Public Control of Passenger Transport T HE paper prepared by Dr.
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
K. G. Fenelon, M.A., deals with the control of passenger transport outside London. He refers to the question of the principles underlying the Act which resulted in the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board being applied to the Provinces.
Growing interest is being shown in proposals for the amalgamation or joint working of municipal-transport undertakings, but the results of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, have focused attention on this problem.
The term "public control" may be interpreted to include: (1) public regulation ; (2) public ownership ; (3) public operation of passenger transport. Ownership and operation are not necessarily the same. A large body might lease out its undertaking to be worked by a company, but, in general, local authorities operate those which they own. Recently, however, a few, e.g., York and Keighley have, in effect, handed over their transport to be worked by companies.
It is almost universally agreed that some degree of public regulation of transport is necessary in the interests of the user and of public safety.
In the past, regulation of transport has laid stress on
hat the undertakers may not .do, in the form of legislation against possible evils. This is largely negative, but, recently. has become more positive under the Acts of 1921, 1930 and 1933.
The Road Traffic Act, 1930, constituted a most important development in the regulation of passenger transport. It inaugurated a new era with much more State control, and in eliminating the old licensing system brought the control of public passenger services under Traffic Commissioners with wide discretionary powers. The danger of Governffiental regula Lion is that it may be overdone, n30 but the alternative seems to have been largely uncontrolled monopoly.
The rapid development of road transport completely altered the condition of the country. The motorbus is a far more flexible instrument than the tram, able to serve extensive areas without regard to administrative or other artificial boundaries. 'Municipal undertakings and company-owned tramways were not allowed, to operate buses in substitution for tramways without the permission of Parliament. Certain municipal authorities had powers to operate outside their administrative areas, but most had no such powers. Faced with severe bus competition, many undertakings operating trams, trolleybuses or motorbuses in substitution for trams, and bearing the outstanding debt, sought protection for their services, and, in some cases, this was granted.
Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, similar protection has been granted by the Commissioners and upheld on appeal. The Act has largely altered the position of municipal transport and facilitated the amalgamation of municipal undertakings. The large road combines cover enormous areas of country. .Passengers an travel long distances 'without change of vehicle, so that they may tend to squeeze municipal undertakings, working in isolation, out of business unless the municipalities meet combination with combination and co-operation with co-operation.
At present there are 137 municipal-transport undertakings, representing about £95,000.000 in capital. Of this, about £83,000,000 is for tramways, but they Own only 12.15 per cent. of the total, although operating 22.46 per Cent. of the passenger journeys in -1932.
If it be desired to establish Passenger Transport Boards
En the Provinces, the:principles adopted in the Trust Ports might be followed and prove a useful guide. Since 1980 there has been a tendency to consider proposals for fusion. On April. 1, 1933, a joint committee was set up for the Burnley, Nelson and Colne undertakings. A committee was established in preference to a Board, as the latter would have required a local Act, and the authorities would not commit themselves irrevocably, to a scheme which must be of an experimental nature.
Quite another type is exemplified by the formation of a joint company, by the Heighley undertaking and the West Yorkshire Road Car Co., Ltd., the corporation' having three representatives on the board and -the bus company four. The assets are contributed in equal parts and profits will be divided in the same proportion.
Different, again, is the agreement of April 1, 1.934, by York and West Yorkshire Road Car Co., Ltd., which provides that the city's transport 'shall be managed and operated by the company in conjunction with its other services for a period of 21 years, thereafter being subject to two years' notice.
Other examples of combination are betwaen municipal undertakings and outside operatorS, as between the municipalities of Hull, Sheffield and Leeds respectively and the railways, the services beyond the borough boundaries being controlled by joint committees.
Where a municipal system is isolated from others, a solution of the difficulties is to enter into agreement with one of the large road:transport companies for the taking over of the services.
The author then treats with problems of financial adjustment, and the suggested municipal-transport board for South East Lancashire and East Cheshire, involving a capital of £10,000,000 and a gross revenue exceeding £4,000,000.
If London's experiment be successful, it will probably tend to encourage similar Boards in the Provinces, but the difficultie% would be considerable ;, the problems are less urgent and the probable advantages not so great, whilst the large motorbus concerns are on the whole progressive and well managed.
There is a strong case for the, amalgamation of municipal transport in contiguous areas through forming joint boards or committees.