Minister Upholds Maidstone Fares
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN a written decision, the Minister of 1 Transport has rejected appeals by Kent County Council, the City of Rochester and the Borough Councils of Hastings, Gillingham and Chatham against fares increases granted to Maidstone and District Motor Services, Ltd., by the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner and the -South Eastern Traffic Commissioners.
The Minister does not think that the total amount asked for by Maidstone andDistrict was excessive and considers that the 6.58 per cent. return on capital, expected was not an unreasonable rate. Partly because the yield from a previous application had been larger than expected, the company were•on this occasion asking for less in fares than the total amount needed to cover -increased costs. The Minister says that, contrary to views expressed before the Traffic Commissioners, this does not appear to him to lead to the conclusion that the present application should have been reduced.. The higher yield had already enabled the company to seek less than it otherwise need have done, and could therefore not reasonably be used a second time,as it were, as a ground for a further reductionin the amount sought.
Referring to considerable dispute over provisions for depreciation and replacement, the Minister reiterates his view thatfares should be fixed so as to enable an operator to make reasonable provision for the replacement or renewal of assets; in this case the company had not departed from these broad principles.
The Minister also considers that the increases had been apportioned fairly.