AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

TRAFFIC ACT ANOMALY.

21st October 1932
Page 61
Page 61, 21st October 1932 — TRAFFIC ACT ANOMALY.
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?

LAST Monday, Mr. A. T. V. Robinson

heard, at the Ministry of Transport, London, an appeal by Green Line Coaches, Ltd., against the refusal of the Eastern TrafficCommissioners to license the Welwyn-Ilitchin section of the company's Hitehin-Reigate service. The appeal was opposed by Birch Brothers, Ltd., Messrs, W. and G. Beaumont, Queen Line, Ltd., and the London and North Eastern Railway Co.

Doling the hearing; Mr. Robinson referred to the anomaly in the Road Traffic Act by which no provision was made in the case of a service Passing through two or more traffic areas being licensed only in part. In such circumstances, the operator could only appeal to the Minister of Transport, the Green Line case being of this class.

On behalf of Green Line Coaches, Ltd., it was statedthat the Metropoli

tan Traffic Commissioner had allowed the company to run hourly on that section of the route within his area, and had granted the licence after considering representations by opposing parties.

For Birch Brothers, Ltd., it wasmentioned that the company had been in. existence for nearly 150 years and that it had reached an agreement with Messrs. Beaumont whereby a co-ordinated hourly service was being operated. It was contended that there was no

need for the Green Line service. •

Tags

Organisations: Ministry of Transport
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus