Shall Motorbuses Pay for the Roads?
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Special Report of the Conference of Local Authorities at Richmond last Week.
conference of local authorities in the western area of Greater London was held at Richmond Town Hall on Thursday, lieptember 19th, to consider what steps should be taken with regard to the increasing motorbus and heavy motorcar traffic over the highways under their control. The view of the local authorities is, of course, that they (the authorities) ehould receive some contribution from this " extra-ordinary traffic" to meet the increased cost of the upkeep of the roads. The Mayor of Richmond (Aid. R. Simpson) presided, and other councils represented were : Acton U.D.C.; Barnes U.D.C.; Brentford U.D.C. ; Chiswick U.D.C.; Croydon Boro. Cel. ; Ealing Boro. Cel. ; East and West Molesey U.D.C.; Esher and Thames Ditton U.D.C.; Hampton U.D.C. ; Ham U.D.C. ; Hampton Wick U.D.C,; Hanwell U.D.C.; Heston and Isleworth U.D.C.; Kingston Bore. Ccl. ; Malden and Coombe U.D.C.; Middx. C.C. ; Richmond Boro. Ccl.; Surrey C.C. ; Surbiton U.D.C. ; Teddington U.D.C. ; Twickenham U.D.C.; -Wimbledon U.D.C. ; and 'Willesden U.D.C. There were present in all 115 delegates and officers.
The Mayor (Aid. Simpson) in detailing the inception of the conference said the local roads were not of the order to take heavy motor traffic, and they found that when the motor. buses came they were costing the borough a considerable amount in repairing; roads. During the past twelve months, he believed something like a id. rate had been expended beyond their estimates, in addition to which they were going to the expense of 220,000 in woodpaving one road alone. At the same time the other roads were being damaged. As other authorities were equally injured they had decided to hold this conference. Apart from the state of the roads, residents had complained of injury to health, and damage to property, through the motorbuses. What they had to discuss he would put under three headings of wants : (1) They wanted an equitable share of the petrol tax or, in the alternative, power to license for local or highway purposes these heavy motorbuses: (2) Power to regulate the speed of motorbuses: (3) Power to say what streets should be allowed for buses to run in. He further pointed out that last Sunday there passed one particular point in the borough 1646 motor vehicles. cf which 919 were motorbuses : that showed " extra-ordinary traffic."
Ald. Edgar (Richmond Town Council) moved that the conference was of the opinion that those who conduct heavy motor traffic should he required to contribute substantially towards defrayingthe increase in the annual cost of road maintenance. Whatever they might think about speed, or weight, or the use of the vehicles on suitable roads, the consideration which forced itself upon their minds most strongly, was that the advent of the motorbus. while affording valuable facilities to people wishing to travel from place to place and while of great convenience, had enormously increased the cost of the maintenance of the roads.
Pinkham (Middlesex County Council), in seconding the resolution. said they had to recognize that the motorbuses were supplying a long-felt want; they must not stultify the work they did, but rather inquire whether the pare) tax came through the proper channels and to those places for which it was originally intended. Mr. Danes (Heston-leleworth U.D.C.) moved an amendment. asking that there should be a more equitable distribution ci the petrol tax, so that those localities which suffered most should receive. most. He would also be in favour of local anthoritiss having power to license the buses, and demand a contributory lieence. He hoped the conference would not pass a resolution which would handicap omnibus companies so that they would cease to run in certain parts. Councillor Hales (Heston-Mewoeth) seconded the amendment.
Mr. H. Neil& M.P. (Ealing). thought they ought to get their respective representatives in the House of Commons to see that there was an equitable distribution of the petrol tax ; and that localities should have power to license.
Councillor J. J. Bisgood (Richmond) urged that the net profit earned by each motorbus was £540, on a capital outlay which did not exceed 2400. They were entitled to seek to get front those profits even as much as three-sevenths of a penny per mile towards the cost of the roads.
Mr. Brillun (Hampton Wick) thought the petrol tax should be abolished altogether and that motorbus companies should pay is mileage rate to local authorities. The original motion was carried.
Mr. H. J. Saunders (Clerk to Twickenham U.D.C.) moved the second resolution, which expressed the opinion that the Government should be asked to introduce a provisO in next year's Finance Act to the effect that in the future the proceeds of the petrol tax or any other tax or charge levied on or in connection with heavy vehicles mechanically propelled, less a proportion for administration, should be paid to the local authorities on whose roads the vehicles run, in proportion to the use made of the roads by such vehicles. This was seconded by Ald. Minnett of Kingston and was agreed to. The Town Clerk of Surbiton moved a resolution expressing the view that having regard to increased cost of road maintenance, the risk of serious accidents, the detriment to property, and the loss and inconvenience to tradesmen and others arising from the use of motorbuses and heavy motorcars on highways in districts surrounding the metropolis (and other large trade centres) which in the judgment of the local authority are unsuited for traffic of this description, that requisite powers should be conferred upon the local authorities to limit and define the routes to be taken.
The Clerk to Teddington U.D.C. suggested the appointment of a central authority tor defining the routes. Mr. Cooper (Wimbledon) wished to know if it was fair for a local authority owning a tramway undertaking to state what routes motorbuses should travel?
Mr. Steele Sheldon (Clerk to Wimbledon T.C.) thought it a rather strong reeolution, and he criticised the inclusion of heavy motor vehicles, which, he said, would affect local tradesmen who used those means of carrying.
It was agreed to delete the reference to heavy motor vehicles,
Alderman Bisgood then moved that the conference was of the opinion that the weight on each wheel and the speed of heavy motor vehicles was excessive, and should be subjected to stringent restrictions, and particularly the width, diameter,. and surface of the wheels ; and that the time had come for the Commissioner of the Police, and other licensing authorities, to assist the expreseed desire 474 the directors of the omnibus and carrying companies to keep within the legal speed limit of 12 m.p.h., by refusing to license any vehicle for the carriage of passengers or goods, unless such vehicle be 60 mechanically geared as to render it physically impossible for the driver to exceed that speed.
An Acton delegate considered it ridiculous that there should be the notice limiting the speed to 12 m.p.h., while the vehicle was capable of travelling much faster. The mover of the resolution stated that whereas the pressure weight on the road of each rear wheel was 2i tons when the motorbus was standing, tit increased when travelling at 5 m.p.h. to 3 tons, when travelling 10 m.p.h. to ill tons, and at 15 m.p.h. to 7 tans. Roads to resist that would have to have a 22 in. bed of concrete and other material.
The resolution was carried, and it was agreed to select a eonunittee from the local authorities interested.
The resolutions, it was also agreed, should be forwarded to the proper quarters.