AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Co-ordination v. Protection

12th June 1936, Page 62
12th June 1936
Page 62
Page 62, 12th June 1936 — Co-ordination v. Protection
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

AN interesting aspect of protection was under discussion before the North-Western Traffic Commissioners, when Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., sought to run a new service in Preston. There was opposition by Preston Corporation, on behalf of which an application for " consent " for the route has been lodged.

Mr. E. S. Herbert, for the Ribble concern, mentioned that the Preston arrangement was that the company ran various services from the centre of Preston to places' beyond the boundaries, and gave complete protection over the corporation services and for a quarter of a mile beyond the termini. The same condition would apply in the proposed new service.

A petition had been presented from the Fulwood area to the corporation for a service. The applicant company considered this district to be its own ground, and not until the " Ribble " had made its application did the corporation reverse the decision on the petition and decided to apply. . Mr. H. Bottomley, of the Ribble company, in evidence, showed that one result of the form of protection accorded to the corporation was that the outside areas obtained a limitedstop service over part of the route.

Cross-examined by Mr. H. E. Nutter (town clerk of Preston), Mr. Bottomley admitted that the new service would abstract traffic which now used the municipal trams. On the other hand, if the corporation served the new area, Ribble traffic would be abstracted.

The chairman, Mr. W. Chamberlain, pointed out that the new service of either party would require protection from the other. That protection would prevent picking up or setting down in specified areas and would impose hardships on the travelling public. The right thing seemed to be a co-ordinated service run jointly by the Ribble concern and the corporation.

Decisions were deferred in order that the company and the corporation might confer on a scheme for a joint service.


comments powered by Disqus