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 
10 Concession for Diversion
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
airman of the South-eastern Commissioners, Mr. H. J. I a Parish Council chairman at ast week that the people he could not expect special by having fares reduced on a 'alley Traction Co., Ltd., bus :re a diversion was made to ighbouring village.
■ mmissioners were hearing an
by the Padworth (Berks) uncil, through Bradfield Rural ouncil, for a reduction of 3d. tgle fare of Is. lid, for the .om Reading to Padworth.
Thames Valley Company, Mr. ibbon, in his opening remarks, that it was wrong for Bradfield be allowed to make the appliall. Last December, when the applied for a fares increase, the 3uncil had withdrawn earlier 1, although they must have t the time that the fare to was going up to is. 11d.
the Bradfield R.D.C., Mr. hamp, said that the council's I was withdrawn because they tiled that the company had a le structure of fares as a whole, was a serious anomaly in the dworth. Fare calculations were a mileage basis, and, therefore, ..oute from Reading diverted he village of Ufton Nervet, the higher to cover the increased om said that whilst Mr. Gibbon 3ng point, parish councils were, nstances, not aware of what was ; so far as bus services were connd the Commissioners allowed ig to proceed.
hairman of Padworth Parish Commander the Hon. Anthony louverie. said that the through n Reading to Ufton Nervet and were deliberately raised because route which served them was "No decent countryman is complain if his bus is diverted serve his neighbours, but surely very right to complain if he has r the diversion," he added.
:xamined by Mr. Gibbon, the der said he did not know liversion had been operat1948, or that the Thames Company were losing r mile on that route.
hom said it was no new t Ufton was being served terests of the public as a ich diversions were made all over the country in order to serve the maximum number of people, but it could not be suggested that fares should remain the same as they were between two points over' a shorter distaike.
The problem of services in rural areas was much in the forefront throughout the country, he commented, and unremunerafive services were only maintained because large companies were willing to do so. However, it was not possible for small undertakings to operate them, he observed.
Many rural services had to be subsidized, but he could not agree that on a section of a route—where there was a diversion — passengers should be subsidized still further and to a greater extent than people on the rest of the route. The Traffic Commissioners refused the application.