Mersey Tunnel Bus Fight Ends H EARING was concluded at Liverpool,
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
on Tuesday, of an application by Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., and Crosville Motor Services, Ltd., for a Southport-Chester service through the Mersey Tunnel. Decision was reserved.
At the previous hearing on June 5, Mr. E. S. Herbert, for the applicants, offered to enter into an agreement with the corporations of Liverpool and Birkenhead, providing for representation of the companies on equal terms in the framing of any scheme of coordination, on the understanding that the companies would not apply for services through the tunnel, allowing them to pick up or set down passengers in Liverpool or Birkenhead. This offer was refused.
Mr. Hartley Shawcross, for Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle and Wallasey Corporations, described the offer already made as advantageous only*to the proposers. The decision of Merseyside Co-ordination Committee on a traffic scheme was bound to be announced shortly. No doubt co-operation with the two big transport undertakings might be of great value, but the companies wished to be unfettered, The granting of this application would embarrass the co-ordination discussions, without securing public benefit. The technical'officers of the corporations had, he added, prepared a scheme for the co-ordination of traffic through the-tunnel, including buses, which was being considered by the financial officers. Nothing should now be done to prejudice a final scheme of coordination Mr. Herbert said that the companies' offer had evidently been misunderstood, as they would not cater for passengers picked up or set down in Liver as42 pool or Birkenhead. They would,_ however, keep this offer open for 12 months from the commencement of the service which they sought.
Mr. F. A. Sellers, K.C., for the Mersey Railway Co., said that his client adopted and relied entirely upon the opposition of the corporations_ They had indicated that they had some scheme for buses, but no one had seen fit to approach his client.
Mr. F. E. Prichard, for the Overhead Railway Co., declared that the present facilities were adequate and that the proposed service would not be economic.
Mr. G. H. P. 13earnes, for the main,. line railway companies, pointed out that their opposition was purely from the point of view of the Chester-Southport service.
For Southport Coach Owners Association, Mr. Halsall argued that there was no evidence of need.
Mr. Herbert replied that the application was merely to link up existing services via the tunnel. The traffic existed and there was an undoubted demand for the tunnel to be used in this way. .
Dealing with the objection of the Mersey Railway, he declared that when Parliament had authorised the expenditure of millions of the ratepayers' and road-users' money on the tunnel, it was a strong thing to say that the tunnel should not be used for the purpose proposed. Regarding the local authorities' case, Mr. Herbert said that he had never heard that there was any co-ordination scheme which dealt with anything but purely local traffic. If this service were agreed to, the companies would nay in tolls the equivalent of a 2d. rate in Birkenhead.