Small Change
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
lowARDs the end of their report, the committee of inquiry under Mr. S. P. Chambers boldly declare that if vigorous action is taken to put their recomdations into force, London Transport can break out he vicious circle in which increased remuneration Itomatically followed by a corresponding increase in s. The claim is almost immediately qualffied,'but still surprising. For a good deal of their time the imittee, like a cleaner charged with the job of )vating a rambling and ramshackle old mansion,
opened one door after another and shaken their Is sadly at the confusion within, closing each door after one or two small adjustments.
3me of the recommendations are straightforward and ible. The committee are firmly of the opinion that maintenance costs of London Transport are too i. The cost per vehicle-mile of maintenance in don was 4.36d. in 1953, compared with 3.564d. in ningham, 3.503d. in Glasgow, 3.88d. in Liverpool 3.082d. in Manchester. The proportion of mainnce and cleaning staff employed in the works and iges in relation to the number of buses is about to I in London, compared with about I to 1 in other
e cities. In spite of this, the record of breakdowns London is not remarkably better, than elsewhere. committee would like to see vigorous action to ease productivity, and say that the whole subject tires careful re-examination in consultation with the e unions.
Iaintenance costs are increased materially by the :duly meticulous" inspections carried out by the ifying officers and vehicle examiners of the Ministry 'ran sport. For historical reasons, London Transport left with the responsibility for maintaining reasonstandards of safety on their trolleybuses and trains, it is illogical that buses alone should be subject to ide inspection. The committee consider that the tirements of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, should be ,red so far as London Transport and other "very onsible " road passenger undertakings are conLed, or that the officers and examiners should be given rater margin of discretion than at present.
Independent Operator
ther recommendations in the report may be more to argument, but are cogently set out. The diffi: re-introduction of the independent operator is ested in special circumstances where he can provide iornically a service that London Transport feel they t refuse. The committee would favour the provision )etter all-night services and the charging of higher s for night services, as is the practice in certain rincial undertakings. Another proposal, designed to !. with the peculiar difficulties of the central area of don, is that buses of a special type or colour—or :rwise distinguished so as to be recognized at onceild be run at peak periods over central routes that
e numbers of workers traverse at the same time. articular attention is paid to the structure of the don Transport Executive. The committee see no IC in the provision of the Transport Act, 1953, reby the British Transport Commission were left I one Executive only. It is recommended either that Executive should be reconstituted as a separate body
or that their functions should be vested in the B.T.C. Assuming that the Executive survive this ordeal by severance or integration, the committee have further changes in mind. They would like not less than two part-time members appointed with experience in fields other than transport, and general managers appointed for each of the services--central buses, country buses, coaches, troileybuses and railways. Some of the work of the headquarters should be decentralized, and given to the superintendents in charge of the six divisions and 35 districts.
The committee. probably with some justification, will have nothing to do with the more desperate solutions to the problem of London transport that have been propounded. They dispose, one imagines finally, of the "wheel plan " first put forward by the Greater London area council of the National Chamber of Trade. The plan would mean changing busei on the edge of the central area. As the Chambers committee point out, it would cause confusion, disorder, hardship and expense. It does not take into account the very complex character of the passenger traffic carried by London buses.
Contradictory Puzzle
All these recommendations and hints have their value, and the report deals with many other points. But one cannot say that the committee have succeeded completely in their task. Like other bodies that have tried to solve the gigantic and contradictory puzzle set by London's transport, the committee have failed to get every aspect completely into focus. The emphasis is not always in the proper place.
For example, the committee are obsessed with the menace of the private car. which adds to the congestion of London streets, creates an acute parking problem, and provides an alternative means for transport for people who would otherwise be spending money on fares. The greatest contribution to the solution of the problem of congestion, says the report, can be made by London Transport if they are "adequately supported and if, as a consequence, a growing proportion of travelling in the central area is done by public transport instead of private transport." The committee do not advocate the prohibition of the private car, although they appear to favour somewhat more rigid restrictions than at present. What they expect to happen with the growing efficiency of London Transport is a "voluntary reduction in the number of private cars brought into the central area."
This is an unduly optimistic point of view unless the committee have ample evidence to support it. The inference is that a more efficient public service would make people dispose of their cars or use them less. The proportion of motorists who would in fact do this is negligible. The number of cars in London will go on increasing at much the same rate whatever London Transport do. The advantages that the motorist enjoys, or thinks he enjoys. are proof against all the blandishments of bus and underground, and even against fairly severe restrictions. The problem of the car in London, and the other manifold problems of London Transport. must be solved, if at all, by much more drastic action than anything the Chambers committee have recommended in their report.