1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Road Transport Activities
Page 81
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN PARLIAMENT
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
TRANSPORT BILL SECOND, READING.
THE London Passenger Transport Board Bill was formally read a second time last Monday and sent to a select committee. In spite of the large number of petitions against the Bill no objection was taken to the second reading, and therefore no debate on principles can now take place.
The next appearance of the Bill Will be at the inquiry by a Select Committee before whom counsel for petitioners will state their objections.
OPPONENTS OF LONDON TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
THE following is the list of 78 petitioners praying to he heard against ihe London Passenger Transport Board Bill:— Cons ty Councils. — London, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Kent, Middlesex. tetropolitan and liorough Councils.—Westminster City Council rind the Kensineon and other Metropolitan Borough Councils, -Paddington. St. Marylebone. Stepney, Holborn. Finsbury.
.Corporatlens.—London, Richmond, Barnes,' Barking. Brentford and Chiswick, Dartford, EllnibloY, Hendon, Heston and Isloworth, Ilford, Kingston-upun-Thames, Walthamstow, den, Gravesend. Twickenham, Acton, Hornsey, Layton, Willesden, East Ham, West Ham, Bromley, Croydon, Ealing, Guildford, Southgate,, Watford, Wood Green.
Urban District Councils—Walton and Weybridge, Banstead and Caterliam and Wailingham, Beddington and Wallington, Carshalton, Crayford, Couisdon and Pnrley, Epsom, Ern, Kingsbury, Mitcham, Surbiton, lihitton and Chearo, Tottenlaatn, Wealdstono. Wenaldey, Southall-Norwood, Esher, Priem Barnet, Teddington, .Bexley. Dagenham and Roullord, Edmonton, Enfield, Harrow-nn.the-Hill, Hendon, Maidens and ceemne, Beckenham, 'Uxbridge, Haves and Harlington.
Companies, Associations and Owners of Property.—Grand 'Union Canal Co., Trust of the British Museum, Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England. Lessees and °enviers of property in Bedford Square, Automobile Association and Roval Automobile Club, Duke of Bedford, E.G., Metropolitan Water Board, West Kent Mein Sewerage Board, Duke of Westminster and othor owners of property i5 London, North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Co.
GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION.
A BOUT five-sixths of the opposition .C-Xis directed to the question as to whether the Minister of Transport should be given power to override the objections of local authorities to trolley vehicle routes in their districts.
POWERS OF MINISTER.
OBJECTION is taken to the proposed powers enabling the Minister of Transport to authorize additional trolley vehicle routes, and it is submitted that any such additional routes should not be sanctioned except upon an application by the Board to Parliament, and even should the power to make Provisional Orders be. granted to the Minister under Clause 6, the power shoull be limited to the suburban portions of the London Passenger Transport Area and should not apply to the
authorized making of Provisional Orders to bring trolley vehicles into the central and more congested parts of the area, The Minister should also be directed to consider whether the granting of an application by the Board for a Pro-. visional Order is expedient in the interests of safety and convenience to cther users of road vehicles.
THE MINISTER'S BILL.
%J1TH regard to the Bill which the
Ministerof Transport intends to bring forward for the amendment of certain provisions in the Road Traffic Act and other purposes confiected with the prevention of road accidents, we understand that the proposals are in a fluid state and that there is no likelihood of the measure being introduced until after Easter.
LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.
THE Minister of Transport states that the present position in regard to the construction of the Lower Thames Tunnel is that the Parliamentary powers conferred upon the county councils of Essex and Kent. for the construction of this tunnel have some six years to run, and measures have been taken to safeguard the line of the tunnel and its approaches. Various aspects of the matter were discussed between representatives of the two county councils and himself at a conference in December.
AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
Ail R. STANLEY said the approxiIVLinate cost of supplying and erecting light signals actuated by vehicles at ordinary cross-roads was £550. and the annual cost of maintaining these signals about £60, He did not agree with the suggeation of Mr. Surnmersby that signals of this type often caused material delay to vehicles where there was no cross traffic.
WEAK BRIDGES.
Obeing asked what the policy of 1.-1 his department was with regard to weak bridges, Mr. Stanley said he attached great importance to the elimination of weak and dangerous bridges, and was disappointed at the slow progress hitherto made despite the assistance offered from the Road Fund.
PROSECUTIONS FOR TRAFFIC NOISE.
ON a request for a statement as to the number of prosecutions during 1933 with regard to noisy road vehicles and as to any proposed new orders to abate the nuisance, Sir John Gilmour stated that the preliminary figures showed that during 1933 in England and Wales 9,653 noise offences of all classes in connection' with motor vehicles were dealt with by prosecution. The Minister of Transport had already consulted him on the matter, and was, he understood, taking it up with the manufacturers.
MENAI SUSPENSION BRIDGE.
IT is officially stated that until March 31, 1926, the revenue derived from the lease of the Menai Bridge tolls only slightly exceeded the disbursements. The sums realized by the direct collection of tolls after that date and the annual expenditure (including the cost of collection of tolls) were as follows:—
Owing to the age and character of the structure and the ultimate liability for substantial renewals or reconstruction, a reserve fund is being accumulated.
CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AT GRAVESEND AERODROME.
S, PHILIP PHILIP SASSOON informed Alhery that facilities for Customs clearance of aeroplane traffic were now available at 16 aerodromes in the United Kingdom, although at six of these they were confined to the clearance of passengers and their baggage. Gravesend aerodrome had been added to the list for both passengers and goods.
PROSECUTIONS OF COMMERCIALMOTOR DRIVERS.
IUTR. PARKINSON asked the Home 1V/Secretary to state how many of the prosecutions taken, in the last year for which statistics were available, against the drivers of motor vehicles for excessive speed were proceedings against the drivers of commercial-motor vehicles.
Sir John Gilmour replied :—" The latest figures available are those for 1932. During that year, out of a total of 32,953 prosecutions for exceeding a speed limit, 26,145 were in respect of goods vehicles."