AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Geordie trial for Low Eel

24th July 1982, Page 12
24th July 1982
Page 12
Page 12, 24th July 1982 — Geordie trial for Low Eel
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?

PLANS by Robert 'Tinsel! Coaches (Tyneside) Ltd, trading as l Fell Coaches, to operate a bus service in competition with the T and Wear Metro (CM May 15, July 17) have been authorised fl trial period of a year by the Northern Traffic Commissioners.

Low Fell has applied for a licence to operate a service between Gateshead and Newcastle-on-Tyne, Monday to Saturday. They were opposed by Tyne and Wear PTE, Northern General Transport, United Automobile Services, OK Motor Service, Tyne and Wear County Council, and Durham County Council.

The objectors argued that the PTE had received financial support from Central Government in creating the Metro. The system not only catered for the needs of the residents of Low Fell but took account of the overall network into Newcastle from Co. Durham.

A grant would lead to abstraction of some £29,000 per annum which create a precedent, leading to further applications with the consequent possible destruction of the existing network.

In their decision the Commissioners said they accepted the theory that the existing network provided adequate capacity for Low Fell residents and they had inspected the Gateshead interchange and noted that the facilities were being used by young and old without undue difficulty, though they accepted that it was unsuitable for some in comparison with a direct f, ity.

They also noted that follov criticism about the spacinc, through buses, steps have b taken by the objectors to rest dule with better spacing fi July 11.

However the Commissic did not believe that a grant particular case necessal created a precedent. It had 11 been a principle of traffic col that each case should be de mined on its merits. Abstract could only be speculative could not in itself be regardec a sole reason for refusing an plication.

Low Fell was seeking to off( service without revenue supp to meet a need expressed la large number of people. lnde the local authority had so sympathy with the position the Low Fell residents but v unable to meet their needs financial reasons.

If a grant was made, local pi lic interest would be met but I wider public interest might s fer. If the application was fused the local public inten would not be met. The Comm sioners believed that public i. rest about the transport pol for Low Fell would continue ur the matter was settled by tr and error.


comments powered by Disqus