AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Protective-Fares Case Deferred

18th July 1952, Page 40
18th July 1952
Page 40
Page 40, 18th July 1952 — Protective-Fares Case Deferred
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?

THEsuggestion made recently that Glasgow Transport Department might seek to eliminate the Id. tram fare was responsible for consideration being deferred, last week, by the Scottish Licensing Authority of an application by the Western S.M.T. Co., Ltd., for the co-ordination of fares with those charged on the trams.

The application affected a number of routes. There were certain Id. fares on the trams, as opposed to the lid. minimum charged by his company, said Mr. S. Mennie of Western S.M.T. The id. differential was a war-time measure introduced to conserve fuel by diverting short-distance travellers to trams from buses. Since early this year, when the id. tram fare was re-introduced on the trams, the company had offered a lid, fare for single-stage journeys. The differential had resulted in a loss of revenue to the company over the period in question.

The Authority said that although no final decision had yet been reached by Glasgow Corporation, it was common knowledge that it was contemplating an application to raise fares. Because of that, it would be desirable to defer consideration of the application until the corporation's attitude on the question was decided.

Darlington Corporation has also discussed the question of protective fares, • in this case, with the United Automobile Services, Ltd. The company suggested that there should be parity' of fares on one route, but the corporation proposes that U.A.S. should charge a protective fare of id. Representations to this effect are to be made to the Northern Licensing Authority.


comments powered by Disqus