AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No halt in Stockton bus war

17th March 1988, Page 24
17th March 1988
Page 24
Page 24, 17th March 1988 — No halt in Stockton bus war
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?

• A county council which objects to buses waiting on a town's high street has been asked by a traffic commissioner if there is a legal reason, rather than a political one, why it cannot ban them.

Eastern Traffic Commissioner Frederick Whalley reserved his decision on a request by the Cleveland County Council to impose a traffic regulation order on Stockton-on-Tees High Street following a public inquiry.

He said he did not want to pass the order if the council could do it itself. Such an order could only stop all buses using stops, and could not be aimed at specific operators.

The county council case, supported by the police, was that the increased traffic since deregulation had led to congestion and a significant safety hazard in High Street. The main problem was buses laying over causing difficulties for other buses which arrived to find the stands occupied.

Sydney Mason, traffic manager of Timdon Motor Services, was strongly opposed to any traffic regulation condition. He felt that the main cause was that Cleveland Transit was duplicating services so as to operate immediately ahead of rival operators and blocking the bus stands to prevent rival buses using them.

Gordon Robson of Robson Town Services felt that some action was neeeded, but wanted to see the situation controlled by a traffic regulation order.

Stephen Warnock-Smith, operations manger of Cleveland Transit which operated the majority of the services using High Street, was in favour of a traffic regulation condition.