Edinburgh's Future Passenger Service.
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Parts OnlY of the Case Given by Tramway Reporters and Motorbuses Condemned Without Regard to Important Factors.
The terms of the Remit from the Tramways Committee were— To consider and report upon the following matters":— • "Question 1.—What methods of traction might be adopted for the Tramways System in Edinburgh, keeping in view probable future Extensions, with full information as to the probable cost of installation and working ?"
" Without prejudice to the foregoing generality, to report specially on the following points," viz.:— Question 2.—Whether it is practicable to arrange for a system of traction other than the Cable being installed so as to be operated immediately on expiry of the present Lease ?"
Question 3.—If this is not practicable, for what length of time after the expiry of the Lease would it be advisable
to continue the Cable system in the circumstances in which the Corporation are placed ?" "Question 4.—Whether it would be advisable to adopt a new system of traction for some of the routes in the City, retaining the Cable for other routes, and if so, which ?" "Question 6.—Whether the Electric system could be operated in such a way that there would be no overhead wires in the central parts of the City?" "Question 6.—The present position and possibilities of the 'self-propelled' system?"
It will be observed that the terms of the remit do not call upon the tramway reporters, Messrs. Brodie (city engineer, Liverpool), Hamilton (tramways manager, Leeds), and Campbell (burgh engineer, Edinburgh) to deal with motorbuses. This is admitted by the reporters, as will be observed below. We hold that a competent report on motorbuses can alone be furnished by men who are possessed of firsthand experience on a large scale, which class of experience is not possessed by any one of the three gentlemen, highly qualified though they are in other matters, who were entrusted by the Tramway Committee of the Edinburgh Corporation with the duty of reporting on tramway extensions.
Leeds Has 2 Motorbuses and 8 Trolley Vehicles; Liverpool Has 8 Motorbuses.
Question 8, above, we may point out, does not appear to have been treated by the reporters other than as part of Question 1, and here the reporters have considered only petrol and petrol-electric tramcars and electric-battery tramcars.
Our protest against the position in which the Edinburgh ratepayers are •placed, due to this one-sided report, will, we trust, lead to a decision of the City Council to call for an independent report from men with considerable first-hand experience of motorbuses, and not from men who have merely "played" with their use, as has been the case both at Leeds and Liverpool. We make specific suggestions of names later. The fact that Leeds and Liverpool between them have only 18 motorbuses or trolley-buses is the " key " to their scale of motorbus working.
The Motorbus Portion of the Report.
This opens with the following introductory remark :— Although not the subject of specific mention in the remit we feel that we would not be doing justice to the subject if we did not consider the suitability of the motorbus as a possible substitute for the tramway system. The continuous development of petrol-driven vehicles has of late years been extended to motorbuses. They-are now frequently used as feetlers to a. central tranaway system, as at Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds, Walsall, etc. ; or for sectional service, as at Birmingham.; whilst at Eastbourne and Oxford the service is by motorbuses.
It will be observed that the tramway reporters here omit reference to London experience and profits from motorbuses. They similarly omit references to the tramcars of London, so far as profits are concerned, no doubt because the L.C.C. is notoriously working at a loss. There may be other reasons, and quite just ones, for their not taking London experiences into account, but these shouldbe made clear. A wrong impression is none the less created, when London working experience is ignored, as regards costs of motorbus operation. It will be observed that Eastbleurne is mentioned, but it is not pointed out by the tramway reporters that, whereas the Eastbourne Corporation made a. net profit on the motorbuses during its last financial year of no less than £3490, there was a loss on the electricity undertaking at Eastbourne, during the same period, of £911. This, of course, is mentioned by us parenthetically.
Motorbuses Superior to Tramcar.
The tramway reporters set down the following pints as those which they consider to be in favour of motorbuses :
(1) Quietness in. operation. This is due mainly to the rubber tires and improvement in mechanism. (2) Mobility. Not being restricted to rails as a tramcar is, it can pass in and out of the traffic and pick up or set down passengers at or near the kerb_ (3) High, Effective Speed. This is due in part to its being able to pass slower traffic, and partly to its smaller capacity, involving fewer stops.
(4) The absence of any constructional costs in the form of rails or overhead equipment. (5) Its flexibility as to routes or streets traversed, and its usefulness for routes requiting only infrequent or occasional service.
The fact that these advantages—and they are very great advantages—are admitted by the tramway reporters is equivalent to stating that they are proved to the hilt. We feel that we must compare them with certain claims which the tramway reporters make„ on page five of their report, under the heading ' Advantages of the Overhead System," and which they state to be :—" (1)It is simple and easy of installation' (2) it is economical in first cost and in operation ; (3) it is readily capable of extension ; (4) it is reliable in operation ; (6) it is adaptable to improvements, contributory to speed, economy, convenience, and comfort ; and (a) it may be a valuable contributor to the revenue of the Electricity Department of the Corporation." We are wholly at a loss to understand how the tramway reporters can claim those points in favour of tramcars as compared with motorbuses, to whatever extent they may be justified in doing so when comparing the overhead tramway system with others. No. 1 is absurd in .comparison with any motorbus system; claim No. 2 is not proven especially when London costs, which are practically applicable to so large a motorbus scheme as Edinburgh would require, are ignored ; claim No. 2 is another absurd one, compared with any motorbus system ; claim No. 4, we admit ; claim No. 5 is incomprehensible, seeing that the overhead system of electric traction has not been improved for years, that tramcars are notoriously incapable of contributing to speed because a fullyloaded car cannot overtake a partly-loaded and stopping car on the same set of rails, that the alleged economy is not demonstrated in relation to modern
motorbus results, that there is no more inconvenient vehicle in the world than a tramcar in relation to other users of the highway including cyclists, _and that "comfort" is a matter of opinion ; claim No. 6 is ofdoubtful advantage—does it mean involving the Edinburgh ratepayers in the building and equipment of a new power station at very considerable outlay I Such outlay the tramway reporters appear to us carefully to have kept in the background, seeing that none of their estimates include the capital outlay on such a power station. The cost of electricity per carmile is no doubt covered in the running estimates, but the big capital outlay on a new power station is nowhere stated in the report, and to that extent the ratepayers of Edinburgh are possibly spending money for tramcar purposes through another department.
Motorbus Inferior to Tramcar.
The tramway reporters next proceed to state the points which appeal to them as disadvantages when motorbuses are used. They give these as unribr (1) The increased danger to poctestrians and other road users from a great fleet of motorbuses plying the streets of such a city as Edinburgh.
(2) High cost of operation, as compared with a tramcar. It is customary -to compare the cost of operating motorbuses with those of tramcars at " per car mile.' When,
When, however, the relative accommodation and internal convenience of the vehicles are compared, it will be seen that this is not a correct or equitable method of comparison. The diminished carrying capacity comparedwith a tramcar. The carrying capacity of a motorbus does not exceed 50 per, cent, the carrying capacity of a tramcar. It is therefore unfitted to cope with large rushes of traffic required in Edinburgh, as in all large cities.
(1) The alleged increased danger to pedestrians is purely assumption. Few streets in Edinburgh are narrow, and there are no grounds for believing that the extended use of motorbuses there would lead to a higher number of accidents per annum than with an equivalent electric-tramcar system.
(2) The high cost of operation is imaginary, in relation to work done, and to public service rendered— or compared to total cost, inclusive of interest, sinking fund and provision for renewals reserve for any tramcar system. Edinburgh ratepayers are not concerned with the cost of running huge empty vehicles about the streets for many of the working hours daily, and it is notorious that tramcars have to be run a considerable extra and unnecessary, mileage in order to keep down the incidence of sinking fund and interest per car-mile. If this high mileage—much of it unnecessary from the public point of view—were not undertaken, the interest and sinking-fund charges per car-mile might go so high as 4d. The tramway reporters have evidently followed the example of other pro-tramway advocates, and based their conclusions upon the small carrying capacity of the London omnibuses, which vehicles hold only 16 passengers inside and 18 passengers outside, and upon the fact that the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis of London does not allow any top-deck awning or roof to the motorbuses, owing to the obstruction of light when drawing up M the narrow London thoroughfares, which feature would not apply in Edinburgh. This is a wrong basis.
(3) It is erroneous to state that the carrying capacity of a motorbus is not snore than 50 per cent. of that of a tramcar. There are plenty of 40-seated and 42-seated single-deck motorbuses in use in the Provinces, and the Edinburgh motorbuses, owned by the Scottish Motor Traction Co., Ltd., which have an overall length not exceeding 23 ft., are able comfortably to seat 32 passengers inside. It is obvious that a double-deck motorbus quite suitable for the streets of Edinburgh can be built, at very little extra cost, and of very little extra weight, with a capacity for at (3)
least 46 passengers, witnout approaching the length of a tramcar, and at much less weight per passenger.
We repeat our protest against the expressed opinions of the tramway reporters, in so far as they base their conclusions in regard to motorbuses upon the small London vehicles, or motorbuses of small capacity elsewhere. We would address to these gentlemen, and to the interested ratepayers of the City
of Edinburgh, the following questions • (1) Why assume that the present seating capacity will be the limitsin the future, in London, any more than it is the limit now in the Provinces I (2) Why assume that the outside seats of a motoromnibus will never be protected against the weather?
(3) Why assume that the poinL-to-point traffic. capacity varies directly as the seats provided, thus ignoring the overtaking facilities which attach to vehicles which are not railbound ?
Dealing with " rush " traffic is only a matter of organization of services, with ample motorbuses available ; our own estimate (page 335) covers this.
Cost of Operating a Motorbus System, and its Contingent Losses.
The foregoing sub-heading is the one which the tramway, reporters have adopted for the next section of this portion of their report. It will be noted that they have the temerity to suggest that SO per cent. more motorbuses are required than tramcars, bringing the proposals for Edinburgh, for any motorbus system, up to a total of 423 vehicles. The suggestion is ridiculous in relation to known practice. On the easily-achieved basis of 42 passengers in a suitable motorbus, one obtains a total seating capacity of 17,766 persons' with a motorbus system, compared with only 16,450 with 235 tramcars each seating 70 persons. The comparison ignores the higher point-topoint speed of the mobile motorbus ; proper allowance has not been made for the higher effective speed of the motorbus, nor for its flexibility and mobility.
The actual text of,this portion of the report reads:—
We find that, after allowing for the higher effective speed of the motorbus, to provide the equivalent carrying capacity at the time of maximum demand, as 235 tramcars, would require an increase of about 80 per cent, in the number of motorbuses.
The estimates for working costs at *1. per bus mile are based upon average figures obtained from actual operation by the Corporations in this country who own the highest number of motorbuses.
Why do the tramway reporters adopt figures which are inapplicable to a. motorbus system of the magnitude (423 motorbuses) which they claim to be needed by Edinburgh? No Corporation in the United Kingdom has, as they state elsewhere in their report, had experience on such a scale. The larger the undertaking, the lower the incidence per motorbus-mile of all general and administrative charges. Insufficient regard has been paid to this point and its effect. We say that Edinburgh can easily get 8,000,000 motorbus-miles a, year (the tramway reporters' demand) with 303 motorbuses, after due provision for depot vehicles, overhauls and provision to cope with crush-hour traffic, and that the aid. per mile should be not more than 8d. The Reasons Alleged for Condemnation.
The tramway reporters put forward an estimate (which forms Table No. 11 of their report) in which they profess to show motorbus receipts and expenditure, although they do so in a, fashion which demands critical analysis in the first place, and further examination at the hands of competent motorbus experts before the Edinburgh ratepayers can in any way be satisfied. It will certainly pay Edinburgh ratepayers to. sanction a further expert report on the situation, but this time from men with first-hand motorbus experience of in up-to-date character, and not concerning motorbus experiments which have been a failure, ascertain past. efforts at Leeds and Liverpool were. We specifically suggest_to the Edinburgh City Council that they should call for a. report from motorbus experts such as Mr. Walter J. Iden, chief engineer to the London C'eneral Omnibus Co., Ltd., Mr. Walter Wolsey, Junr., managing director of Thos. Tilling, Ltd., and Mr. Sidney E. Garcke; managing director of the British Automobile Traction Co., Ltd. Mr. Iden is an expert who knows all about motorbus facts and organization that is worth knowing in London; the other two experts have dual experience, in London and the Provinces. Mr. S. E. Garcke is also well up in electric traction, seeing that he is the only son of Mr. Emile Garcke, chairman and managing director of the British Electric Traction Co., Ltd. For ourselves, we are content to set against the estimates of the tramway reporters figures which we are well satisfied Messrs. Iden, Wolsey and Garcke, or any gentlemen possessed of comparable qualifications, will be prepared to endorse. A comparison between these two tables, the one prepared by the tramway reporters, and the one which we know can beijustified as an unadorned, unernbellished and unprejudiced statement, should do much to open the eyes of Edinburgh ratepayers to the way in which efforts are being made to force a larger tramway system upon them, and to do so at. a. huge capital expenditure which can be avoided with advantage. As to that capital expenditure. we have more to say in the concluding paragraph of this review, but the estimates for installing tramcars appear to us to be based on pre-war costs, which are no longer applicable. Our motorbus costs are based upon war-time costs, without allowances for possible improvements when the motorbus nianufac turers have to face the placing of their enormouslyincreased outputs of vehicles solely amongst civilian buyers. Our table of motorbus capital expenditure is if anything high, but not inflated by excrescences which do not belong -to it.
From the table (No. XI in appendix) it will be seen that the net direct deficit for the first years of operation is £15,652 per annum. To.this direct deficit in operation there will have to be added certain indirect charges and losses which the public purse would suffer by the use of motorbuses as compared with tran-Icars. These indirect charges relate to rates and roads, and are :— First.=.Ae to the loss to the 'revenue on the lower rates which would be payable to the city as compared with that borne by a tramway system, we find on the basis of the. present payment, in respect of rates upon tramways in 191920, the amount would be about £15,389; if, however, motorbuses were the sole public-street transit system of the city, the. rates would be only about 21616, or a rates loss to the city. of £13,773 per annum. Second.—As the tram-way undertaking maintains a wide strip of the highway, viz., that area of road surface within which the rails are laid. and 18 ins, outside, there would be a charge in the case of ndinburgh—with its paved streets—of about 26000 per annum upon the highways maintenance account if no tramway powers were exercised. Where tramways are operated, this charge, or its equivalent, is borne by the tramways undertaking. Third.—We estimate that the extra wear and tear of the city roads, due to, a fleet of motorbuses running upon the city streets and for which nothing has been charged in our motorbus operating costs, would, where the streets are paved, amount to at least £4000 per annum in the case of Edinburgh.
Together, these losses and charges (direct and indirect) to the city represent the sum of £39,425 per annum.
In the above figures no charge has been -made for the capital cost of a general conversion of the granite-paved roads of the city into a smooth highway surface, such as, with the establishment of a great motorbus undertaking, would be eventually called for, and would be a work of great cost.
We must deal concisely with these three points. As to loss of rates, we accept the Comparisons which are set forth, seeing that they are no doubt based upon figures which have been supplied by the burgh engineer of Edinburgh. We shall indicate a proposed and probable off-set, the realization of which is largely in the hands of Edinburgh ratepayers; seeing that Sir
H. A. Macdonald, G. C.B., Scotland's representative on the Road Board, is one of themselves, and is undoubtedly both able and willing to help the Edinburgh City Council to secure assistance in the stated directions, which fall under other. heads
We may point out in passing that the tramway system is rated in respect of the monopoly which it enjoys in the right to the exclusive use of flanged metal wheels upon its rails, which advantage, according to engineering authorities—and particularly the tramway engineers—is a very considerable one. The motorbuses enjoy no such monopoly: they share the use of the common highway with other wheeled traffic. As to lower repairs of the highway under a tramcar undertaking, this is not in fact a correctly-stated experience. The tramcars running every day on the rails, reduce the normal use of the central portion of the highway, which portion is boundedby the rails, and tend to concentrate ordinary wheeled traffic upon those portions of the highway between the outer rails and the kerbs. In London, owing to the fact that the London County Council (which owns and operates the tramways) does not maintain the portions of the high-way between the outer rails and the kerbs, a very material advantage is thus oonferred upon the tramways in London, and an unjust burden thrown upon the borough councils. In Edinburgh, of course, the same council repairs both the portions of the highway which are between the rails and the portions which are beyond them. It is purely special pleading to suggest that the same volume of traffic, because it is unevenly spread, due to the presence of the tramcars, can cause less wear and tear, or that ratepayers can be saved any money because of its diversion. If anything, the contrary is the truth, and any uneven wear of the highway, due to the greater conCentration of the ordinary wheeled traffic towards the sides, results
• in added expenditure per superficial yard. whilst the necessity for what we may term " patchwork" repairs, due to the presence of the rails, tends in the same direction. These facts are common knowledge to all highway surveyors. As regards the third point, we should like Edinburgh ratepayers to know that motorbuses do pay a considerable tax, for the use of the highway, in the shape of a petroltax. In Edinburgh, the average would be close upon one-halfpenny (0.46d.) per mile run per motorbus, and for 8,000,000 miles per annum, which the tramway reporters take into account, any petrol-motorbus system would be paying a road tax of no less than 215,385 annually. It is for the Edinburgh ratepayers, through Sir J. H. A. Macdonald, G.C.B., one of Edinburgh's oldest and most respected citizens, to take steps to obtain part or all of this yield, as we have already hinted, and to which point we return later.
Our Views as to Results from Motorbuses. The tramway reporters, who were instructed and paid by the Tramway Committee of the Edinburgh Corporation, and who can hardly be expected to report favourably upon motorbuses when that subject is in a sense outside their purview, and in no sense one which commends itself to them, profess to believe that the experience of a motorbus system in Edinburgh must represent a loss to the city of 239,425 per annum. We challenge the accuracy of this assertion most strenuously. They cannot show any such loss, it must be noted, without burdening the motorbus scheme with four loads, which loads either do not belong to it, or are sulject to very considerable relief i which s not shown. The factors, thua introduced or pinitted, are the following :—(1) Charging against the motorbus the cost of taking up the cable tramways and restoring and repaving the road surfaces—the extinguishing of a capital sum of, perhaps. 2160,000 or £180,000; (2) loss of rates, £13,773; (3) alleged saving when tramcars crcrwd ordinary traffic away from crown of roads on to the side portions (likely share of proceeds of petrol tax not shown as set-off), £6000; (4) extra road maintenance (likely further share of proceeds of petrol tax not shown as set-off), 24000.
We urge upon the ratepayers of Edinburgh the 036
expediency of their adopting competent means to prove that they are much more likely to find a profit from the motorbuses of not less than 252,000 per annum—which assertion we now make—than any loss; Jet alone a loss of the magnitude which is put forward, and which suggested loss we contend is stated in the worst conceivable form. If ordinary coal-gas, from the Edinburgh city supply, were used instead of petrol, there should be a net profit of another 250,000 annually on the motorbuses. It concerns the gas undertaking for Edinburgh and district, no doubt, to get a new buyer of 370,000,000 cubic ft. annually, at 3s. per 1000 cubic ft., and to make that profit as vvell. It can be done.
Why Should Not Edinburgh Lead?
There is an old argument, which we consider unworthy of progressive engineers, and one which can have no place in the future of Edinburgh if that city is to help the British Empire forward, and this is colloquially stated as follows :—" It was good enough for my father(or grandfather): why should it not be good enough for me ?" There were people who would not travel in railway trains, because their fathers and grandfathers had used coaches, and those people were a handicap upon progress in the first half of last century ; there were people who would not send telegrams or use the telephone, because they had been able to do without them before, and they held back the use of time in many parts of the country in the second half of last century, quite apart from their exercising an adverse influence on the country at large in relation to international trade competition • there were people—and merchant princes too—who still thought sailing ships good enough, until the late Mr. Alfred Holt sent the Ulysses " round the Cape to China on coal, and so confuted the view that the whole of the cargo space must consist of coal for the furnaces. We mention the foregoing matters by way of leading up to the following extract : Of the great cities of the world not one depends upon motorbuses as the sole form of street transit. In London. where surface tramways have not yet been extended through the city, a great service of motorbuses has been established. The conditions of the Metropolis, however—with its 7,000,000 of population, and their widespread residential distribution; also the contour and the surfacing of the roads—are in these features entirely unique, differentiating it from Edinburgh so completely that no comparison can be mado of conditions so dissimilar in their nature, degree, and. circumstance.
Moreover, the buses there are in company ownership, coin.. peting with the public tramcar service; they are not rated as the tramways are, and they bear no direct charge in respect of highways maintenance.
The reason why no great city of the world has a complete motorbus system is obvious: the motorbus had not reached its present relative mechanical and traffic perfection when those cities installed their tramway systems. The advent of the motorbus has " throttled " tramway extension in London, because the development of the motorbus happily took place before London was in the grip of the street-railway men, which class of expert usually ignores the cost to the community, and particularly to owners of ordinary horse-drawn vehicles and cyclists, of cutting up the otherwise good streets with rails. As Su John Macdonald has recently pointed out, tramrails were a concession to bad road surfaces, but we now know how to make—and keep—road surfaces good, smooth and durable, at reasonable annual cost. Cannot Edinburgh ratepayers appreciate the fallacy of the." no other city" argument? Edinburgh is the first city which has the chance to shut out the offending tramrail, and at the same time to save the outlay of huge capital sums, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which the ratepayers can alone save by using the mobile and adaptable motorbus. The motorbus. of course, is the only vehicle which can leave its week-day working haunts on holidays and public occasions, and convey the workers of any city
to the beautiful country around them. The tramcar must stay where its rails are. •
We do not agree with thetramway reporters that the physical or -other conditions in London are in no wise applicable to Edinburgh. If the Edinburgh City Council will call for a report from other experts, they will find quite a different set of views placed before them, and views which we consider will carry the day. As to the motorbuses in London bearing no direct charge in respect of highway Maintenance, this is the usual pro-tramcar way of avoiding the fact that the motorbuses pay the petrol tax, which goes to the Road Board for road improvement and "extra maintenance," which taxation, for the year 1916, for the London motorbus companies together, will be in excess of 2100,000, even with 1000 vehicles at the war.
The statement that motorbuses bear no highway charge is only a part truth, and one which may unintentionally mislead. It depends upon the manner in which local claims are placed before the Road Board —and here, we repeat, Edinburgh has a unique chance with Sir John Macdonald to state its case—whether or no a large sum "in respect of highways maintenance" is obtainable. Whilst the Road Board nominally only gives money for improvement, it hag given money for "extra maintenance," and also, in uses where conversion of highways, in the direction of improvement, has taken place earlier than the date at which it would normally have been undertaken.
.The Road Board will, in our opinion, if application be made to it by the Edinburgh City Council, be strongly inclined to hold that the abolition of tramrails in the city is so great an improvement that it will promise Edinburgh ratepayers at least the equivalent of, if not considerably more than, the proceeds of the petrol tax upon a, fleet -of motorbuses for the' benefit of the city, Which annual yield, on the estimate of the tramway reporters as regards mileage required, will be not less than £15,000 per annum. This likelihood of relief from the proceeds of the petrol tax cannot be dismissed in advance. It must be tested. The Motorbus as a Feeder.
The tramway reporters, no doubt basing their views upon the experiences of not a few cities and towns in the country, conclude their report with the following three paragraphs :—
Considered in its relation to the problem of street passenger transport, we think that a serviceable function of the motorbus is in the form of an auxiliary to a tramway system, serving, for instance thinly populated districts requiring less frequent service, and as "feeders" to a tramway system proper. In such a case any loss upon the bus traffic may be neutralized by the gain or surplus upon the tramway systent.
In this form, the motorbus may yet become a serviceable and suitable auxiliary of the Edinburgh tramways system.
Having dealt with-. the "methods of traction which might be adopted for the tramway system in Edinburgh," we now proceed to that portion of question No. 1 which calls -upon us to keep in view "probable future extensions, with full information as to their cost of installation and working."
So far as their references to "thinly populated districts" go, we may state that it is an accepted dictum " amongst tramway engineers and financial authorities, that an electric-tramcar system will not pay unless the traffic is enough to support an average ten-minutes service in each direction throughout. Against this, however, it is equally well settled, as motorbus experts and financial authorities know, that a motorbus system, whilst capable of dealing with a fifteenseconds service in each direction (as in several London thoroughfares before the war), is quite well capable of paying handsomely on any service whatsoever, be it at intervals of 5, 10, 15, 30, 45 or 60 minutes. This adaptability is unknown in electric-tramcar practice, owing to the heavy 'charges per mile run, when the mileage is low, to cover interest on capital and to provide for depreciation. We suggest, toe, that a, full statement of all correlated capital expenditure, actual or contemplated, relative to any electrictramcar scheme, should be shown in detail—including power stations and new rails. Let Edinburgh beware of making a false move. It should not put the tramcar millstone round its neck solely on the words and viewsof pro-tramcar reporters. There are two sides to every question. The City has not yet had the motorbus side before it.