Inferiority Complex?
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN the flush of self-satisfaction experienced after hearing the words of hope offered by Mr. I'. Robert Williams at the Institute of Transport Congress, at Southport, there is a danger that bus operators may overlook his many warning notes. There is still no room for complacency; in spite of what many people in the industry are saying and doing, few are really taking the trouble to think out a plan for the future in terms of expanding traffic.
Operators, particularly of long-distance services, argue that the standard of comfort provided in their vehicles satisfies public demand. Has the industry forgotten that success in most fields of business is achieved not so much by satisfying public demand as by trying, at times, to guide it? The bus industry itself owes its success to men with powers of anticipation.
Bus operators who accept that there is room for improvement find their scapegoat in the higher fares which would be an inevitable consequence of providing those improvements. But surely this is a defeatist attitude to take? It reflects an uncompromising acceptance of the myth that public road passenger services are secondary to those provided by the railways.
Even Mr. Williams' commendable vision is marred by the acceptance that faster and frequent rail services "at comparable fares to the road, or even higher" will " undoubtedly " attract traffic from the road services. Why do people travel by rail? Speed is an important factor—though not necessarily with the majority of travellers—but so are the amenities that are a 'normal part of railway-carriage design. Such features as toilets, refreshment facilities and roominess play a major role in attracting people to the railways—and at a considerably higher cost than they would today pay on a road service.
What about the people who travel barely at all? This is an unknown quantity, but that such persons exist is shown by evidence frequently given in the traffic courts about people who prefer to stay at home rather than suffer the inconveniences of rail travel. If these people had the door-to-door convenience offered by the bus, plus many of the finer points for passenger comfort afforded in a train, they would have the inducement to travel. And would the fare matter if it was no more than • that charged on the rail service?
Britain too often looks to North America for indications of which way the wind is blowing. Is it not more appropriate, in this case, to look to the Continent? Smashed in the last war, the Continental railways are now back in fighting spirit, and it is only by giving his passenger similar facilities to those provided on trains that the bus operator across the Channel can hope to expand. And expand he does! His fares are proportionately much higher than for similar services in this country, but the passenger gets good value for his money.