NOTES FROM NORTHERN IRELAND.
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Shrapnell-Smith's Evidence at the By-laws Inquiry.
By Ulsterman.
ITmtaybe truly said that the evidence given by the presiden of the Commercial Motor Users Association at the Belfast inquiry knocked the bottom out of the by-laws proposed by the Belfast Corporation. After the evidence given by the Lord Mayor and one of the councillors in defence of the by-laws it Was amusing (but not to the corporation) to observe how easily a well-directed fire of expert, or "Shrapnel'," criticism demolished the case for the by-laws. Beginning with the deliberate statement that "these bylaws are the death warrant of buses," this witness proceeded to make good that statement. One can only give the main points of this proof :—Itiere was no precedent for excluding Corporation buses from the anti-bus regulations ; the refusal to allow bus owners to use depots in the centre of a town was unknown in Great Britain, where municipalities encouraged rather than boycotted such depots; as to the bylaws referring to the working of stands, it passed the wit of man to understand them—they would lead to endless misunderstandings; the regulation allowing only one minute for the unloading of a bus was bound to lead to accidents; three minutes would be little enough; the regulation as to parading or loitering on the prescribed routes for the purpose of collecting passengers would lead to bus-crawling of a circuitous kind.
Some Further Considerations.
Theproposedcharges for stands were unusual and, so far as the witness knew, unprecedented; he knew of no closed area anything like so extensive as the one suggested for Belfast ; a reasonable measure of prohibition could be secured by the fixing of routes; the fact that stands were to be fixed at considerable distances from the shopping centre would penalize shoppers from the outlying districts ; the minimum bus fare (4d.) would virtually deprive the citizens of the right of transport choice, and would be what it was evidently intended to be—the death warrant of buses; so extreme a form of protection for tramways was unknown in Great Britain; in Glasgow, where a penny protection fare extended within a radius of five miles from the G.P.O., six or seven hundred busts went right into the centre of the city every day ; as to traffic congestion, dense traffic was not congestion and congestion was not always avoidable ; Belfast would have to become accustomed to the traffic conditions which prevail elsewhere as the result of new modes of transport ; private motors caused More density of traffic than buses; a motorcar Passenger occupied ten lineal feet of the highway as against two feet occupied by a bus passenger • on July 23rd 4,089 motorcars and 1,211 buses were stated to have passed through Castle Junction (the centre of Belfast) : on average load the cars would carry 8,178 persons and would require 89,958 lineal feet of the highway, whilst the buses, carrying 24,220 passengers, would require only 49.651 lineal feet
Striking Comparisons.
Mr. Shrapnel-Smith then gave a comparison of the car miles of three other tramway systems with those of Belfast. In Leeds the trains ran 24.2 car miles per head of the •population, in Sheffield 22, in Edinburgh 23.8, and in Belfast 17.9. These figures meant that the provision of tram facilities in Leeds was 35.2 per cent, more than in Belfast, in Sheffield 22.9 per cent., and in Edinburgh 33 per cent. That was not the whole story, for Leeds Corporation ran in addition 65 buses, Sheffield Corporation 140, and Edinburgh ill. Belfast Corporation had six buses at the end of the financial year, and he was told they now had eight The Rates Bogey.
Dealing with this luridly illuminated turnip, the witness said he had made a calculation based on the assumption of the loss which would occur if the trains were scrapped, he said he had estimated that the loss in tram receipts to the city would be £41,957 annually. On the capital side, making all provisions for redemption of loans over a period of years, the annual charge would be £78,955.
"I say," said the witness, "that that loss of £121,000 a year could be met without any addition to the rates or to the fares charged to the tramway public, if it were properly approached."
Bus Contributions, etc.
If the trams should be eliminated Mr. Shrapnell-Smith said that a payment representing one-sixth of a penny would prevent anything falling on the rates and at the same time prevent any increase of fares to the public. He added that on the figures already given the loss of the tramways for a year—based on the loss recorded over a certain period of bus competition—would amount to £62,783, and not £94,000 as had been stated. In a company with which he had been connected in the Potteries district trains were replaced by buses, and they received £5 per ton for old rails. There were about 18,000 tons of rails in Belfast, so the sum received for them would at that figure be £90,000.
The Final Day.
' Summing up for the bus owners, Mr. Pringle, K.C., covered the whole ground in a masterly analysis, in the course of • which he showed that there is no statutory authority to prohibit, either directly or indirectly, the carrying of passengers by motorbuses in Belfast. The presence of the buses was due to the inadequate service provided by the trams. After a passing reference to the corporation's "village outlook" so far as transport was concerned and to the great saving of the citizens' time and money since the introduction of bus traffic, Mr. Pringle said : "All along, the bus people had been in favour of reasonable regulations for the purpose of controlling traffic, and for some shape of protection to a moderate degree for the trams. It must not, however, be protection to a degree which would make bus traffic prohibitive, or it would entirely block not only the companies' buses, but also the corporation system, for all time."
Aft Pringle concluded with a series of suggestions for an amicable settlement, after which, Mr. Murphy (for the corporation) having replied to Mr. Pringle, and the Commissioners haring said that their report "would be such as• would be in the interests of the public," the inquiry was brought to an end.
No Double-Deckers Need Apply.
In sanctioning the corporation's application for a loan of 130,000 to provide 20 %motor omnibuses for municipal services the Home Office pointed out that no departure from the regulations as to maximum overall length could be made, as they were satisfied that it was not in the interests of public safety that the use of longer vehicles should be permitted. The Ministry had in the past declined to grant licences to omnibus owners for double-deck vehicles, and the same ruling must apply in respect of the present application. In the circumstances the only vehicles which the corporation might purchase were single-deck motorbuses not exceeding 26 ft. in length.