AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

E.Y.M.S. Renewal Fund Not Excessive

24th April 1959, Page 54
24th April 1959
Page 54
Page 54, 24th April 1959 — E.Y.M.S. Renewal Fund Not Excessive
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?

APPEALS by seven local authorities against the grant of higher fares by the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners to East Yorkshire Motor Services, Ltd., have been dismissed by the Minister of Transport. The main argument submitted by the appellants was that the special provisions made by the company, for replacing their fleet by an improved type of vehicle ought not to be charged against

present fare-paying passengers. The Minister has destroyed this argument.

He says the principles involved are similar to those which arose on appeals in 1954 and last year against increases in fares in South Wales. In the Minister's opinion, fares should be fixed to enable an operator to make reasonable provision for replacing or renewing his assets.

It is primarily for the operator to B20 decide what vehicles are required, and the actual method of providing for them is unimportant. The Minister agrees with Mr. A. N. C. Shelley, who heard the appeals, that E.Y.M.S. had not been extravagant in setting aside funds for renewals.

Answering the appellants' contention that the company had failed to obtain additional income from excursions and tours, express services and so on, the Minister says that fares on such services

are settled in conjunction with other companies in the area, and it would be neither practicable nor desirable for the E.Y.M.S. to increase their fares unilaterally.

The argument that the new return-fare scale does not encourage regular users to support the services is -answered by the statement that reduced return fares do not necessarily attract more traffic. If additional revenue is needed, concessionary fares must make an appropriate contribution.

The proposed return on capital was not, as the appellants contended, unreasonable, when account was taken of the low return earned over the previous three years, the Minister declares. The appellants were the local authorities of Beverley, Bridlington, Driffield, Haltemprice, Hornsea, Withernsea and Derwent.

Tags

People: N. C. Shelley

comments powered by Disqus