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
169
170
171
172 
New Act for Vlunicipal Transport ?
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ANEW Act to consolidate and unify the operation of municipal passenger transport, was suggested by Mr. W. J. Evans, general manager of Reading Transport Department, at a meeting of the Metropolitan Section of the Institute of Transport, in London, on Monday.
Considerable sections of the 1930 Act could be incorporated in it, he said, but clarity and uniformity would be required on certain specific matters. There should be properly constituted control by elected representatives of the burgesses and the transport undertaking should be self-supporting, and not a liability to the general rate fund.
Plough Back Profits Profits should be ploughed back into the department to improve services and reduce fares. The basic principles ort fares structure and concession fares should be settled at national level. The Licensing Authority should function on co-ordinated services and Nhere a maximum fare had to be exceeded.
The several methods of contributing to central administration or Town Hall expenses, including rating, ought to be defined and settled as fair payment for services rendered. Scopefor running stage, express and contract services should be the same for all operators. and company, nationalized and municipal undertakings ought to be treated
If such an Act reached the Statute Book, a common denominator would be provided for municipal /transport, and. said Mr. Evans, it was certain that a number of the parochial difficulties which were delaying co-ordination between local authorities, would be eliminated.
Speaking on co-ordination, he said that if the bargaining powers on both sides had been more equal, much more could have been done. The municipal operator had said, "Thou shalt not came in," and the company operator had said. "We are not letting you come out." The user of transport suffered.
In consequence. both parties were inclined to run skeleton, uneconomic services just as a face-saving gesture and by way of staking a claim to possible future development. In cases known to Mr. Evans, better and more frequent services, which might even have shown
a margin of profit, would have resulted from a joint running agreement.
So far as municipal transport was concerned, the restrictions of the 1870 and 1930 Acts, with the more recent swinging of national policies from the Transport Act, 1947 to the present Transport Bill, required a complete investigation so that that branch of the industry could plan for the future with security and equity.
Unrest Created The 1947 Act, Mr. Evans said, started a period of unrest and uncertainty throughout the transport industry. The political pendulum was always liable to swing, but, he suggested, the three major sections of the passenger transport industry—the private operator, the nationalized group, and municipal transport—should now be given an equal chance to assist in stabilizing the economic forces with which they were now confronted.
Political theories might affect the privately and state-owned systems, but it was considered that municipal transport would remain virtually under local control, and if given normal scope, the 70-80 undertakings would provide a useful yardstick on matters of cost and service to the