1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Discussing Mr. Custance's Paper
Page 116
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. a' S. Deacon (Brighton, Hove and District) joined issue with Mr. Distance and said that the PTA must be said to be .quite capable. It was all-embracing, covering companies; large independents, the PVOA and -representatives from con tractors, and this should be adequate. It 'was true that LT/3 was not represented, but its problems were quite different.
Capital investment for buses could be relatively small,making it ideal for short-term planning. The Ministry should not try to lay down objectives which were too • rigid. The bus industry should take its place in central planning,. but an over-sophisticated approach would destroy some of itS adaptability. Mr. N. H. Dean (Yorkshire Traction) did not quarrel with the need for and importance of research. On congestion; he said anything Mr. -Custance or his' colleagues could dO would be welcome. If all types of traffic could be carried evenly over 16 hours, problems would be much less. .Mr. Dean made a plea to clear the towns of traffic congestion because bitses were tied to licensed routes and could not deviate. • Mr. T. G. Pruett (Thames Valley) suggested a central corn: mince formed of representatives from existing passenger operator organizations. On co-ordination, he said there was plenty of scope for more, particularly_betwecn municipalities and companies.
Was there any point in investing in better services and facilities when investment in better roads could not be made? was a question asked by Mr, A. I. .White (Maidstone and District). The MoT could already fake all the iriTormation it required from existing bodies: a higher body was not required. Mr. T. Glass (secretary, SRPTA) said that existing associations covered all forms of public transport. Each association was quite familiar with the activities of the others. On traffic congestion, he said a commonsense local approach was needed.
The need for an approach at local level was also stressed by Mr. J. W. Womar (Potteries) who suggested that co-ordination at local government level was important. The bus was not just another vehicle on the road, but a real .service to the public and community.
Replying, Mr. Distance said that he still thought some central body would be useful, for such things as research into traffic problems. On the problem of commuters and peak traffic, the Ministry would have to help the industry with this problem. Mr. Custance mentioned road pricing for private vehicles, but said this was an extremely tricky and thorny subject. It was not an easy matter but a good deal of work was going on.