AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Future of London's Passenger-transport Services?

10th December 1929
Page 64
Page 64, 10th December 1929 — The Future of London's Passenger-transport Services?
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?

C't WING to the widespread public 1.../interest aroused by the recent statement of the Minister of Transport anent passenger services in London, a précis of his speech at a London Labour Party demonstration at East Lewisham, on December 4th, contains many points of importance.

The Minister (Mr. Herbert Morrison, M.P.) said that he was encouraged by the reception which his statement, made with the authority of the Prime Minister, had received. Ile had, of course, expected criticism, but it was encouraging to note that in many quarters and in responsible organs of the Press there was a not-unfavourable attitude to the enormous economic advantages to he secured as a result of real consolidation in London transport and, in any case, a Willingness to reserve judgment until he was in a position to make a statement in greater detail.

The two principles, which the Government had clearly in mind were, firstly, the financial" and administrative co-ordination of London passenger transport on the basis of public ownership, and, secondly, a quite definitely business—rather than political—management, combined with final accountability to the public for a service which was of B28 vital importance to millions of the travelling public and to the great army of transport workers whose lives were bound up with the economic success of London traffic.

In some quarters there was a disposition to believe that business management could not be superimposed -upon public ownership. That was a complete illusion, and in due time it would be seen to be so. Anybody who had fairly and impartially examined the proposals made in the private Traffic Co-ordination Bills which had been rejected by Parliament, would realize that the policy embodied in those Bills did not give a true solution of the difficulty. The fact that they left the ownership of London transport in the hands of a very large number of undertakings was conclusive evidence as to the incompleteness of the co-ordination proposed.

It must be remembered, not only . that there was a series of separate municipal undertakings, the Metropolitan Railway separate from the combine, and the independent buses separate from the L.G.O.C., but that which was known as the London Traffic .Combine, whilst achieving a great measure of coordinatien, nevertheless was made up of a large limper of separately owned undertakings.

The Traffic Co-ortlination Bills preserved this situation, and to some extent added to the complexities by endeavouring to secure a common management, not only of the con stituent undertakings of the combine and other private concerns, but mixing with them municipal under takings the finances of which were

on a different basis. Even so, the coordination was incomplete, for there

was no compulsion upon any transport 'undertaking to enter the common pool and the common management.

We had now a great chance, not of nationalizing an industry in the old bureaucratic sense understood by anti-Socialists, but of securing a really businesslike and workable scheme.

As he had announced, careful financial inquiries were neqessary

and he could not be expected to develop his announcement in further detail until that inquiry, was com pleted, but he asked the people of London, and all political parties, to keep an open mind on the proposals of the Government and not to lose this great opportunity for establishing a magnificent unified transport system.

Tags

Organisations: London Labour Party
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus