THE MINISTRY AND THE INDEPENDENT BUS.
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Local Authorities Take a Hand in Protesting Against Restriction of Bus Services. Prosecutions of Owners who Maintained Operations.
THE decision of the Minister of Transport to take action, as he is empowered to do under the London Traffic Act, to conserve the tramway systems of London found its first expression in the adoption of the recommendation of the London Traffic Advisory Committee to restrict the omnibus services on the Uxbridge Road, ostensiblyfor the benefit of the London United Tramways Co., which has for many years operated a tramway service over that route, for a long time now without showing a profit.
Complication, of course, arises from the fact that this particular tramway system belongs to the Underground Combine, which also owns the London General Omnibus Co., so that, even if the L.G.O.C. buses are restricted, the money', instead of falling into one pocket, goes into another.
The Opinions of the Urban District Councils.
Local opinion is against the action of the Minister, and in order to protest against the removal of independent and, other buses from the routes in the locality a deputation 'representing the urban districts Of South all and Norwood, Heston and Isleworth, and Hayes recently waited on the Minister of Transport in order to urge an extension of the motor omnibus services from Southall to Hounslow, and to voice their objections to the restrictive • scheme. •
It was rather a pity that Sir Henry Maybury was unable to meet the deputation, because, although Mr. Pool Godsell,. Secretary to the Committee, filled the position with tact and skill, he could only undertake to pass on the information_ he received, and could not speak with the voice of authority.
The deputation showed that the removal of the independent bus service must result in an increase of fares through the removal of competition with the services provided by the Combine, and that the bolstering up of the tramway system was to the detriment of the public because tramways now are everywhere being superseded by bus systems, these changes taking place in most-of the important cities and towns of the world. It was urged by one speaker that it would be far better to scrap the trams now than later to do so at a greatly increased expenditure.
Fifty-fifty in Bus Service Provision.
A certain amount of objection was lodged to the existence of monopolies, one speaker urging that 50 per cent, of the omnibus traffic of London should be in independent hands.
A practical suggestion was. put forward that the No. 17 route should be extended to Hounslow with a service every quarter of an hour, this length of route enabling the independent buses to comply with the stipulations as to the number of journeys allocated under the Restrictions Order without the need for any buses to be taken off the road.
It was pointed out that it is no protection to the public for the London General Omnibus Co. to buy up independent concerns and to continue to run them under their old names, as it was clearly the intention of the L.G.O.C. to raise fares considerably in the case of the independent -concerns they had acquired or wished to acquire.
Mr. Pool Godsell undertook to place the facts before the Minister and to communicate with each of the local authorities interested, detailing the conclusions which he had come to as a result of the morning's conversation, and he also promised that the Traffic Committee would consider the suggestion for the extension of the No. 17 route.
The Police Court Prosecutions.
On the day following the first group of summonses issued in respect of the defiance of the official schedule of cuts came on for hearing at the Ealing Police Court.
The summonses included seven against the drivers of -L.G.O.C. buses and 37 against the drivers of buses employed by the following concerns :—The Bayswater Omnibus Co., Messrs. Neal and Male, the Gleaner Omnibus Co., the New Era Omnibus Co., Messrs. Ansell and Dobbs, Cornelius Beattie, Messrs. Bamford and Curtis, Messrs. Burmingham and Co., the Commonwealth Omnibus Co. and the Phoenix Co.
The prosecution for the police was in the hands of Mr, H. D. Roane, whilst the defendants were also represented by counsel, Mr. Walter Frampton appearing for the London General Omnibus and the Cambrian Companies, and Mr. Comyns Carr, K.C., and Mr. F. Wallace for the other defendants.
The chairman of the bench of magistrates suggested that a test case should be taken, by which the others could be decided.
As the main point was that the Order of the Minister of Transport was invalid, it was agreed to take the case of Mr. Beattie, an ex-Service man with the Distinguished Conduct Medal.
For the police it was contended that a day's grace was given, and consequently no proceedings were taken against the drivers for their actions on March 29th, but on March 30th and 31st the offences were continued, and it was in respect of these two days that the summonses were issued.
An Owner Not in the Schedule.
Mr. Beattie should not have been on the road at all under the allocation, but he had plied for hire contrary to the regulations. All the other proprietors were in the schedule, but had exceeded their maximum number
of journeys. Evidence was given supporting these statements, and questions were asked by Mr. Comyns Carr with regard to the running of two new L.G.O.C. services, No. 184 and No. 185. It was shown that these new services were' approved on March 24th, the approval being signed on April 20th. Mr. Comyns Carr suggested that " miraculously " the L.G.O.C. were able to get their No. 17 service out of the effect of the regulations because the route was christened by a new number, and a police witness said that the renumbering was necessary because the L.G.O.C. decided to extend Route 17 to Southall. Mr. Comyns Carr asked if the renumbering did not mean that on Routes 184 and 185 the L.G.O.C. could run to their old schedule, to which the police witness replied that it might mean that; but, in point of fact, the L.G.O.C. put out the schedule in strict conformity with the new allocation.
The case was not carried very, far, and was then adjourned for a week so that the main arguments for the defence have yet to be advanced.