AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

New Plan to Raise London Fares

19th October 1951
Page 47
Page 47, 19th October 1951 — New Plan to Raise London Fares
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?

N'proposals to produce £41m. a year in addition to the extra £16.6m. a year sought by the British Transport Commission's draft passenger charges scheme were submitted, last week, to the Transport Tribunal. Sir Malcolm Trust ram Eve, K.C., for the Commission, said that it was proposed to raise £4m. extra from London Transport's passengers and £250,000 outside London.

Elfect of Wages Increases The new application had become necessary because awards of higher wages made since last June or now under negotiation would cost the Commission another £15m. -a year: The London Transport Executive would have, to find £3m: of this SLUM It was proposed not to depart from the minimum fare of 2d. in London, contained in the draft scheme, but to raise the next denomination to 3A. This would cover a two-mile journey. Three miles would cost 5c1., four mites 6d., five miles 8d., six miles 9d., seven miles 1 Id., eight miles Is., nine miles Is. 2d., and 10 miles Is. 3d. The fare for 50 miles would be raised by Is. to 6s. 3d. The maximum increase vvottld be 75 per cent., instead of 50 per cent. Early morning fares in London would also be changed.

Of the extra Ulm, which the Commission was now seeking, £10.9m. would come from London users and 15.7m. from railway passengers outside tile metropolis.

Sir Malcolm had said earlier that the 13.T,C. expected a cumulative deficit at the end of this year of £50m. Among the reasons for it was the delay in securing permission to raise charges. Charges schemes should, he declared. include provision for liquidating past losses and building up reserves, for which a sum not exceeding £25m. a year should be set aside. If this provision were not made, there would be frequent applications for higher charges.

Counsel described as " misleading nonsense" the suggestion that road teansport was cheaper than rail. Regard must be paid to the special public obligations of the railways.

Proceedings were resumed on Tuesday.


comments powered by Disqus