Vancouver to Vanderhoof) for permission\nto include service to Prince George, which they were not permitted to do under their\nlicences, and at a later date three additional licences were granted to this company for\nsimilar service. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 17\nAlthough these applications were opposed by existing licensees operating between\nVancouver and Prince George, it was considered that the existing service was not\nentirely adequate or reliable.\nProposed Truck Freight Service between Vancouver and Points between Gibsons\nand Madeira Park via Sechelt.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This was a somewhat unusual application, in that it\ninvolved shipping the truck between Vancouver and Gibsons by barge. Three-times-\nweekly service was proposed.\nFreight at present reaches points in this area by ship, barge, and ferry, and\ninvestigation showed that ample service is available. Freight is unloaded from ship\nor barge at wharves and then distributed by local carriers, strategically situated at\nvarious wharves, including Gibsons, Roberts Creek, Wilson Creek, Sechelt, and Half-\nmoon Bay, and the application was strongly opposed both by the water carriers and\nthe local truckmen.\nA very careful investigation indicated that there was no public necessity for the\nservice and that it would only be patronized if the applicants could offer lower rates,\nwhich, in general, did not appear feasible. The application was refused.\nTaxi Service, Neiv Westminster.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A tentative application of Depot Cabs, Limited\n(a newly formed company), for six limited passenger-vehicle (taxi) licences to operate\nfrom terminal point of \"present and/or proposed new B.C. Motor Transportation,\nLimited, bus terminal, New Westminster,\" was refused. This application was strongly\nopposed by the various licensed taxi operators in New Westminster, and it was not\nconsidered that public necessity had been shown for the granting of the application.\nPublic Passenger Service betiveen Hope and Chilliwack.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Service between these\ntwo points has for many years been operated by Licensee H. H. Gallagher. During the\nmonth of February, 1949, Mr. Gallagher transferred his interest in this service to the\nB.C. Motor Transportation, Limited (operating Pacific Stage Lines), and surrendered\nhis licences, effective February 1st, 1949. Consequently, the application of B.C. Motor\nTransportation, Limited, for alteration of their Schedule of Public Passenger-vehicle\nRoutes to include therein the Hope-Chilliwack route was approved. Therefore the B.C.\nMotor Transportation, Limited, now operate from Vancouver to Hope, inclusive.\nMission Transportation, Limited, Licences transferred.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Mission Transportation, Limited, held public passenger-vehicle licences for scheduled service betv/een\nMission and Haney via Dewdney Trunk Road, between Mission and Huntingdon, and\nfor local service at Mission.\nApplication of B.C. Motor Transportation, Limited (operating Pacific Stage Lines),\nfor transfer of these licences to themselves and for permission to operate any of their\nlicensed vehicles over said routes was approved, subject to a condition that local service\nshould not be given by the company over that portion of the Mission-Haney route\nbetween Eighteenth Avenue and Twenty-ninth Avenue on the Dewdney Trunk Road\nin Maple Ridge Municipality, already served by Maple Ridge Bus Service, Limited.\nApplication was made later by the B.C. Motor Transportation, Limited, for deletion of\nthe said restriction, which application was the subject of a public hearing, and, after\ncareful consideration of the submissions of the Maple Ridge Bus Service, Limited, and\nof the Municipality of Maple Ridge, it was decided to refuse the application, it being\nconsidered that the restriction was necessary in order to protect the local bus service.\nPublic Freight Service, Ashcroft and Vicinity, and between Vancouver and Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094After several months' negotiation, the public freight-vehicle licences of various\nAshcroft carriers (which licences had been in effect since 1935 under Part V of the\n\" Highway Act\") were suitably revised, and the application of Thomas H. Stewart to\nalter his public freight-vehicle licences to include scheduled service between Ashcroft\nand Vancouver, serving also Spences Bridge, was approved.\nLimited Passenger-vehicle Service, Vernon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Carswell Coach Lines, who operate\npublic passenger service within the City of Vernon, made application for the privilege J 18 \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nof transporting spectators from Vernon to hockey and lacrosse games in Kelowna and\nKamloops, also to Armstrong Fair and Kelowna Regatta, charging individual fares.\nAlthough this application was objected to by Western Canadian Greyhound Lines,\nLimited, who operate scheduled public passenger service over the routes in question,\nthe application was approved, subject to the restriction that one-way fares shall not be\nsold, but return tickets only, which shall be good for the one day and the one round trip,\nit being considered that the approval of this application was in the public interest.\nPublic Freight Service, Vernon, Revelstoke, and Arrowhead.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The licence previously held by Reinhard W. Hopp having been cancelled by the Public Utilities Commission on account of failure to maintain service, applications were received from Muir's\nCartage, Limited, Capital Transfer Company, John E. Sengotta, Dan D. Basaraba, and\na partnership of Peter Bechenauer and Oscar Matson\u00E2\u0080\u0094all of Vernon\u00E2\u0080\u0094for licences to\noperate scheduled public freight service between Vernon, Revelstoke, and Arrowhead.\nThe records showed that Muir's Cartage, Limited, had filed a similar application\nseveral months previously, which application had been voluntarily but temporarily\nwithdrawn. As this application was therefore senior to any of the other applications\nand as Muir's Cartage appeared fit, willing, and able to perform the service, their\napplication was approved, and the other applications were refused.\nPublic Passenger Service, Kamloops-Powers Addition and Kamloops-V alley view.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nApproval was given to the application of Louis C. Vigna, d/b/a Riverview Coach Line,\nfor licences to give public passenger service between these points, the distance to\nValley view being 4% miles east from Kamloops and to Powers Addition being 2 miles\nwest from Kamloops.\nThis service is restricted to no local service within the City of Kamloops, as the\ncity is already served by Civic Transportation Company, Limited.\nScheduled Public Freight Service betiveen Kamloops and Salmon Arm.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Henry\nMilton Drake, d/b/a Kamloops-Salmon Arm Freight Line, made application for transfer from Kamloops-Okanagan Freight Lines, Limited, of that portion of the licence\nheld by the last-mentioned company (who also operate between Kamloops and Vernon)\ncovering service between Kamloops and Salmon Arm. The application was approved,\nand two licences were granted for this service.\nBus Service, Trail and Vicinity.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The City Bus Service, Limited (operating local\npublic passenger service in the City of Trail and vicinity), and the Interior Stages,\nLimited (operating between Trail and Nelson via Fruitvale and Salmo, between Trail\nand Rossland, between Nelson and Nelway via Salmo, and between Trail and Fruitvale),\namalgamated, and application was received to transfer the City Bus Service, Limited,\nlicences to Interior Stages, Limited, to include therein the privileges held by City Bus\nService, Limited.\nThe application was approved, it being considered that the amalgamation and\nresulting co-ordination of service was in the public interest, as has subsequently proved\nto be the case.\nPassenger Service, Cranbrook-Fairmont and Radium\u00E2\u0080\u0094Excursion Trips.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The\napplication of Star Stages of Cranbrook for service as above via Kimberley on Sundays\nand gazetted holidays, only, was approved.\nPreviously Kimberley City Service had applied to give service over portion of this\nroute from Kimberley, which application had been approved; however, they later applied\nto discontinue the service, and the Star Stages' application was therefore approved.\nPublic Passenger Service, City of Prince George.\u00E2\u0080\u0094By order dated January 22nd,\n1949, the Public Utilities Commission approved the granting to Harold W. Smith, d/b/a\nCanadian Trailway Stages, by the corporation of the City of Prince George of a bus\nfranchise in accordance with By-law 592 of the said city, but this approval did not constitute an approval of any particular routes, time schedules, or fares, which matters\nare dealt with separately in accordance with the usual procedure under the \" Motor\nCarrier Act.\" REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 J 19\nIn due course Mr. Smith applied for and received the necessary alteration of\nlicences to enable him to render the service.\nScheduled Public Freight Service between Prince George and Quesnel.\u00E2\u0080\u0094As a result\nof transfer from Robert A. Baxter to J. A. and R. W. Wade of scheduled public freight-\nvehicle licences for operation between Quesnel and Prince George, Messrs. Wade, who\nwere already licensed to operate between Quesnel and Kamloops and between Quesnel\nand Barkerville, are now able to give through service from Barkerville to Prince George\nor from Kamloops to Prince George.\nCancellation of Public Passenger Service betiveen Prince George and Hazelton.\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nH. W. Smith, d/b/a Canadian Trailway Stages, Prince George, held public passenger-\nvehicle licences for scheduled service between Prince George and Hazelton. He applied\nfor permission to discontinue that part of the service which lies to the west of Vanderhoof, and after consideration of the records submitted by the applicant as proof that\nthis service was not economically sound, the permission to do so was granted.\nPassenger Service, Prince Rupert-Terrace.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Although several applications have\nbeen received in the past for permission to give public passenger service over the\nSkeena Highway from Prince Rupert to points east, licences have not to date been\nissued; such applications are being held in abeyance.\nHowever, an application of Kaien Island Stages, Limited, to render limited service\nbetween Prince Rupert and Terrace and (or) Lakelse, comprising excursion trips\nduring week-ends and holidays, effective only during the months of June to September,\ninclusive, and charging individual fares, was approved, with a proviso that said\napproval did not give the applicant any rights with respect to operation of scheduled\npublic passenger service on this route or any portion thereof.\nTaxis\u00E2\u0080\u0094Operations at Prince Rupert.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Prince Rupert is a city where it is practically impossible to operate a taxi wholly within the city limits, and after due consideration the Commission decided to adopt the same policy with regard to licensing\nof taxis in the City of Prince Rupert as is in effect with regard to taxis in Vancouver;\nnamely, to grant licences only with respect to such vehicles which are duly licensed by\nthe City of Prince Rupert. This policy was put into effect, several licences having been\ngranted.\nTransportation of Industrial Workers, etc., between Prince Rupert and Watson\nIsland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Watson Island, approximately 12 miles from Prince Rupert, is the site for a\nlarge cellulose-manufacturing plant under construction by the Columbia Cellulose\nCompany, Limited; it is about a mile from Port Edward.\nKaien Island Stages, Limited, are licensed to operate public passenger service\nbetween Prince Rupert and Port Edward, and they applied for permission to serve\nWatson Island as an off-route point, a distance of about one-half a mile.\nWatson Island Stages, Limited, hold limited passenger-vehicle licences for transportation, under contract, of industrial workers between Prince Rupert and Watson\nIsland. This company applied for permission to transport passengers other than\nindustrial workers between these points, charging individual fares.\nThe application of Watson Island Stages, Limited, was refused. The application\nof Kaien Island Stages, Limited, was approved, subject to the applicant obtaining the\nnecessary permission of the owner of the property (Columbia Cellulose Company, Limited) to pick up or let down passengers on the island.\nPublic Freight Service over the Alaska Highway.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Application of Alaska Freight\nLines, Incorporated, of Seattle, Wash., for four public freight-vehicle licences was\napproved after a hearing. Under the conditions of approval, this company is allowed\nto transport freight originating in the United States and forwarded by the licensee\nin rail cars from the United States to Dawson Creek, B.C., for further haul via motortruck to points in Alaska, and vice versa, also, by all-truck movement, to carry freight J 20 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\noriginating in the United States and in Canada (excluding freight originating in\nBritish Columbia) from points in the United States delivered to points in Alaska, and\nvice versa.\nThat portion of their application to be allowed to pick up any freight offering at\nDawson Creek, B.C., for delivery to points in Alaska was refused.\nPublic Passenger Service between Pouce Coupe and Dawson Creek.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Applications\nwere received from British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited, of Whitehorse; from\nJohn S. Keen, of Pouce Coupe; and from Canadian Coachways, Limited, of Edmonton,\nrespectively, for permission to operate public passenger service between Dawson Creek\nand Pouce Coupe and between Dawson Creek and South Dawson, which route was\nvacant on account of the existing licences of Mike Hustak (the previous licensee)\nhaving been suspended, and later cancelled, on account of failure to maintain proof\nof financial responsibility.\nThe application of British Yukon Navigation Company, Limited, was approved, as\nthis company was already established in Dawson Creek with suitable bus terminal and\nequipment, and the other two applications were refused.\nThe previous application of Arthur R. Young for transfer of the licence from\nMike Hustak for this service was refused.\nExtension of Privileges respecting Transportation of Household Goods.-\u00E2\u0080\u0094As\nexplained elsewhere in this Report, it was decided that carriers who were licensed\nexclusively for transportation of household goods should be granted wider privileges\nfor pick-up at points not within the territory adjacent to their home terminus. The\nlicences of the undermentioned carriers were therefore amended by adding permission\nto transport household goods and settlers' effects from any point in British Columbia\nto any other point in British Columbia, provided that the distance between such points\nis not less than 75 road-miles, restricted to vehicles which are licensed exclusively to\nhaul household goods and settlers' effects:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDowell's Cartage and Storage, Limited, Victoria.\nWilbert A. Jeeves, Victoria.\nSchofield & Malpass, Limited, Nanaimo.\nBekins Moving & Storage Company, Limited, Vancouver.\nBowman Storage, Limited, Vancouver.\nCampbell's Storage, Limited, Vancouver.\nCrone Storage Company, Limited, Vancouver.\nReginald Gooding, Vancouver.\nJohnston National Storage, Limited, Vancouver.\nGeorge Williams, Vancouver.\nBelyea & Company, Limited, New Westminster.\nPrinceton Transfer (Mrs. N. Garrison), Princeton.\nJ. and C. Goodkey, Penticton.\nD. Chapman & Company, Limited, Kelowna.\nStephens' Cartage (C. E. Stephens), Kamloops.\nWest Transfer Company, Nelson.\nWilliams Van Lines, Limited, Nelson.\nHarold H. Hatch, d/b/a Rush Transfer and Storage, Prince George.\nLICENCES CANCELLED.\nLimited passenger-vehicle (taxi) licences C 3015 and C 3016, in the name of Smith\nCabs, 400 Lonsdale Avenue, North Vancouver, B.C., were cancelled by the Public\nUtilities Commission, under date of April 14th, 1948, pursuant to section 11 (2) (b)\nof the \" Motor Carrier Act.\"\nUnder date of March 3rd, 1949, it was ordered by the Public Utilities Commission\nthat Class II public freight-vehicle licence G 8296, in the name of Reinhard W. Hopp, REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 21\ncovering scheduled public freight service between Vernon and Arrowhead via Grindrod\nand Revelstoke, which licence was suspended on January 26th, 1949, and which expired\non February 28th, 1949, be considered as cancelled, and that same be not renewed on\naccount of failure to render service.\nBy order of the Public Utilities Commission dated August 14th, 1948, after a\nhearing, public passenger-vehicle licences A 175 and A 44, in the name of Mike Hustak,\nof Dawson Creek, covering public passenger service between Pouce Coupe and Dawson\nCreek and between Dawson Creek and South Dawson were cancelled on account of\nfailure of the licensee to maintain proof of financial responsibility as required by\nregulations pursuant to the \" Motor Carrier Act.\"\nAPPEAL.\nAn appeal was made by David M. Hoops, Telkwa, against the Commission's decision granting a taxi licence to Roy A. Bussinger for operation at that point, Mr. Hoops\nbeing the holder of a similar licence and there being no other licensee there. The\nCommission's decision was upheld by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.\nAMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS PURSUANT\nTO THE \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nSeveral amendments, some of importance and others of a minor nature, were\neffected during the year, including the following:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBy Order in Council No. 107, approved January 13th, 1948, but effective March 1st,\n1948, a number of amendments were made to Part III of the regulations dealing with\nfees, and to the Schedule of Fees referred to therein.\nAs to the Schedule of Fees, the fee for a Class I private freight-vehicle was altered\nfrom $1.50 per ton of authorized carrying capacity (with a minimum of $5) to a flat\n$5 for any vehicle; the annual fees for any passenger-vehicle were fixed at $3 per\npassenger seat (with a minimum of $15) instead of $2 per seat for a limited passenger-\nvehicle, $3 per seat for a public passenger-vehicle, and $3.60 per seat for a public and\nlimited passenger-vehicle, with different minimums; the annual fee for a public\nfreight-vehicle of any class was fixed at $12 per ton of authorized carrying capacity\n(with a minimum of $12) instead of $10 per ton for a Class III, $12 per ton for a\nClass II, and $15 per ton for a Class I. The fee for a limited freight-vehicle was\nincreased from $8 to $9 per ton of authorized carrying capacity, with a minimum of $9.\nThe main object of these revisions was simplification.\nThe requirement that a special renewal, fee be paid for extension of a short-term\nlicence was deleted.\nBy Order in Council No. 371, approved February 20th, 1948, provision was made,\nby amending paragraph 1.1 (c), to exempt from the \" Motor Carrier Act \" any private\nfreight-vehicle owned and operated by a Board of School Trustees.\nParagraph 3.80 was amended to permit of reclassifying a public or limited freight-\nvehicle licence as a private freight-vehicle licence without payment of additional fee.\nBy Order in Council No. 2525, approved November 3rd, 1948, the following amendments, inter alia, were made:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nParagraph 6.05 amended to require licensees to give prompt and satisfactory public notice of unavoidable interruption of scheduled public passenger\nor freight service.\nPart 7, under the heading of \" Time Schedules,\" was revised to require\nthat at least thirty days' public notice be given of any proposed change in\ntime schedule, including notification to such municipalities as may be affected\nif passenger service is concerned; special forms are prescribed for use in\nmaking application to the Commission for consent to the proposed changes, J 22 \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nand the Commission has power to order the licensee to give notice by newspaper advertising.\nPart 8 (Rates and Tariffs) was similarly amended with regard to changes\nin passenger or freight tariffs, with thirty days' notice to be given, municipalities affected to be advised in case of a change in passenger tariff, and\npower to order licensee to give notice by newspaper advertising.\nThe Commission, however, has power in special cases to consent to any\nchange of time schedule or tariff notwithstanding non-compliance by the\napplicant with any of the regulations as to form, effective date, notice, or\nprocedure. This provision is to permit of flexibility in case of emergency.\nThe amendments outlined above were found necessary because the existing regulations did not allow of sufficient time to deal with objections prior to\nthe proposed effective date of the proposed change; also it was found that in\nmany cases municipal officials who were vitally interested in passenger operations did not always receive sufficient or timely notice.\nBy Order in Council No. 2547, approved November 6th, 1948, Part 8 of the regulations was further amended to provide that no licensed carrier shall accept a C.O.D.\n(cash on delivery) shipment unless his filed tariff specifies the charges to be made by\nhim for such C.O.D. service and the rules governing such service, which rules must\ncontain a statement of the specific period of time within which the carrier shall remit\nto the shipper, or his order, all money received by the carrier on behalf of the shipper.\nA further paragraph lays down the procedure in cases where a C.O.D. shipment is\ncarried jointly by two or more carriers.\nIn conclusion, paragraph 8.132 states that no motor carrier shall delay the remittance of the C.O.D. moneys collected by him beyond the time specified in his tariff.\nThese regulations were made because it was ascertained that certain carriers were\nnot making prompt remittance of C.O.D. moneys collected by them.\nAMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS PURSUANT\nTO THE \"HIGHWAY ACT.\"\nThe regulations pursuant to the \" Highway Act \" respecting, in particular, the\nmaximum allowable gross weights and dimensions of vehicles were amended by the .\nDepartment of Public Works, effective January 1st, 1949. In general, the regulations\npermit of somewhat more generous allowances, particularly with respect to multiple-\naxle trailer or semi-trailer combinations, which previously were limited to an absolute\nmaximum gross weight of 52,000 lb. Under the amended regulations, suitably designed\nvehicles may have a gross weight exceeding the last amount up to as high as 73,000 lb.\ngross for a vehicle having a wheel-base of 57 feet\u00E2\u0080\u0094with lesser amounts for shorter\nwheel-bases\u00E2\u0080\u0094subject, however, to certain limitations as to maximum loads on any\naxle or group of axles. One result of these amendments will undoubtedly be to\nencourage the use of multiple-axle vehicles, permitting of greater loads to be carried\nper unit with less burden on the highways.\nWhile the administration of the above regulations is not vested in the Public\nUtilities Commission, section 64 of the \" Motor Carrier Act \" states that the provisions\nof the said Act are in addition to the provisions made by or under the \" Highway Act \"\nor \" Motor-vehicle Act \" and that nothing in the \" Motor Carrier Act\" shall be deemed\nto exempt any person or motor-vehicle from, any of the provisions of the \" Highway\nAct\" or \" Motor-vehicle Act\" or the regulations made under either of the said Acts;\nconsequently, in issuing carrier's licence naming a certain maximum carrying capacity,\non which the fees are based, it is essential that officials of the Motor Carrier Branch\nshall have full knowledge of the provisions of the regulations pursuant to the \" Highway\nAct \" in order to avoid issuing a licence with a carrying capacity which, taking into REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 23\nconsideration the net weight of the vehicle, would allow of a gross weight in excess of\nthe amount permitted under the \" Highway Act.\"\nCommencing with the licence-year 1949-50, all carrier licences bear a notation\ncomprising an excerpt from section 64 of the \" Motor Carrier Act\" for information\nof the licensees.\nRATES, TARIFFS, AND TIME SCHEDULES.\nDuring the year under review a considerable amount of progress has been made\nin the matter of securing proper filings of requisite tariffs, contracts, time schedules,\nand financial reports from licensed carriers.\nWhere applications for licence, transfer or alteration of licence are concerned,\ntariff and time-schedule filings are obtained as a matter of routine; also, where\napplications for consent to filing of changes in rates and time schedules are made, such\nfilings are dealt with in the ordinary course. But in addition to this, when information\nis received which indicates that any existing filings are not up to date, requisite\ninitiative is taken and new filings are obtained. In general, it may be said that the\nsituation in respect to such filings has improved substantially during the past two years,\nand it is now the exception rather than the rule to find a carrier who has not yet\ncomplied with the requirements of the regulations in this respect.\nIt was predicted in last year's Report that it seemed reasonable to expect that some\ncarriers who had not applied for permission to file increased rates during that year\nmight find, on examination of their financial position in the succeeding year, that they\nwould not be able to continue to carry on without an increase in their rates, and that\nit was possible that such carriers would file applications for approval of increased rates\nduring the 1948-49 licence-year.\nThis prediction has proven to be substantially correct, but there are several\noutstanding exceptions, particularly with respect to those motor carriers who operate\nregular freight services between Vancouver and points in the Okanagan Valley, and\nthose who operate similar services over the Alaska Highway, which carriers have not\nrequested permission to increase any of their basic rates.\nIn contrast with the foregoing exceptions is the large number of non-scheduled\nfreight carriers who operate over relatively short routes and the freight carriers who\noperate on a charter basis. Almost all of such carriers have found it necessary to apply\nfor permission to revise their rates upward owing to increases in cost of operation.\nThe question as to whether a reduction in frequency of scheduled services might\nobviate the necessity of rate increases was considered by some carriers, and it was\nfound possible, in isolated cases, to effect economy of operation and to increase the load\nfactor by this means. In most instances, however, carriers found it to be impractical\nto reduce service for a protracted period, owing to the fact that alternative methods of\ntransportation tended to develop and reductions in service were followed by a drop in\nthe volume of traffic offering. This was found particularly true in the case of public\npassenger operations, which are highly sensitive to alternative means of transportation,\nsuch as use of private cars, special industrial workers' services, or use of taxis and\nU-drive vehicles. Furthermore, the major bus companies have had to concern themselves with the over-all requirements of service with respect to their entire system\nrather than the question of profitable operation of individual trips.\nA trend that has become evident during the past year, in connection with such\ntariff and time-schedule applications as have been dealt with, is that both the shipping\npublic and the travelling public have become decidedly conscious of their privileges\nunder the \" Motor Carrier Act,\" and it is noteworthy that the number of representations received from the public at large respecting application for changes in freight\nrates, passenger fares, and time schedules has considerably increased. This is a situation that has been welcomed and which, in the final analysis, tends to reduce irritations J 24 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nwhich might arise as a consequence of approval or refusal of applications for changes\nin transportation rates and services, in that all interested persons are given the opportunity to make representations regarding such applications.\nTo facilitate such procedures, the regulations governing rate and time schedule\nfilings were amended during the year, and a greater lapse of time\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, thirty days\ninstead of twenty-one days\u00E2\u0080\u0094is now prescribed between the date of giving public notice\nof application and the proposed effective date of such filings. These amendments appear\nto have been recognized by carriers as something that was necessary in the interest of\nthe public, while, on the other hand, the public appears to have appreciated this provision which gives the Commission more time in which to consider any objections filed.\nAnother change which has been made in the regulations during the past year is\nthat rules have been prescribed governing the collection and remittance by the carrier\nto the shipper of C.O.D. (cash on delivery) moneys. This change was strongly supported by representatives of the motor-carrier industry who were concerned with the\nfact that some irresponsible carriers were financing their operations out of C.O.D.\ncollections, and were thereby undermining the public confidence in the motor-carrier\nindustry as a whole. The new regulations provide that no motor carrier shall accept\na shipment of freight or express for delivery on a C.O.D. basis unless the tariff governing his operations specifies the charges to be made for such service and contains a\nstatement of the specific period of time within which collections shall be remitted by\nhim to the shipper. It is provided further that no motor carrier shall delay the remittance of such collections beyond the time specified in his tariff; therefore, withholding of\ncollections beyond the time so specified now constitutes an offence under the regulations.\nThough the above change has been in effect for only a few months, a number of\nshippers have already taken advantage of the protection of the new regulations, and\ncarriers generally have been prompt in amending their tariffs in line with the revised\nregulations.\nSIGNIFICANT TARIFF DECISIONS.\n(a) Following public hearings held by the Public Utilities Commission, the applications shown hereunder were approved:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nB.C. Motor Transportation, Limited: Application for consent to general\nincrease in the basic fare structure and elimination of reduced week-end\nfares on all routes in the Lower Mainland area, excepting the Vancouver-\nWest Vancouver route. Approved March 8th, 1948.\nVancouver Island Coach Lines, Limited: Application for consent to general\nincrease in basic fare structure on intercity routes on Vancouver Island.\nApproved March 11th, 1948.\nIsland Freight Service: Application for consent to general increase in freight\nrates for scheduled public freight-vehicle service on Vancouver Island.\nApproved March 22nd, 1948.\nB.C. Motor Transportation, Limited, and West Vancouver Municipal Transportation : Application for consent to general increase in fares; also for\npermission to alter certain fare zones, within the Municipality of West\nVancouver, on the Vancouver-West Vancouver route. Approved April\n22nd, 1948.\n(b) Other notable applications which were dealt with without a public hearing\nby the Public Utilities Commission included the following:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNeal Evans Transportation Company, Limited: Application for consent to\nincrease of basic fare structure on Vancouver-Pioneer and Shalalth-\nPioneer routes. Approved March 17th, 1948.\nBlue Line Transit, Limited: Application for consent to increase in the basic\nfare structure applicable to various routes operated within the City of\nNanaimo and immediate vicinity. Approved September 16th, 1948. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 25\nInterior Stages, Limited, Trail, B.C.: Application for consent to standardize\nthe fares of Interior Stages, Limited, and City Bus Service, Limited (of\nTrail), and to increase commutation fares. Approved September 22nd,\n1948.\nB.C. Motor Transportation, Limited: Application for consent to adjustment\nof fares on Crescent Beach-Ocean Park-White Rock route. Approved\nNovember 2nd, 1948.\nMaple Ridge Bus Service, Limited: Application for consent to increase in\nthe basic fare structure applicable within the Municipality of Maple\nRidge. Approved November 22nd, 1948.\nColumbia Stage Lines, Limited: Application for consent to general increase\nin the basic fare structure on routes operated between New Westminster\nand points in the Municipality of Coquitlam. Approved January 14th,\n1949.\nWilliams Van Lines, Limited, of Nelson: Application for consent to increase\nin household-goods transportation rates. Increase of 8 per cent, approved\nJanuary 28th, 1949.\nLower Mainland Household Goods Carriers: Application for consent to\nfiling of increased household-goods rates applicable to distances up to\n120 miles. Approved February 18th, 1949.\nPRESCRIBED TARIFFS.\nThe \" Motor Carrier Act \" gives the Commission the power to prescribe the rates\ncharged by motor carriers, but only three such tariffs are in effect, namely:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) Competitive, Local, and Joint Freight Tariff No. lA (Okanagan Freight\nTariff).\n(2) Competitive, Local, and Joint Freight Tariff No. 3 (Cariboo Freight\nTariff). (Applies only to scheduled freight services between Vancouver\nand points situated between Clinton and Prince George.)\n(3) Charter and Sightseeing Passenger Tariff No. 3 (Victoria and Vicinity).\nThe Okanagan Freight Tariff was amended by Supplement No. 7, which provided\nfor an increase in the coal-hauling rates between Princeton and Keremeos.\nThe Cariboo Freight Tariff was amended by Supplement No. 3, issued July 15th,\n1948, providing for increase in freight rates applicable between Vancouver and Prince\nGeorge only.\nNo change was made in the prescribed Charter and Sightseeing Passenger Tariff,\nVictoria and Vicinity, during the licence-year under review.\nCONTRACT-RATE FILINGS.\nAll motor-carrier transportation services cannot be suitably governed by tariff\nfilings, particularly those services which are operated under unusual operating conditions, and in such cases copies of contracts or rate agreements are filed.\nThose services which are most often covered by contract filings are: Log hauling,\nlumber hauling, milk hauling, transportation of canned fish and fish-cannery supplies,\ntransportation of bulk petroleum products, dump-truck work, transportation of coal\nand ore from mines, transportation of freight and express for the railways and air\nlines, transportation of industrial workers.\nDuring the past year virtually all contract rates were increased by varying\namounts, up to 25 per cent, over rates in effect in 1947, after negotiation and agreement between the motor carriers and their contractors.\nAs to negotiation of contracts, it may be noted that in some cases both parties\nhave requested and have received assistance of Inspectors and of the staff in Van- J 26 \"MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\ncouver in arriving at rates which are reasonable and satisfactory to both parties.\nFor example, log-hauling rates in the Merritt district could not be agreed upon in the\ninitial stages by the carriers and the logging company, and it was only after certain\npoints were clarified by officials of the Branch that a satisfactory settlement was\nreached.\nTIME SCHEDULES.\nThe regulations under the \" Motor Carrier Act\" have been amended during the\npast year in order to ensure in so far as possible that the public and appropriate\nmunicipal authorities shall be given, by the carrier, adequate notice of all proposed\nchanges in public passenger services. Ordinary applications for permission to alter\ntime schedules are now subject to thirty days' notice (unless, in any special case, the\nCommission permits of shorter period), and where service is to be changed between\ntwo points within a municipality, notice must be given by the carrier to the municipal\nauthorities. In the case of unavoidable interruptions of scheduled service, carriers\nare required to give public notice of the interruption and its probable duration with\nsuch promptness and in such a manner as to reduce to a reasonable minimum the\npublic inconvenience resulting from the interruption of service.\nSTATEMENT OF TARIFFS AND TIME SCHEDULES FILED\nDURING THE YEAR 1948-49.\n1947-48. 1948-49.\nPassenger time schedules 471 336\nFreight time schedules 55 58\nPassenger and express time schedules 2 2\n 528 396\nPassenger and express tariffs 5 3\nLocal express tariffs 22 21\nPublic passenger tariffs 55 28\nCharter passenger tariffs 308 257\nLimited passenger tariffs 18\nClass I public freight tariffs 10 17\nClass II public freight tariffs 34 56\nClass III public freight tariffs 467 321\nSpecial commodity tariffs 9 30\nLimited freight tariffs 11 8\nBaggage tariffs 2\nSightseeing tariffs 3\n 921 764\nContracts 739 644\nSupplement to passenger tariffs 80 44\nSupplement to freight tariffs 67 60\nSupplement to express tariffs 3 \t\nRevisions to tariffs 405 149\n 555 253\nTotal filings 2,743 2,057\nANNUAL REPORTS OF MOTOR CARRIERS.\nOn page 16 of the Seventh Annual Report, the Commission outlined the joint\narrangement which had been made with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the\ncollection of annual reports of motor carriers (other than private freight carriers)\nin this Province, operating for compensation, the arrangement being that the forms REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 27\nused are prepared and mailed out to carriers by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics,\nreturnable in duplicate to the Public Utilities Commission, Motor Carrier Branch, in\nwhich office reports are checked for gross errors and returned to carriers for correction if not satisfactory. When the reports are complete, one copy is forwarded to\nthe Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the other copy is retained in the files of the\nMotor Carrier Branch for future reference.\nThe following table indicates the progress which has been made in the matter\nOf filing by Carriers Of annual reports : For the Year For the Year\n1946-47. 1947-48.\nPer Cent. Per Cent.\nTotal filings due 100 100.0\nFilings received 65 87.5\nFilings accepted 50 80.8\nFilings returned for revision (outstanding) 15 6.7\nNo filings made 35 12.5\nNote.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Total filings due: 1946-47,2,156; 1947-48,2,146.\nWhile it is clear that there is a need in many cases for more accurate accounting\nmethods in the motor-carrier industry in British Columbia as a whole, consideration\nof the returns received does indicate some improvement in this direction during the\npast few years. In this connection the services of field Inspectors and of officials in the\nRates Division of the Motor Carrier Branch have been available to give carriers\nguidance and a limited amount of assistance in the matter of rearranging their\naccounting systems in line with the requirements of the report form.\nPUBLICATION OF DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS.\nThe practice of publishing weekly lists of all decisions of the Public Utilities\nCommission respecting applications for public or limited licences was maintained.\nIn addition, during the year these decisions were extended to include therein\ndecisions of applications for changes in tariffs.\nAPPLICATION FORMS FOR LICENCES REVISED.\nAll application forms for licence, alteration of licence, transfer of licence, etc.,\ncomprising forms M.C. 1 to 10, inclusive, were revised during the latter part of the\nlicence-year, duly printed, and distributed to all concerned.\nIt was found that the old forms did not give sufficient data regarding wheel-bases\nof multiple-axle trucks and combinations, nor did the forms generally give full information regarding maker's rated capacity, model, etc.; also lacking was information\nas to whether trailers were duly equipped with brakes as requisite, pursuant to the\n\" Motor-vehicle Act.\"\nThe new forms have proved satisfactory in every way.\nRE INTERCHANGEABLE TRAILERS.\nThe licensing procedure under the \" Motor Carrier Act\" is such that each vehicle\nand semi-trailer must be individually licensed. The trend in transportation is toward\nthe use of tractors and semi-trailers, and it was found that some firms have numerous\nsemi-trailers which they wish to attach to any particular tractor, and vice versa, with\nvarious carrying capacities. At first this presented a somewhat difficult problem, but\nthis was solved by a decision whereby the fee for a carrier's licence shall be based on\nthe carrying capacity of the largest semi-trailer, notwithstanding that a semi-trailer\nof less carrying capacity may be attached, the conditions of licence being suitably\nworded to take care of this situation. J 28 \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nPROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.\nThe Superintendent of Motor Carriers receives a copy of each certificate of proof\nof financial responsibility filed with the Motor-vehicle Branch respecting passenger-\nvehicles (buses and taxis) licensed under the \" Motor Carrier Act.\"\nNo bus or taxi licence is issued or renewed unless such a certificate is in force, and\nfailure to maintain this proof of financial responsibility results in immediate suspension\nof the licence. During the year there was a very large turnover of these certificates,\nresulting from insurance-policy changes, vehicle replacements, etc.; it appears that\ninsurance companies, generally, are exercising a considerable amount of precaution\nin the issue of policies, and some operators have had difficulty in getting the necessary\ncoverage.\nMECHANICAL INSPECTIONS.\nIn practically every portion of the Province the Motor Carrier Branch is now,\nthrough the field Inspectors, carrying out regular mechanical inspections on licensed\npassenger-carrying equipment. Generally speaking, it is found that such equipment\nis in good condition; however, many defects were detected and corrected. Efforts and\nresults in this direction are proving the worth of such inspections.\nANNUAL CONFERENCE OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND MOTOR CARRIER\nBOARDS\u00E2\u0080\u0094MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN, ALBERTA, AND BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA.\nThe 1948 conference was held at Edmonton and was attended by the Chairman,\nPublic Utilities Commission (Dr. W. A. Carrothers), member of the Commission (the\nlate Major J. C. MacDonald), and by the Assistant Superintendent of Motor Carriers\n(W. A. Jaffray), in place of the Superintendent, who was unable to make the trip.\nThe conference lasted for two days\u00E2\u0080\u0094October 7th and 8th, 1948.\nThe question as to reciprocity in licensing, particularly as between the Prairie\nProvinces, was again considered, particularly with regard to vehicles owned by residents\nnear the Alberta-Saskatchewan Border, and certain suggestions were made which it\nappears may ultimately prove to be a solution. The Government of Saskatchewan\nrequires licensees to pay the premiums on the Government insurance at the same time\nas payment is made for motor-vehicle licence fees, and it appears that Manitoba\noperators who also require a licence in Saskatchewan object to paying two insurance\npremiums. A suggestion was made that the Saskatchewan Government should honour\nfinancial responsibility certificates in effect in the Province of Manitoba (which certificates are similar to those used in British Columbia). It would appear that only those\noperators in British Columbia who might engage in regular hauling from British\nColumbia to points in Saskatchewan would be affected by this problem.\nThe question of filing of tariffs by interprovincial carriers coming under the\njurisdiction of two or more Provinces was fully discussed. No immediate solution was\noffered.\nA question regarding the issuance of licences by the Province of Alberta to\nresidents of Alberta whose only outside road connections are to points in British\nColumbia was raised by the Alberta delegation. The areas referred to particularly\nwere Cherry Point and other towns on the border where the only avenue to rail-head\nwould be through the Peace River District of British Columbia to Dawson Creek.\nWhile a proposal that British Columbia licences only should be required was made,\ncertain difficulties were foreseen by the Alberta delegation with regard to such\na proposal.\nThe question of regulation of school-bus operations was brought up by the Alberta\ndelegation, as this type of transportation is now being regulated in Alberta, and the\nBritish Columbia regulations and requirements were outlined. REPORT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. J 29\nAmongst other matters discussed were safety regulations respecting construction,\nequipment, and operation of motor-vehicles, including such matters as signalling devices,\nbumpers on oil-tank trucks and trailers, brakes on trailers, rear-view mirrors, etc.\nConsideration was given to the fact that in the Province of Manitoba permanent\nlicence-plates are now issued with respect to any vehicle, instead of issuing new plates\nevery year as generally done elsewhere.\nMinutes of the proceedings were recorded in some detail, and copies have been\nreceived by all concerned. Since adjournment of the meeting there has been an\ninterchange of correspondence regarding various matters which came up for discussion.\nCONFERENCE OF INSPECTORS OF MOTOR CARRIERS.\nThe annual conference of Inspectors of Motor Carriers was held as usual at Vancouver during the second week in January, 1949, and lasted for a period of four days.\nThe agenda was a lengthy one, and many useful suggestions were made, problems\ndiscussed, and procedure laid down.\nSTAFF.\nOh the retirement of Major R. M. Taylor as Superintendent of the Motor Carrier\nBranch on May 1st, 1948, William Brown, Deputy Superintendent, was appointed\nSuperintendent; I. C. Barltrop, Assistant Superintendent, was appointed Deputy\nSuperintendent; and W. A. Jaffray, Inspector of Motor Carriers at Victoria, was\nappointed Assistant Superintendent.\nThe following Inspectors of Motor Carriers were transferred: J. A. Carmichael,\nfrom Kamloops to Victoria; G. L. Greenwood, from Prince George to Kamloops; D. J.\nDoswell, from Dawson Creek to Prince George; W. V. Joyce, from Vancouver to\nDawson Creek.\nOwing to increased industrial activity on Vancouver Island, particularly the\nnortherly portion thereof, the Island was divided into two areas for administration,\nnamely: That portion south of Ladysmith, administered from the Victoria office, and\nthat portion north of and including Ladysmith administered from Nanaimo. A new\noffice was opened in Nanaimo during July, 1948, and Inspector of Motor Carriers\nE. deBlaquiere was transferred from Cranbrook to Nanaimo to fill this position. His\nplace at Cranbrook was taken by M. D. McFadyen, who had been undergoing training\nin the Vancouver office.\nTwo Inspectors who have been undergoing training at Vancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0094D. Neale and\nM. B. Pepper\u00E2\u0080\u0094were appointed as assistants to the Inspectors of Motor Carriers at\nKelowna and Kamloops respectively.\nThe following is an outline of the present locations of Inspectors as at the end of\nthe licence-year: Cranbrook, 1; Nelson, 1; Kelowna, 2; Kamloops, 2; Prince George,\n1; Dawson Creek, 1; Vancouver, 3 (including one Inspector exclusively for mechanical\ninspections); Victoria, 1; Nanaimo, 1; total, 13.\nIn addition, two Inspectors are under training in the Vancouver office.\nMAP OF LICENCE DISTRICTS.\nFor the purpose of administration of the \" Motor Carrier Act,\" the Province has\nbeen subdivided into districts, known to the trucking industry as \" licence districts.\"\nThese licence districts are used as a basis for determining the areas within which public\nfreight operators may serve under terms of their licences. For the convenience of\nlicensees, a map of the Province outlining these various licence districts was prepared\nand distributed to all concerned. A copy of this map is included in this Report. J 30 \" MOTOR CARRIER ACT.\"\nLIST OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC PASSENGER AND PUBLIC\nFREIGHT ROUTES.\nA list showing the names of operators of scheduled public passenger-vehicle\nservices and public freight-vehicle services respectively, as at February 28th, 1949,\nwith a brief statement of the routes over which the vehicles are operated, is attached\nto this Report as Appendix C.\nREPORTS OF INSPECTORS OF MOTOR CARRIERS.\nThese are contained in Appendix B hereto. REPORT OF\nTHE\nPUBLIC\nUTILITIES\nCOMMISSION\nJ 31\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2g 1 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2\n, \nxi\n0J\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\n0\nm K\niH S\nd.\nOi\nH\nPh\nPh\no\nPh\nO\nH\n\u00C2\u00AB\nW\nH\nRevenue\nfrom\nLicence\nFees.\n$19,385.5\n2,957.7\n22,270.0\n17,127.1\n60,648.2\n1,921.5\n22,079.5\n134,136.6\n12,532.0\nIC\n\n0\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2H __\n*\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 s\n'3 -2\ncu r-:\no\nW\nA\nm p\na\n<\nPh\na\nH\nH\nO\nfc\nto\nH-i\nc\n=1\no\nC5 QJ\nft iH H-\n0 cu 5\na\nm\n3\n0\nt-\nS\nto\nft H\n0 >> u\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2H _ 'H\npubli\nof th\n\"5\nH-\n3\nUl\n \u00C2\u00A3\n\u00C2\u00ABM P\n>\nOJ\nfi\nhH\nfc\no\nQ\nO to [h\no v\nco t\n5\n. * 0\ntO (i\n0\na b\n0\nCO\nK\nO\na,\n3\n10 ID hi\no c> 5 h\n.2 c\n0\n\u00C2\u00AB\n5 L\nto a\nH\na;\nfc\nK\nO\nJJh\n\u00C2\u00A3\n^ fi\ fii ^ J\u00C2\u00B1\n2j OJ oj rt c\n\u00C2\u00AB T* \"T ft )c\nt* Jh w -_i fl\niL QJ _u B >\na 11 Si\nri od to to oj a\nA qj cj a* 73 i\n3 ,2 .2 .2 a fi\ng cu CJ 0) > r\nQ t> > > \u00C2\u00A3 4\n- +> +j +j fii fi\nE si A fi\ no o\nc\nfi\nrt\nCJ\n3\nfl\nCJ\n%\nu\no\n\u00C2\u00AB 5 _; j 8.S.s.S'_'f\nc\nfi\n2;\nQ\u00C2\u00ABt3t3 rtT3 \u00C2\u00BB ^-t Deep Cove (Saanich)-Victoria.\nSandon-New Denver Freight (R. E. Crelin and Sandon-New Denver.\nW. G. Teir), New Denver\nGeo. Schmidt, Dawson Creek Dawson Creek-Fort Nelson.\nDawson Creek to northern boundary of\nB.C. (operates to Whitehorse, Y.T.).\nScott & Peden, Ltd., Victoria Victoria-Hillbank.\nSeattle-Vancouver, B.C., Motor Freight (1946), Vancouver-Seattle.\nLtd., Vancouver\nLloyd W. Shannon, West Summerland West Summerland-Penticton.\nSidney Freight Service, Ltd., Sidney Sidney-Victoria.\nSpeedee Transport (Norman Slade), White Rock Surrey Municipality-Vancouver.\nA. L. P. Stevens, Crescent Surrey Municipality-Vancouver.\nL. R. Stevenson, Milner Willoughby-Vancouver.\nF. R. Stocking, Upper Hat Creek Ashcroft-Upper Hat Creek.\nStoltze Motor Freight, Vancouver Vancouver-Stave Falls.\nSurrey Freight Lines, Ltd., Cloverdale Cloverdale-Vancouver (serving Surrey\nMunicipality and a portion of Langley\nMunicipality).\nR. H. E. Taylor, Pemberton Pemberton-Wilson's Gate.\nTerminal Cartage, Ltd., Vancouver Vancouver-New Westminster.\nA. S. Towle, Milner Langley Municipality-Vancouver.\nTrail Livery, Ltd., Trail Nelson-Rossland.\nTriangle Transport (Earl Chase and Leo La- Vaneouver-Lillooet.\nRocque), Vancouver\nVancouver-Kamloops Freight Lines (R. J. Henry Vancouver-Kamloops.\nand Wm. Lord), Vancouver\nVanderspek Transportation, Hope Vancouver-Hope.\nVets Transport (W. A. Lowden and F. Lindley), Quesnel-Williams Lake.\nQuesnel\nJ. A. and R. W. Wade, Quesnel Quesnel-Prince George.\nQuesnel-Barkerville.\nQuesnel-Kamloops.\nRobert I. Walters, Williams Lake Williams Lake-Keithley Creek.\nWard's Motor Freight (L. F. Ward), Nakusp Nakusp-Vernon.\nJ. Weins and B. Fitzgerald, Hope .Vancouver-Hope.\nWest Coast Freight, Ltd., Port Alberni Port Alberni-Nanaimo.\nWhite Rock Transfer (John Hamilton Coulter), Surrey Municipality-Vancouver.\nWhite Rock\nWhite Transport Co., Ltd., Vancouver Vancouver-Kelowna via Kamloops.\nGeo. Wm. Williamson, Kelowna Vernon-Oyama.\nMrs. Janet P. Williamson, Fort St. John Fort St. John-North Pine.\nWinton's Transfer, Ltd., Vancouver Vancouver-Abbotsford.\nGeo. D. Witte, Big Creek Witte Ranch (5 miles westerly from Big\nCreek)-Hanceville P.O.\nWood & Fraser Transport Co., Ltd., Vancouver Vancouver-Prince George.\nJohn Wyatt, Kelowna Kelowna-Winfield.\nYarrow Freight and Fuels, Ltd., Yarrow Yarrow-Vancouver.\nVICTORIA, B.C. :\nPrinted by Don McDiabmid, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty.\n1949.\n595-849-3337 /\nDawson Cr.'\n/\"\n/\n/\n/\nPrince\\nRupert\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Cedarvale*^ skeena 1 I\nf f Crossing! *v\n\ m \ \ I\nA ASmithers ^, !\nt.. Ar^ 18 i 171\n21\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2. Barrett L,<\n\\n\\nPROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nLICENCE DISTRICTS\n/\nP^Sj\n\\ni\n/\nNadferta 8 j\nf\.\nOotsa\nLake\n>l*\u00C2\u00B0\n^\n*f*\nI\n^K,\nV\n*~\"\C Bella Coola\nV !\nL. !\n16 V[\n. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 V\nMm A Woodpecker v\nj \"T \ v v\nV McBride CL \\n\"MOTOR CARRIER ACT \"\nPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION\nrPrince\nIGeorge\nHighways shown thus\nLicence Districts\nNote.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Areas in which highways are common\nto two Licence Districts shown thus\nDawson Cr.\nQuesnel!\nv\t\n\\nJ2\n'Barkerville\n.Keithley\n*Cr.\n\\nV\n\\n'Likely\n\\nV\n/\n^Horsefly \\n\u00E2\u0084\u00A2**\"v VAIbreda >\nwiiTTTrji\nLake Hi\n.Knife\n>Cr.\n\\n\\nsDog Cr.\nClearwater,.\nV;\n<\n\\n<$>\n\nSrt^JAfSicamous ^_ I \\ni\j|g^rrowhead \\nCam loops T^^^TPritchard / \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n:es \^ff \^ ^Enderby j . |\nPembe\ton*\nS\nV\nCampbell!\nRiv.\no\n^^ \ O ; Lyttonl\nN ^w Powell \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 *^M J }&& ^-JH\nV XXRiv. \ \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ' Keefers<\nI Stomp ^ TVernon\nIMerritt\n/\n^Nakusp\nI Canal Flats\n\\n\\n.13\nPeach II\nSummi\nPrincetFn\n[Hope\nHedley\no\n<^\nV / i^^N/Vancouver\nPt-Alberni\" .^^StST\nI\nO Kelowna Edgewftod*\n. mmjmr \u00E2\u0080\u00A2*\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 #\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 4\n/ i\n'Slocan 1/\n\u00C2\u00BB\u00E2\u0096\u00A0 Kimberley^\nPebticton,\nAgassiz-\n\\nJ\ny Slocanl\nCastlegar <\nGrandW .,\nLForks \u00E2\u0080\u00A2'raiU\n\\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 l^Gray Cr.\nNelson-! Cranbrookj\n\ \Creston ^ .. \u00C2\u00ABJL. \u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 ' '\nDuncan^\n^\n>\nVictoria\nU\nA.\nGeo. Br. Dept. Lands & Forests"@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1950_V01_13_J1_J47"@en . "10.14288/1.0340715"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Victoria, BC : Government Printer"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia"@en . "Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Ninth Annual Report Purusant to Sections 36 of the \"Motor Carrier Act\" Licence-year 1948-49"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .