Mersey Dispute Goes to Appeal
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MHEN the construction of the W Mersey Tunnel was authorized by Parliament, it was agreed that no restrictions should be placed on its use by coaches and buses engaged on services of the type concerned.
This statement was made by Mr. E. S. Herbert, for the appellants, when Crosville Motor Services, Ltd., and Ribble Motor Services, Ltd., appealed, last week, against the North-Western Traffic Commissioners' refusal to allow them to run a joint service from Southport to Chester via the tunnel.
Mr. Herbert stated that the Commissioners gave no reasons for their refusal, but later made certain observations to the Ministry of Transport, He did not know whether the Commissioners clearly understood that the Act by which the tunnel was authorized contained no restriction on the use of Queensway by buses and coaches.
There was obviously a demand, said
Mr. Herbert. for a service linking up the districts to the north of Liverpool and the south of Birkenhead. It was for this purpose that the tunnel had been constructed.
Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle and Wallasey corporations had objected on the ground that the present situation should not be disturbed until Merseyside Co-ordination Committee had had an opportunity of reporting on the subject of cross-river transport. No evidence had been given concerning the committee's activities or the progress of its deliberations. The Ribble and Crosville companies had offered to enter an agreement with the municipalities not to interfere with local traffic for at least three years, but this had been refused.
Mr. Herbert added that the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee, which was one of the objectors, would draw a revenue of £6,000 a year.