AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

SWANSEA BUS BILL REJECTED

24th May 1935, Page 61
24th May 1935
Page 61
Page 61, 24th May 1935 — SWANSEA BUS BILL REJECTED
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?

THE Bill promoted in Parliament by the South Wales Transport Co., Ltd., seeking power to substitute bus services for the Swansea tramways, has been rejected by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. For one of the objectors it was submitted that the passing of the Bill would enable the Traffic Commissioners to give the company a complete monopoly.

The Select Committee was satisfied that, in the public interest, transport arrangements in Swansea should be brought up to date, but it was not entirely satisfied that the Bill, as presented, was the proper one.

An offer of an adjournment until July to give the interested parties an opportunity of framing, an agreed Pill was rejected by Swansea Corporation's representative. The Bill. was, therefore, thrown out, with the exception of the clauses dealing with the continuance of a temporary increase in fares.

COMMISSIONERS' CHECK ON . CORPORATION'S CHECK.

rlIECKS stated to have been taken by Bradford Corporation on the number of passengers carried by the West Yorkshire Road Car Co., Ltd., . were mentioned to the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners, at Scarborough, on Monday. The corporation objected to the company's application to increase the frequency of its BradfordKeighley service and contended that the speeding up was unnecessary.

Mr. C. R. Tattam, Bradford's transport manager, said that the checks taken by the corporation showed that the average number of passengers carried was 12 in one direction and 13 in the other. His figures were considerably lower than those of the West Yorkshire company.

Sir John Maxwell, who presided, asked Mr. Tattam whether his men boarded the double-deck buses to count the passengers.

Mr. Tattam: "No. I understand that they counted the passengers at the bus stopping places."

Sir John Maxwell: " I do not think that the check is worth the paper it is written on."

The Commissioners reserved their decision.

MERSEY TUNNEL SERVICES: REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT.

AJOINT application by Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle and Wallasey Corporations is being made to the North-Western Traffic Commissioners as to the outcome of a meeting in Liverpool, on Monday. It requests that all local applications for licences for services through the Mersey Tunnel be postponed until there has been further consideration of 'the matter by the municipalities concerned. If the Commissioners do not accede to this request, it is suggested that each corporation should oppose private operators' applications.


comments powered by Disqus