A Review of London Traffic in 1915.*
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The position of London traffic in the year 1913, as many readers of this journal will recall, was approaching its climax of „interest. That position, but for the war which broke out the following year, might already have been reached. Whenever the climax does prove to arrive, and we refer to the inevitable admission by tramway interests that they have been brought to their knees by motorbuses, the interest which particularly attached to the year 1913 will remain, it was the first. year of complete working after London " Tithe " interests had acquired London's premier motorbus interests. .Sir Albert Stanley introduces his paper with the following two paragraphs:— London is the largest aggregation of population in the world which looks to a common centre of civic life. It is only possible for such an -aggregation to occur where there are adequate traffic facilities. The traffic facilities link up and bind together the wideSpr:ea,d areas over which the population is scattered to make its homes. Not only must those be adequate, but they must afford a public service efficient in point of time occupied for the journey and economical in point of charge for the fare. These are the two factors that control the growth. To _secure a healthful standard of life, a population should occupy large tracts of land so that the buildings may be interspersed with pleasant spaces of country. • To ensure an active and progressive life, a population must be brought closelj together for the exchange and sharpening of thought and the sharing of a common weal. The realization of both those essential conditions depends upon the traffic system. It, therefore, should rank very high among public services. •
The Size and Population of Greater London.
The paper briefly reviews London's traffic poten tialities on a statistical basis. It points out that the city of London has a night population of under 20,000 persons, but a daily influx of nearly 350,000, and that the city of Westminster, with a permanent residential population of 160,000, also receives a huge
daily influx of unspecified magnitude. Around this epre lies the administrative county of London, consisting of 27 Metropolitan boroughs, and adding their 112 square miles to the one square mile of the city of London and the four square miles of the city of Westminster. Working outward and outward, in the area which is known as Greater London, Sir Albert Stanley traces in his paper how 9 Municipal Boroughs, 62 Urban Districts and 14 Rural Districts add some 576 square miles, thus approaching, as " Greater London," an area of approximately 693 square miles with a total population of 71in illion persons, with an average density of 16!, persons to the acre. He points out that, if one takes in the " outer suburban ring," which itself has an area of 2115 square miles, and a population of nearly 1 million (less than one to the acre); a total population of approximately
millions is available.
Extent of Facilities.
Instructive data are included with regard to railway facilities. It appears that there are 147 separate stations in the administrative county of London, not counting twice any station which serves two or more Underground lines, apart from .t.ationa on trunk railways. The whole of the urban system of railways provides 1.80 stations, showing that 3.3 lie outside the county. The route-mileage of the urban systems is SW.. One has then to add the. 9 trunk or main-line railways, with 16 terminal stations, 159 stations within the administrative county, 251 more stations within the boundaries of Greater London, and still another 1(4 more stations in the outer suburban ring, or 574 stations altogether.
Being extracts from and comment upon a paper by Sir Albert H. Stanley, manazing director of the Underground Electric Railways Corn p or London. Limited, the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., etc., at the 191.5 International Engineering Congress in San Francisco.
Turning to tramways, Sir Albert Stanley summarizes the position. He points out that the L.C.C. owns and operates 145 miles of tramway, that 10 local authorities own and operate between them another 78 miles, whilst three private companies operate another 123 miles. There are no tramways in the outer suburban ring that enter London, and the interurban express tramway, so popular in America, is not known. The tramway mileage is accordingly 3,16 miles, and no fewer than 2780 tramcars are distributed between that extent of track.
The motorbus routes in general operation extend as far as Reigate on the South (221 miles), Maidenhead on the West (31-i miles), St: Albans on the North (22 miles), and Romford on the East (141. miles). The route-miles served total 551, worked by 127 routes or services, on weekdays. . The respective totals were 609 and 122 on Sundays. [The maximum number of motorbuses reached 3477 working on Whit Monday, 1914, the day of maximum movement.] Control and Regulation.
The paper deals briefly with the Parliamentary procedure to secure railway or other powers. It proceeds, hereanent
The chief defect of the main line railway system of London is due to a policy which withheld all the main line railways from entering the central area. The. chief defect of -the underground systemof 1:ail railways is the piecemeal manner in which they have been designed by small and separate companies and the lack of any powers of review left to the legislature, for the legislature may only accept, or reject, any particular bill presented to it. Amendments cannot go to the substance of -the proposal. Following upon this dispersion of interests, there have been jealousies which are illustrated by distinct and adjoining stations at many traffic centres, representing double costs and involving only half as convenient interchange ar-rangenients.. And, as a last. defect, the stations are often upon sites which are second hest only, whereas the effectiveness of an underground and invisible system of railways is almost wholly dependent on evidence of it at the critical traffic point. The possibility of an underground system of deep-level tubD railways for London is due to the existence of a thick bed of clay, impervious to moisture, stretching underneath it. The turning, to full account of this possibility for railway construction is due to a provision of the legislature which fixed the compensation payable to the owners of the surface for theixight to run tubes underneath, provided that the depth exceeded 40 ft. below the surface. tinder public streets or property, the price is fixed at ls. per ft. run. Under private property, the price is fixed at a .sovereign per ft. run.. By other provisions of this period, protection is given against claims for damage and vibration arising out, of the construction and working of 'the' railway. It is under such special favourable provisions as these that London has been able to acquire the unique system of railways which now serves it.
Variations of Procedure.
The variations of procedure, in respect of tramway powers, are next considered, and this section of the paper continues :—
While in the County of London the County Council is the solo authority entitled to construct and work tramways, and every private or other undertaker is excluded, the cities and municipal boroughs comprised within its limits have each a power of veto upon the construction of a tramway within their respective districts. Thus one can agree and one disagree, with the result of detachment of lines and the recasting and truncation of schemes to avoid prohibited areas. The door is also open for negotiations on many questions, such as the type of construction, the services to he provided, the fares to be charged, the upkeep of the streets occupied, and, particularly common and burdensome, street widenings and improvements. Not that this veto has not proved beneficial in keeping open large and important streets in the west of London, of peculiarly heavy traffic, in checking a prodigal development of tins m ways of a little useful kind, and in preventing the occupation of unsuitable streets which frequently occur in old-built places. Outside the London County, both
Sir Albert Stanley's Paper--con.
County Councils, Municipal Boroughs and Urban and Rural Districts are capable of becoming tramway authorities. Only \ 'here they .i.vaiVe their prior claiM May the palliate undertaker Lome in, and in this case, purchase clauses, enabling the Meal authority to take over the tramways, are always included, Another special type of opposition is that of the frontagers on a route. These are afforded an opportunity of exercising a veto under certain conditions and, always, of•oppos illg individuafly.
The Licensing of Motorbuses.
Sir Albert Stanley points out that the motorbus can ask for no privileged position, having to take its lack with any Other competing form of traffic without protection. It has, therefore, neither need um obligaion on it to seek powers or rights from the Government, local or central. He deals with the licensing regulations that are in force, and points out that, in he case of the Metropolitan Police area, the Chief Commissioner of Police does not possess a disUletionary power like competent local authorities, Jut, that he must license a motorbus as soon as the requisite conditions are duly met. The L.G.O.C., for its present scheme of routes, apart from the Commissioner of Police, has had to take out licences in 16 local districts.
Inspection and Supervision. Sir Albert Stanley appears to regret on principle that there is no power vested in anyone to keep the w hole traffic situation under review, or to treat of its real needs and conflicts. He evidently hankers, after on ideal Traffic Board.
The next section of his paper proceeds to deal with a few aspects of the unco-ordinated character of some classes of traffic, due to the lack or inspection and sapervision. He touches upon the unique difficulty of London, in that the main lines of railway do not, with the single exception of Charing Cross, come to the true centres of the business and social life of the capital. The congestion lias grown more and more acute, for some years past, between the main-line termini and the stations some few miles into the suburbs. One method of dealing with this problem is the coupling-up of the urban or Underground railways, at some point beyond the zones of heavy traffic
of the main-line railways. Examples of this kind, well known to everybody in London, are then given. The advantages of such an arrangement include the fellowing: the trunk railway comes into possession of a distribution system for its traffic, clear of a large central termini; the urban railway acquires feeder connections, into the territory outside London waiting to be developed ; the public gain almost invariably more convenient journeys and reduced rates of fare.
The Conflict of Tramways and Motorbuses.
This problem, in the opinion of Sir Albert Stanley, is second only to the terminal difficulties of the main lines. The change-over of public support is clearly indicated by him in the following tables
Tramways.
It has to be added that, 'during the first, half of the . . ,
year 1914, when normal .progress was •reCOrded, and before the outbreak Of war; the motorbuses carried 387,926,979 passengers, • thus again • showing a substantial increase.
Small Obstructiveness of the Motorbus.
Sir Albert •Stanley repeats in his paper the usual and sound arguments in favour of motwbuses, as compared with tramcars. He specifically states, of the motorbus: "It does not create a blockade, which congestion always conduces on a tramway; it falls in with the moving stream on either side of the road, and does not monopolize the centre." He proceeds to show that the relative efficiency of the motorbus, measured in seats occupied to seats offered, is almost twice as great as that of the tramcar. In this connection, too, later in his paper, under the heading of " Volume of Traffic," as the summary shows, he gives confirmatory data, the ratios of which are even more' favourable to the motorbus. With an exten-sive knowledge of passenger transport of all kinds, the opinion of Sir Albert Stanley is that motorbus proprietors are able to consider a route purely from a traffic point of view, which, we say, is the proper one. He concludes, in relation to London, by pointing out that there is not a single instance where a motorbus route merely .parallels a tramway route. His final reference to the matter of tramcar v. motorbus is to state that it is for the time being quiescent. He thinks the only real remedy will be the.,granting of a franchise to the existing companies, in which circumstances the problem will resolve itself into one of terms. He rightly points out that a local authority which owns a tramway undertaking must clearly be put out of court as an arbitrator, and that it mint on all counts occupy the position of prosecutor.
Volume of Traffic.
The following particulars are quoted from the opening portion of this section of the paper :—
The total passenger traffic of London in the year 1913 is estimated at 2,293,838,249 passengers. This total is shared almost equally between the three types of traffic.facilitv—the railway, the tramway and the motorbus. The' number of passengers carried on the local railways was 423,490,553, including under this head three sections of main line railways in London issuing separate annual reports and figures. This represents a traffic of 3,781,166 passengers for each mile of route and 1,802,087 passengers for each station provided. In the year 1907, a return was made by all the main line railways for the month of October showing the traffic which they carried into their terminal 'stations in London from points distant within 30 miles. Based ,on these 'figures, the total number of passengers of a local character contributed by the main line railways is estimated at 365,190,972. This represents a traffic 01 636,221 local passengers for each station provided. The total number of passengers carried by railways was 788,681,525, or 34 per cent, of the grand total.
The number of passengers carried on the London County Council Tramways was 522,952,640. The number carried by the tramways, operated by other local authorities, is esti
mated at 112,888,137. The number .carried by privatelyowned and operated tramways was 164,159.223. The total number of tramway passengers was about 800,000,000, or 35 Per cent, of the grand total, This represents a traffic of 2.312.131 passengers for each mile of route, or a traffic o2 287,770 passengers for each ear provided. The number oi passengers carried on motorbuses was 705.156.724, or 31 per
cent. of the grand total. In 1913 the traffic represented 202.806 passengers for each motorbus provided
The last few lines of the ffiregoing extract indicate an even better ratio in respect of seats occupied to
seats offered than the one to which earlier reference has been made under "obstructiveness,"
The volume of traffic was measured, in the year 1914, by the fact that there were 271 journeys per annum per head of the population, compared with 164 in the year 1906, an increase of 65 per cent. over the eight intervening years. People who live at Southend-on-Sea even made journeys at the rate of 43 per head of the population per annum. The desire of all traffic interests is to cultivate this habit, and it is pointed out that the unity of London is created by, and depends upon, the traffic facilities.
Fluctuations in Volume.
The incidence of traffic during the months of the year, the dais of the week, and the hours of the day next receives attention. February is usually a bad month and June the best moat', but August is, on the whole, the worst month of the year ; there is least traffic of any on Sundays and most on Saturdays, whilst Wednesdays and Thursdays slightly excel the other days because of half-holidays' the morning peak load is between 7.30 and 8.30, whilst that of the evening is distributed between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. One merit of the motorbus in relation to traffic fluctuations is that the smallness of the unit allows a closer adjustment to demand. The motorbus possesses unequal advantage when diverging routes converge along common thoroughfares, by reason of the short headway that is practicable.
Underground Trains per Hour.
The paper points out the means by which the District Railway, between Mansion House and Sloane Square, has been able to increase the frequency of its service, from 18 trains an hour in each direction with steam as the motive power, to 43 an hour at the present time, with an expected approach to 50 an hour in each direction before long.
The Fare Problem.
Sir Albert Stanley points out that there is no "fare system" in London. The average fare per electric tramcar is 1.01d., and per motorbus 1.33d. If workmen's fares are eliminated from the tramway returns, the average fare for the tramcar is 1.12d. He points out that the granting of workmen's fares, which are subsidized out of the rates, is unfair, because the rates fall on fewer shoulders than do payment of fares. Sir Albert Stanley strongly inclines to the view that penny and halfpenny fares must be developed, if for no other reason than because these are the coins in general circulation.
The following tables have a bearing upon the settlement of fares : before their full significance was appreciated, and partly because of tradition which cannot be broken down. Sir Albert Stanley is opposed to excessive differentiation, and deals with this subject as follows :
The differentiation in fare is also carried too far. The jump in price from 14. to 2d. is 100 per cent., and the 1,1d. stage is useful in breaking this down. The jump in fare from 2d. to 3d. is 50 per cent., and the 20. stage may also be useful as a bridge here. People have a tendency to save their halfpence, even by getting out at a point short of their real destination to save passing into another fare stage, and at a penny use this tendency is accentuated. The jump from 3d. to 4d. is only 331 per cent., and at this point the full penny risk is only proportionately equivalent to the previous halfpenny rise, and the 4c1. stage does not seem to be warranted. A fares scale is thus possible with the following denominations: 14., 1Lcl. 2d., 20., 3d., 44., 5d., 64. Beyond 6d., there is scarcely need to go, for all regular traffic. In fact, 4d. seems to be the limit fare. Regular traffic from beyond the 44. limit is almost wholly commuted traffic, and the commutation works out to an extended 44: limit and no further.
He considers that the characteristics of a good system of fares are these : that they, should be even in their incidence, sure and settled in their composition, known in their existence, and simple in their arrangement.
Return upon Capital.
The paper concludes by pointing out the low return upon the heavy capital of the London " Tube " and other railways. The opinion is expressed that the only remedy is to cultivate the travelling habit until Londoners travel as frequently as do New Yorkers-338 times in the year per head. The fare limit is suggested as 4d., and the time limit for a trip as 40 minutes, this, presumably, for the urban railways. In fact, the chief concern of the author of the paper appears to be how to bring the railways up to a higher level. He is evidently satisfied with the performances of the motorbuses. He declares himself-and in ,actions has proved his words-an avowed and staunch believer in the benefits of advertising traffic facilities.