FURTHER RISES IN I.F.S. BUS TRAFFIC
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE February statistics of busservice operation in the Irish Free State show that, for the first time in the Past 18 months, an increase in the Volume of cross-border traffic was ex. perienced, as compared with February, 1934. This increase and the rise in traffic on wholly, internal services (which was well maintained during February) was obtained although the vehicle-mileage was appreciably lower than in February, 1934. During February last, 2,133,000 busmiles were run and 6,704,000 passengers carried on internal services, as compared with 2,244,000 bus-miles and. 6,496,000 passengers in the same month last year. The gross receipts amounted to .£77,256, an.,increase of 43,337 on the total for February, 1934.
Buses on the, cross-border services travelled 113,000 miles, carrying 134,000 passengers and yielding £3,784 in fares, as compared with_ 119,000 vehicle-miles, 129,000 passengers and £3,740 receipts last year. During the first two months of the present year, buses on internal services covered 4,512,000 vehicle-miles, or 138,000 fewer than during the corresponding two months of last year. The number of passengers carried increased from 13,765,000, last year, to
14,121,000, this year, whilst receipts similarly increased by £6,720 to £164,159.
In the first two months of 1935, 239,000 vehicle-miles were run by cross-border buses, as compared. with 252,000 vehicle-miles during the same period last year. • The number of passengers carried rose from 275,000 to 280.000 and the aggregate receipts from £8,010 to £8,105.
IS LONDON TRANSPORT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY?
IS London Transport a public authority? This question was argued at Word County Court, a few days ago, when it was submitted for the Board that it was a public authority, under the Public Authorities Protection Act. It is referred to as a public authority in the first section of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
For the plaintiff, it was argued that the Public Authorities Protection Act referred to organizations which did not trade for profit. Judgment was reserved.