AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER'S FIRST SITTINGS The Railways Use Poor Argument to Oppose Coach. service Licences

28th April 1931, Page 61
28th April 1931
Page 61
Page 62
Page 61, 28th April 1931 — THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER'S FIRST SITTINGS The Railways Use Poor Argument to Oppose Coach. service Licences
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?

MHE first public sittings of the

Metropolitan Area Traffic Commissioner, Mr. G. E. Robinson, were held on April 20th and 22nd. Mr. Robinson made a comprehensive statement of points which he has in mind and Mr. Walter Monekton, K.C., outlined the general case for the railways.

The Commissioner pointed out that traffic congestion in the Metropolitan area constitutes a problem which is perhaps more acute than in other areas, and referred to the general directions issued to him by the Minister of Transport, instructing him to give weight to the circumstance that express carriages engaged in sight-seeing traffic in the central area were in a category by themselves. As regards other services he was considering whether notice should be given to operators that, after a period of, say, one year, road-service licences would not be issued unless terminal facilities off the public highway had been provided in the Metropolitan area. He contemplated making it a condition of all licences that passengers should be picked up in the area only at specified places.

The _Commissioner also intimated that he contemplated attaching general conditions. One of these would provide that the holder of a licence, or his employees, should not permit driving at a speed exceeding 30 m.p.h. Another was that, for any stage or part of a stage which lay in the Metropolitan area there should he a minimum single fare of 1s. and a minimum return fare of 2s.

Mr. Monekton submitted that it was indispensable that the railway companies should continue to function, and emphasized their heavy capital charges, mentioning, for example, that the L.M.S. Railway Co. paid £2,250,000 per annum in local rates. Three licences which were granted were those applied for by Levris Cronalum, Ltd., of Hendon, in respect of. express-carriage services between northwest London and Worthing, Eastbourne and Ramsgate, In 1930, it was stated, the numbers of passengers carried on: these services were respectively 4,441, 4,080 and 4,292.

Mr. W. P. Bradbury, of the L.M.S. Railway Co., gave evidence of the railway facilities from Wembley and other stations in the north-west of London to the /vIetropolitan termini, the object being to show how passengers cduld easily reach the coastal resorts by travelling by train to London, by tube or motorbus to the Southern Railway terminus, and thence by train to the o'oast—an argument which amused many of those present.

In the course of the first day an interesting argument was raised against the railways, aq analogy being drawn between the com'petition between road and rail, transport facilities and the competition between electricity and gas, as a comparable class of public service. It was pointed out that electricity and

gas undertakings of a statutory nature were invariably allowed to compete side-by-side for the public favour.

The Venture Transport Co., a Ltd., later applied for licences in respect of a route between London and Luton, via Barnet and St. Albans. Mr. Bradbury explained that the L.M.S. railway ran frequent services to St. Albans and Luton and gave evidence of the times and fares, also stating that, on the St. Pancras-Luton line the railway receipts have Idropped from £22,546 in 1927 to 116,423 in 1930, a reduction of 27.2 per cent, which he attributed to motorcoach competition. He suggested that the travellers should reach railway sta • tions on the route from villages in the "neighbourhood by means of motorbuses, and thence should travel by rail, but on behalf of the road-transport concern it was shown that 20 out of 32 of the trains in each direction daily were fast trains, not stopping at intermediate stations, and it was submitted that the success of the road service wasdue to its tapping traffic sources for which the railway did not cater.

The London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., also opposed this application, stating that in Goldoni Green-St. Albans service (route 84) had suffered a reduction in receipts of 30 per cent. since 1025, due to the increase in coach services. In cross-examination it was admitted that the buses vere very much slower and catered for a different class of business.

The Commissioner reserved his decision, stating that this was one of those cases which called for evidence that would arise from other licence applications.

On April 22nd the Commissioner granted an express road-service licence to Ensign Motors, Ltd., for the LondonAberystwyth route, and one to Monty Super Coaches for the London-Waltonon-Naze route, and said he did not think a drop in railway receipts could affect a particular application. He refused Underwood Express Services, Ltd., a licence for a proposed new service between London and, Southsea, and adjourned Messrs. Rayner and Son's application in respect of the HorshamLondon route.


comments powered by Disqus