LTB 'satellites' on collision course
Page 30
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Derek Moses • With the news that the Transport (London) Bill is expected to receive the Royal Assent in July. the row blowing up in several parts of the London suburbs where "satellite" schemes forming part of the bus reshaping plan (CM September 16, 1966) have been introduced takes on a new measure of topicality.
"Satellite" schemes, together with a major reorganization of other bus services in the areas concerned, have already been introduced based on the following centres Wood Green (Turnpike Lane station, Piccadilly tube); Walthamstow (Victoria tube railhead and BR, Hoe Street): and Ealing (Ealing Broadway. Central Line tube and BR). Standee coin-in-the-slot o-m-o single-deckers with a similar layout to the Red Arrow buses have featured in all these plans and have also been introduced in such places as Rotherhithe (two routes).
Reaction to these new buses in Wood Green was described in CM September 13, while a running battle with London Transport has been carried on in Waltham
Forest with prolonged correspondence in the local paper. Many people have complained about the reorganized services introduced on September 7 last year, but strong objection has also been made to the new standee buses, which were quickly—if unfairly—dubbed "cattle trucks" as the adjoining cartoon, which appeared in the Waltham Forest Guardian and Gazette, illustrates.
Similar grumbles have emanated from Wood Green, where far more standee buses were introduced on the same date than at Walthamstow, while the more recently introduced Ealing area scheme has also brought a flood of complaints.
Before going any deeper into this subject. I must stress that CM does not oppose the introduction of the Red Arrow services in central London or the extension of o-m-o elsewhere in London. Indeed a plea for just such a network as the Red Arrows using similar (though more modern-looking) buses was made in an article in Commercial Motor on July 16 1965. These buses would have seated 29 passengers with room for 48 standees. as against the 25 seat plus 48 standing configuration of the actual Red Arrows. Incidentally, our plan would have eliminated all other bus services from the centre of London apart from the Green Line services.
It is the spread of these standee buses on a much wider scale over the whole London area, and even into the country area—for example the 430 Redhill to Reigate service, to which exception is taken. London Transport has gone from one extreme to the other and I feel that there is a good case for halting any further extension of the use of these standee buses until a full investigation into the operation of the existing 25 seat plus 48 standing "satellite" buses has been completed.
I found London Transport a little "touchy" when I approached them about the complaints regarding the new buses. LTB had examined the complaints, would "review" the services after a few months. any changes deemed necessary would be made and a "thorough-going" review would be undertaken, I was told. They agreed that more complaints had come from Wood Green than Walthamstow.
A spokesman for MCW, who are building the bodies for the new single-deckers, confirmed that 650 single-deckers in all were in production for or had been delivered to LTB, and that a "high" proportion of these were to the standee design.
I asked the GLC what its attitude was towards the standees, in view of the impending take-over of London Transport. A spokesman replied that, as the GLC would not assume control for some time they had not yet considered such details as the type of bus to be operated.
Meanwhile, 50-seat single-deckers with front entrance /exit arrangement have been introduced on other suburban services in the central (red) bus area. These o-m o buses with graduated fares collected by the driver, also cause a lot of grumbles because they
take a long time to load passengers and obstruct traffic. This has been observed by CM in South East London and by the .Finchley Press ("Where has the 143 gone?—demand.") in a lead story.
The 143 formerly operated from Hendon to Farringdon Street using Routemaster double-deckers. From December the service was truncated at Highgate and converted to 50-seat o-m-o buses. (A new RT doubledeck service 168A, Finsbury Park to Clapham Junction, taking over thecentral London area part of the 143.) Reports in the Finchley Press told of delays of up to 20min (one woman took two hours to reach Hendon from East Finchley on the first day of the changeover) and buses waiting until a convoy was formed.
A Chingford resident, Mr. Ernest J. Ballard, reported that it took nine minutes to load 12 people on a similar bus. Mr. Ballard has studied the new type of bus operation very seriously and a lengthy correspondence has taken place between himself and London Transport, both direct and through the local MP, Mr. Stan Newens (Labour, Epping). Mr. Ballard also raised the matter with the Greater London Association for the Disabled, who passed copies to the organization Access for the Disabled, whose director is very concerned about the new buses.
The latest position in Walthamstow is that Waltham Forest Trades Council has challenged local MPs (Mr. Stan Newens, Mr. Patrick Gordon-Walker and Mr. Fred Silvester) to meet the council over what the local Press describes as the "cattle truck" bus row. 1 understand that LTB were invited to a public meeting to discuss the new bus services, but agreed to come only if they did not have to answer questions!
The Ballard-Stan Newens-LTB correspondence is very illuminating. In a letter to Mr. Newens. Mr. Ballard quotes some interesting statistics, based on the 1961 census and the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Waltham Forest:
Population of the London Borough of Waltham Forest 239,520 Blind persons in Waltham Forest 510 Partially sighted in Waltham Forest 154 Physically handicapped 1,033 Expectant mothers about 3,000 People over 60 40,216
No allowance is made for children under 5. though Mr. Ballard estimates about 20,000. Concerning the buses themselves, Mr. Ballard challenged London Transport as follows: "You have quite blatantly abandoned the long-observed principle that, so far as possible, all passengers will be provided with a seat."
Mr. Ballard also feels strongly about handicapped people having to beg a seat or beg for help to board one of these vehiclesI "Not all disabilities are always obvious". he adds, "such as false limbs". The psychological effect on such people can be very disturbing.
In a letter to Mr. Newens dated October 24 (a copy of which was sent to the local Press), Mr. Maurice Holmes. LTB chairman. apparently sees little problem in the disabled-people question. In one sentence of a long letter, he wrote: "We believe that the small proportion of passengers who are blind or disabled in some way and End it necessary to travel in the peaks will continue to receive the help and understanding of their fellow passengers.
Earlier in the same letter. Mr. Holmes wrote: "The decision to introduce buses with seats for only 25 passengers and standing room for 48 on these short flat-fare routes was reached after a detailed survey of passengers' needs. This showed that the main requirement was For a frequent and regular service; people had no objection to standing for short distances during the peaks." (My italics.) Mr. Holmes cited ex perience with the 500 Red Arrow service (Victoria-Marble Arch) as evidence that people did not mind standing.
But the 500 service is a drop in London Transport's bucket, and what is acceptable—even desirable—for city-centre rushhour services carrying mainly fit commuters is not necessarily right for local services carrying a higher proportion of less active people, often burdened with shopping and children.
There seems a strong case for asking LTB to think again—before it sets a regrettable pattern which others may be tempted to follow.