THE RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Difficulties that have to be Faced by the Tramways and the Increase Thereof under Railway Competition.
WHEN the Joint Select Committee resumed its sitting last week Mr. T. Cooper, K.C., opened the case fol. the Scottish Burghs petitioning against the Road Transport Bills. He submitted that the centre of interest in municipal transport matters in Scotland was the up-to-date electric tramway system. The omnibus was not bolstering up the tramways, but the tramcar in many cases was carrying the omnibus on its back. Glasgow had a tramway route mileage of 89 miles in the city and 47 outside and was the longest in the country outside the Metropolitan area. He mentioneo that it was possible to travel 23 miles on the Glasgow tramways for 2d.
With regard to competition, whilst in English provincial towns tile licences were numbered in tens, in Glasgow the competing omnibus proprietors were to be numbered in hundreds, and prosecutions for infringing licence regulations in Glasgow had reached the figure of 1,019. This competition had grown during the past few years. In asking for protection from competition by the railways, the burghs were not only actuated by the instinct of self-preservation but claimed that they should be permitted to continue serving the public by operating services which were unremunerative as well as those which were remunerative. The railway companies were not prepared to undertake such services.
Mr. Pitcher's Evidence.
Mr. •R. S. Pilcher, general manager of the Edinburgh Corporation transport system, handed in a table showing that the capital invested in Scottish municipal omnibuses, subway and tramway undertakings was £11,995,000. In 1926-27 the total revenue was £3,899,000 and the balance of revenue over expenditure £586,000. The mileage tam was 54,336,000 and the number of passengers 670,453,000. He stated that the Scottish corporations were at present running services which did not nay, in the interests of development schemes and public convenience. Intensive competition by the railway companies would result in those services being stopped.
In cross-examination by Mr. Graham Robertson, K.C., for the promoters, witness expressed the belief that the Scottish local authorities were not opposed to the railway companies operating motor omnibuses if the municipally owned systems were not injuriously affected and were properly protected. He considered that in the public interest a monopoly under proper control would be the future solution of the transport problem. It already existed in America, in 13erlin and In London so far as there was a restricted service of omnibuses.
Mr. Graham Robertson suggested that that was control and not monopoly. The witness replied that a monopoly might be in the hands of a group. If subject to publrc control he, thought it was a good thing. In further reply he admitted that the action of the Glasgow and Edinburgh corporations in fixing a maximum tramway fare of 2d. had had the effect of sending a number of private omnibus companies into liquidation.
Mr. J. L. Mackenzie, assistant town clerk of Glasgow, agreed in the course of his cross-examination by Mr. Macmillan, K.C., that the corporation had ordered 100 omnibuses as the result of the increasing competition of omnibuses in Glasgow.
Mr. Macmillan asked why he objected to the railways meeting omnibus competition in the same way.
Witness: Apart from our own undertaking I have no objection at all.
Mr. Macmillan: If you were not there already you would not object to the principle of the railway companies running omnibuses? Witness: Not at all.
Mr. Macmillan asked if it was suggested that if the railway companies got the powers sought they would compete with the ordinary tramway services of the city of Glasgow. Witness replied that it had been suggested.
Mr. Macmillan remarked that the railway companies would not be so foolish as to embark on an enterprise which could not succeed.
Tramways and Light Railways Association.
Mr. Craig Henderson; K.C., submitted the case of the Tramways and Light Railways Association in opposition to the Bills. He referred to the chaos and lack of regulation in road transport. The law had fallen behind the needs of the time in this respect, yet the Committee was being asked to pass Bills which would enable the powerful railway companies to put on the roads unrestricted as many omnibuses as they pleased and intensify the existing evil. He pointed out that the British railway companies were behind those of other countries in regard to the electrification of their systems end instead of improving the traffic for which they were created and coping with modern conditions they were asking to be let loose on a branch of traffic which was not theirs at all and was not even incidental to their undertakings.
He submitted that in the event of the Committee passing the Bills his clients were entitled to protection by a clause prohibiting the railway companies from competing with any service of tramways which in the opinion of the Minister of Transport was adequate and satisfactory.
Mr. J. H. Thorpe, appearing for the West Monmouthshire Omnibus Board, submitted that a large part of the service given by. the Board was in carrying colliers from one valley to another. The services had not taken passengers from the railways, but had actually been feeders to the railways.
" London Road Traffic.
Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C., opened the case for the passenger road traffic interests in the London area.
The Chairman (Lord Chelmsford) asked if the position of the London petitioners was not different from that of other opponents inasmuch as they had the protection of the London Traffic Act.
Counsel said he could show that the Act was no protection whatsoever. The London Traffic Advisory Committee had found the provisions of the Act so inadequate that they had been driven to formulate a scheme for the co-ordination of passenger traffic.
Lord Darling suggested that if a railway company desired to rim omnibuses on a particular route the Minister of Transport could say that there were so many omnibuses already licensed for that route that no more could be permitted.
Counsel said it might be claimed by the railway company that statutory powers would not have been granted unless a public ease had been made out for the exercise of them and the Minister of Transport might accept the contention. The railway companies would be in a position to claim a right to operate a proportion of the omnibus journeys on restricted routes and that could only be done by displacing some of the omnibuses already running. It was not suggested that the L.C.C. or the L.G.O.C. were not serving the public properly and the promoters had not shown that they would serve the public any better.
Lord Russell asked if other omnibuses could not come upon the London streets without an Act of Parliament. Counsel said they could come but not with statutory powers. If these Bills were passed it would be inferred that it was in the public interest that the railway companies should put omnibuses on the streets. Competition was not prevented by the London :Traffic Act, which only limited the number of omnibus routes in restricted streets. The Act was insufficient to deal with the co-ordination of transport.
L.G.O.C. Services.
Mr. Prank Pick, managing director of the London. Underground Railways Group, was then called as a witness and examined by Mr. Tyldesley Jones, K.C. He submitted a statement which Showed that the L.G.O.C. and associated cencerns operated 5,226 omnibuses over routes totalling 1,691 road-miles. The car-mileage run last year was 195;734,163 miles and the number of passengers was 1,698,940,235. .111 1927 30 per cent. of the routes yielded only running costs plus depreciation, and as the passengers carried on those routes numbered 190,000,000, they carried 11 Per cent, of their passengers without profit. He mentioned that there were 483 journeys per head of the population in the London area last year compared with 309 in 1913.
Protracted Sittings.
At last Wednesday's sitting of the committee the chairman expressed feafs lest their deliberations might not be finished by July 12th, which, assuming that the preambles were proved, was the date at which the Bills must be sent to the House of Commons. There were only 17 working days left at the present rate and there were still at least 11 parties to be heard, and it would be necessary for the committee to consider sitting an extra day each week.
Mr. Frank Pick, continuing his evidence, said he had no objection to the railway companies carrying passengers from one railway terminus to another in LondOn se long as they did not ply for hire. They had that power already. To grant the powers sought in the Bills would destroy the whole basis of the existing system in London. _
It was undesirable in view of the present traffic situation that a new competitor should be admitted if that were unnecessary. Each L.G.O.C. bus paid 1102 per annum to the Road Fund and the total contribution represented 48 per cent. of the total cost of the upkeep of the London highways. The group could notobtain the capital necessary for required tube extensions, such as had been suggested by the Minister of Transport in the north of London, unless they hadreasonable prospects of a return upon that capital. They could not afford to face the competition of an .omnibus concern whieh was not bound to run its Vehicles on an independent commercial basis, but ran them as a means of helping their railways. Remedy in Co-ordination.
Cross-examined by •Mr. IL P. Macmillan, 'K.C., for the promoters, witness admitted that omnibus competition with railways had become serious and the railways in hisown group had suffered from it. The only remedy was a scheme of co-ordination such as had been suggested by the London Traffic Advisory Committee. His group as a result of co-ordination worked the tubes and omnibuses as a unit with certain tramways operating alongside them. They had unified interests and a common financial scheme. There was no other way of providing a stable financial basis on which to cater adequately for the homogeneous class of traffic found in London. It was a system of mutual assistance.
What he would like to see would be a co-ordination Scheme to stabilize tile whole of London traffic, with a common fund and common management. Whilst he was prepared to include the railways in such a scheme he was opposed to giving them road powers. There , was no public case for such powers.
The railways should devote themselves to longdistance traffic to make up for the loss which they said they had suffered in short-distance traffic. The railway companies had refused to come into the cor ordination scheme at first, and it was only when the scheme was settled that they expressed a • desire to be included.
There would be no difficulty in readjusting the scheme to the needs ofthe main-line suburban traffic. They should not mix up road and railway undertakings throughout the country, as the two interests were wide apart.
• L.C.C. Opposition.
Mr. B. E. Charteris, K.C., presented the opposition
of the and certain municipal councils and corporations owning tramway systems. He said that the Bills would disturb', if not wholly upset, the proposed co-ordination scheme.
Alderman Chas. Matthews, chairman of the Highways Committee of the L.C.C., said in evidence that some years ago the Council had sought limited -powers to run buses to link up certain tramway termini, but these powers were refused. He was strongly opposed to any other party having Parliamentary powers to do things for private gain which the L.C.C. had been refused powers to do in the public interest. There were already more buses in London streets than were necessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Graham Robertson, K.C., witness said the L.C.C. had no objection to the railway companies coming into the proposed co-ordination scheme.
The committee adjourned.