AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE ESTON BUS INQUIRY.

23rd November 1926
Page 58
Page 58, 23rd November 1926 — THE ESTON BUS INQUIRY.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Outstanding Features of a Controversy Between a Bus-operating Company and a Municipal Authority as Revealed at a Recent Inquiry Conducted by the Ministry of Transport.

TEE causes of dissension between the Raton Urban District Council and the United Automobile Services, Ltd., with reference to licensing questions in the Eaten district, which have been dealt with in recent issues of The Commercial Motor, were investigated by Mr. R. H. Tolerton, on November 16th, at a Ministry of Transport inquiry held at Eaton.

• Mr. Geoffrey Bracey appeared for the company and, in his opening statement, said that the trouble had arisen with respect to facilities allowed to the company for picking up passengers on the system worked by the Teesside Railless Traction Board. This undertaking, he told the inspector, was jointly owned by the Eston Urban District Council dnd the Middlesbrough Corporation. The former, which had the power to issue licences to his clients, had a two-thirds interest in the undertaking, and the Middlesbrough authority had a one-third interest. The

c36 United Automobile Services, Ltd., first began to run a service of motorbuses between Middlesbrough and Redcar in 1920, the route being via Eston. At that time the company applied for the necessary licenees, which were granted without any conditions being imposed on them.

When application was made for the renewal of the licences in September, 1922, the Eaton Council stipulated that they would be issued only on condition that the " United " vehicles did not take up passengers along the routes served by the trolley-buses operated by the Teesside Railless Traction Board, and stated that' any breach of this condition would render the licences liable _ to be discontinued.

• This condition was observed by the company for the next two years, but there was a development in 1924, when the Teesside Railless Traction Board took delivery of a petrol bus and commenced a service to Eston. This

action the United Automobile Services, Ltd.. looked upon as an attack upon it, and 'the company were the more surprised at the development in view of the' fact that no complaints had been received, which suggested that the ex isting services were inefficient ' or insufficient for the needs of the district. In effect, the action of the council was

to ask for protection on the one hand and to attack the company on the other —an anomalous situation of, a most unsatisfactory nature and conducive -to fut■ther strife.

Upon this service being inaugurated the company withdrew' the protection it had given, and, in September, 1926, when it again made application for re newal of licences, these were declined by the Eaton Council. The sequel was a prosecution, in which the company was fined 10s. in each of' two charges.

Concluding his statement, Mr. Bracey contended that, either consciously or unconsciously, the Estoi) authority had -permitted itself to take into account the fact that it was the largest share holder in the Teesside Railless Treedon Board when it had the licensing matter under consideration.

Submitting the case for the Eston , Council. Mr. T. Belk (clerk to the council) repudiated this suggestion, and

stated emPhatically that the council had

nothing to do with the management of the Board. The council had not a pre ponderance of interest on the Board, and the question which arose in this case was not concerned with its posi

tion, but was purely one as to the

council's duty as a licensing authority. Mr. Belk said that the council's attitude was not due to anrthing else but a desire to prevent acute congestion on narrow roads. The road from North Ormesby to South Bank, along which the service under review passed, had been the sit ene of a large number of accidents and was very dangerous, particularly as there are several schools in the vicinity.

The council considered it essential that some effective control of traffic

should be devise-d. It had, in addition to refusing licences to the United Automobile Services, Ltd„ refused a number of applications from other owners for the same reason. He submitted that'

there was no reason why the company should not be satisfied with the through traffic between Redcar and Middlesbrough, and stated that the facilities provided by the Board were sufficient for the local transport needs of the people residing along the route:– It was said that there was no desire on the council's part to hurt the company in any way, but the road was

narrow and, at times, congestion was

acute, with the result that it was necessary to take steps to safeguard the

public. 'In conclusion, Mr. Belk stated

that he was there only to make clear the fairness of the condition which

had been imposed by the council. The inspector did not call any witnesses, and after the hearing had ended met representatives of the two parties in private.


comments powered by Disqus