CO-ORDINATION IN URBAN TRANSPORT.
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Summary of an Important and Informative Paper by Lord Ashfield.
FOR several weeks past we have been in possession of a copy of a particularly interesting paper by the Right Hon. Lord Ashfield, chairman of the Underground Railways of London, entitled "Co-ordination in Urban Transport," but exigencies of space have, until now, precluded us from doing proper justice to its contents. The paper is of a most comprehensive character and, apart from dealing with the many-sided phases of modern traffic and kindred problems, is partly retrospective and surveys the history and growth of passenger transport. It was prepared for reading at the convention of the Electric Railway Association, held in Cleveland, Ohio, -U.S.A., during last month, and as it raises numerous points of direct cobcern to those in aus way associated with paSsenger-carrying, it is our intention to make copious extracts from it for the benefit of our readers.
At the commencement it is made clear that the growth and health ot great urban communities depend upon the soundness and progressiveness of urban transport undertakings, the underlying principles governing the operation of which are three, viz., competition, co-ordination and monopoly. For the interpretation of these principles Lord Ashfield thinks it necessary to turn to the inexact science of economics and, for educative reasons, he turns with this object in mind, to history.
The Growth of Urban Trans port.
A consideration is given to urban transport about 1860. The London General Omnibus Co. was formed in 1858, and provided London with its first wheeled public transport of any size by horsed omnibuses. In 1860, the first public passenger tramway ever constructed—a horse tramway—was laid in the streets of Birkenhead.
In 1860, the urban passenger movement in Gseater Loudon was concerned with 40 millions of passengers. Twenty years later it had multiplied six-fold, and 20 years later again, that is, in 1900, twenty-fold. It continued to advance with ever-accelerating speed, for 10 years later, in 1910, it was 40 times the volume which it had been in 1860, and 10 years later again, in 1920, it was seventy times greater. In 1925, it amounted to 3,225 millions of passengers, or an accumulative increase of 8,000 per cent.
It is Lord A.shfield's .opinion that by 1930, or in a period of 70 years, it will be within reach of 10,000 per cent.
above the figure of 1860. This is a revolutionary change. Greater New York affords an almost parallel series of results.
One of the most illuminating comments on this record is that in a modern metropolis it is impossible to catch up with the demaild for transport, because every addition to the means of transpert creates fresh traffics and, therefore, fresh congestion. There is much truth in this, which points not to com
petition between the means of transport, but rather to competition between the users of the service of transport.
Transport, it is sagely observed, con sists in public service. The service may be measured statistically in seatmiles. The use of the service may be measured in passenger-miles. If the seat-miles be not used by passengers and so converted into passenger-miles, they are lost. Waste is costly. If, therefore, the proportion wasted is, by reason of competition in services, increased, the amount charged by way of fares to the passengers must be raised.
Variable Operating Conditions.
Reference is made to the substantial proportion of the total service provided by urban transport undertakings, which is wasted in any event by reason of operating conditions occasioned by the variable flow of the traffic, by the unbalanced inward and outward movements morning and evening, by irregular movements at mid-day, and by the seasonal and climatic variations, which can hardly be forecast with exactitude. Whether railways or tramways or motor omnibuses are taken, in Greater London the average use which is made of the facilities provided barely excedds 33 per cent.
He gives same informative facts anent the operation of different classes of transport and tells us that in Greater London the atierage speed of the Underground trains is 18 m.p.h., including stops, or 24 m.p.h. where a limited number of stops only is made. Upon the tramways the average speed is 9.6 m.p.h., but upon the motor buses in the built-up areas only 8.6 m.p.h.
Speed of Buses Falling.
We are not altogether surprised to learn that the speed of operation of motor omnibuses has fallen owing to the combined effect of street congestion and restrictive legislation, and it is a matter of importance, says Lord Ashfield, both to those who •provide the streets and those who regulate them, that a higher speed of operation should be secured for motor omnibuses without delay. The decline in speed tends to increase cost, for many elements of cost are determined on a time basis.
The average receipt per passenger upon the Underground Railways is 2.8d., upon the omnibuses 1.8d., and upon the tramways slightly less than 1.45d., but if the average cost of carrying a passenger be taken, it is found to be 2.1d. upon the Underground Railways, 1.6(1. upon the omnibuses, and 1.3d. -upon the tramways. The margins between these figures are the net receipts and are as follow for three forms of transport: .7d. per passenger upon the Underground Railways, .2d. per passenger upon motor omnibuses and .15d. per passenger upon tramways. So that the relative net earning capacity of each, if the railways be taken as 100, is 29 in the case of the omnibuses and 21 in the case of the tramways.
If, then, the capital investment involved in the provision of these several forms of transpost is investigated, it will be found that this capital represents an investment, per passenger carried in the year, of 34d. in the case of Underground Railways, of 5d. in the case of tramways, and of 1.4d. in the case of motor omnibuses. Then if the net receipts per passenger be brought into relation to the capital expenditure per passenger it will be found that, if motor omnibuses be this time taken as 100, the economic capacity of the tramways is only 21, and of the Underground Railways, on account of their enormous capital expenditure, only 15. Yet all these means of transport are necessary to a complete scheme of facilities. They are complementary one to another.
Competition the Bugbear of Congestion.
Lord Ashfield next deals with the traffic capacity of the public streets and refers to their limitations. A single line of traffic, he informs us, will accommodate some 500 vehicles per hour in a congested street. If a wasteful use is to be made of the public street, if the vehicles using the street are to be only partly loaded, or if the general speed of movement in a street is to be slowed down by congestion, then vast and needless expenditures are forced upon the community to supply more and wider streets. In the centres of modern cities this has already become a grievous and almost insuperable
problem. It is certainly not to be aggravated by countenancing needless competition, and the time has come when the public streets should certainly have ceased to be regarded as a field for competition.
Traffic has grown more variable as cities have grown in Size and strength, and this variability has never allowed of rest in urban transport. The incentive to improvement, to expansion, is always there.
For instance, the basis of prosperity in urban transport is not a few passen gers at high fares, but many s at low fares. Experience shows .1aat it is possible to securd the same net earnings from traffic with a quite considerable range of volume by varying the fares. It is, in fact, found that the volume of traffic varies inversely with the fares charged, but it is equally found that within the definite economic limits set to the problem, as fares are lowered so the volume of traffic increases slightly more than in the exact ratio.
Considerable space is then given to the question of co-ordination and arguments in its favour put forward, the experience of Paris, Berlin, New York and Cleveland in connection with the problem being quoted at some length.
In concluding his remarks on this subject of co-ordination, Lord Ashfield says that it is hoped in a short while to establish a common management of all transport undertakings in Greater London.