NORTHERN CORPORATIONS STRIVE FOR TRANSPORT PROTECTION
Page 59
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Higher Fares Asked For Commercial Services Operating in Statutory Areas TnEsitting of the Northern Traffic Commissioners, under the chairmanship of Mr. Henry Riches, a few days ago at Newcastle, was mainly concerned with an application made by Middlesbrough Corporation, in conjunction with other local corporations, for the protection of municipal transport undertakings against the competition of commercial operators of public-service vehicles. At the outset the chairman explained that the various representatives must confine themselves to the Question of protection of tramcar and trolley-bus routes within the areas of the respective authorities, and on routes, now served
by motorbuses, on which sanction to lay tramway tracks had already been obtained from Parliament.
Opening the case on behalf of Newcastle, Darlington, South Shields, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Stockton and West Hartlepool, Mr. A. M. Oliver, town clerk of Newcastle, contended that a reasonably efficient tram service, established at high cost, for the benefit of people in outlying districts as well
rgthese residing in the area of the authority concerned, had a right to expect some degree . of Protection; the alternative would be higher rates. The joint application of the authorities mentioned above; therefore, was that no person should be picked up and set down by a pubiic4ervice vehicle, other than owned by the local authority, within the area in which that authority. had statutory power to operate services, unless the -minimum fare was in excess of the maximum fare charged by the local authority.
On hearing the lines of the protection applied 'fat:, the chairman said "You have cast-your net very wide." It was explained. that • Newcastle Corporation did not seek any special protection for long-distance motorbus routes. A service to Seaton Slnice was run . by arrangement with the railway conany and the corporation' did;not wish in any way to injure its relationship with the
railway company.
On behalf of Darlington Corporation, it was pointed out that that authority had itself been granting protection to private operators, such protection in many instances having become almost limited monopolies, and it was considered fair on this ground that the Commissioners should similarly extend protection to the municipal undertaking. Mr. E. D. Clark, deputy town clerk of Darlington, after explaining this point, went on to contend that, under thil Road Traffic Act, 1930, Parliament had not given definite instructions to Traffic Commissioners to take away municipal protection which bad formerly existed or to make the municipal position worse.
Middlesbrough Corporation asked, in addition to its services in the borough area, protection for the route between Stockton and Middlesbrough, on which the service was a joint one, also for protection on the routes to Marton. A decision in this matter of protection was not given at the time..