Middlesex Highways Bill in Committee.
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.
Full Report cl th-2; Proceedings, Continued from Last Issue.
Evidence for the Omnibus Owners Federation.
Mr. J. W. Bradley, engineer and surveyor to the City Council of Westminster, who had been required to attend under an order of the House, was the first witness, and on taking his seat he explained that he was not there as an officer of the Westminster City Council and had no authority to produce any documents.
Mr. Balfour Browne agreed that the witness was not there in his official capacity as repreenting the Westminster Council, and then proceeded to ask him questions, in reply to which Mr. Bradley stated that he had been engineer and surveyor for the City of Westminster for 14 years and had had experience of road construction for thirty years. Many of the read in Westiniester were largely used by inutorbuses. Is a road paved with wood with a good concrete foundation lik:dy to be greatly injured by motor traffic 7—It, depends tu some extent on the character and quality of the wood used. What is the right wood to be used so as to prevent injury to the road?—I have fotiod that creosoted blocks upon sound concrete foundations have not suffeeed by the motor traffic. I have used these blocks in Piccadilly, the Strand, Wardour Street, Bond Street, Regent Street-, Charing Cross, and ‘Vhitehall.
Which thoroughfare is most used by motor omnibus traffic 7 —I should say the Strand.
Cm ou say how many bite's pass along the Strand in 24 hours !—I am sorry, I ca»nut, but -the total is very large indeed.
Can you tell us what has been the effect of motor traffic on these roads paved with the wood you have described ?-1 cannot find that motorbuses passing along on paving of creosoted deal blocks laid on a good foundation of concrete have dune any more damage than the old horse buses did.
The cid horse-bus wheels were, I believe, tired with metal, and this would make a great difference upon the roads?—I think the design of the old horse-bus wheels and the design of the motorbus wheels are of differenteffect upon the roads.
On water macadam roads the rubber-tired wheels have a sucking effect 7—Yes, I noticed that some years ago.
Upon your roads that you have mentioned where the omnibus motor traffic is very great is other kind of motor traffic also very great?-It is.
Can you tell the committee whether in your view the motor-omnibuses do any worse damage to the roads than taxicabs, lorries, and other motor vehicles ?—If you make allowance for extra weight I should say no. Am I right in suggesting that weight and spsed must both be taken into consideration ?—Yes.
And the lighter ear going at a very rapid pace, woold thatdo as much damage as the heavier ear 7—That depends very largely upon the condition el the road over which it was travelling. I mean to say that, supposing we take a woodpaved road in asatisfactory condition and with a good surfaeo, I do not think the character of the vehicle would have a very much different effect.
Having regard to that, what do you think of a charge of three-eighths of a penny per mile being made upon the bus traffic upon this proposed road? Would that be an utterly exorbitaut charge f—Judging from my experience I should say it would be an exorbitant charge. Would the life of a. road properly made and paved be materially affected by the bus traffic going over it in addition to taxicabs, lorries, and such vehicls!--The greater amount of traffic the less the life of the read, of course.
But supposing that a road is only used by taxicabs, lorries and such-like, butno motorbuses, would it he worn out jUst. as soon?—With equal tonnage I should not discriminate between the difference.
Tell me another matter, besides the repair and maintenance of a road is there anything due to metorbus traffic which increases the cost of scavenging ?—No.
T believe you know the manner in which it is proposed that this new road shall be constructed f--Yes.
If this road. therefore, is properly constructed it, would be perfectly suitable for all classes of traffic?—Undaubtedly.
Does a road constructed in the way proposed last much longer than reads made either with macadam or under the ether older methods7--Tindoubtedly, y In reply to Mr. f.leyd, witness said the question of I:cost-meting roads in districts of the county of Middlesex limier the same principle as those constructed in Westminster would
ifB
largely depend opon the traffic which was to go over them. He had no knowledge of the character of the traffic in the county of Middlesez. He had been to Brentford, but had not visited the site of the proposed new road. He could not say from knowledge whether many of the roads in the county of Middlesex were wood paved. The road through -Brentford was undoubtedly very congested with traffic, and a new road was desirable.
Is it not a fact. that in reeent years it has become necessary to construct roads in 9uite a different way to that, which was formerly adopted 7—les. And what is this due to-1t is due to heavier and a greater amount of traffic, higher speed, and such (muses. And this new method is not; only more expensive to construct, but entails more expense to maintain the road f—That greatly depends upon what is the character of the traffic which goes over it. Is notthe upkeep of wood mora expensive than macadam? —No, not necessarily. But assuming the traffic to have been the same ?—Even then nut necessarily. Is it not largely due to fast-moving heavy traffic that wood paving has become, so necessary f—Yes, especially in towns. Do omnibuses pay any rates in your district do net. know. I am not concerned ill the rating at all. Do you confine your efforts to road making ?—My duties are confined principally as engineer. Do you expect to find the life of wood _paving shorter cc longer under the presentconditions of traffic f—After giving due consideration I should expect it to last longer tinder motorbus traffic than under the old horse-bus traffic.
You meau to say, then, that roads last longer now than they used to f—They do.
The Charge Should Be—" Nothing."
Have you considered what is a fair sum to be paid as cornpensation or contribution for the use of this road ?—Yes, nothing. But have you eonsidered what sum should be paid if their lordships come to the conclusion that there should be a payment ?—Ves, I have considered it, and I say " nothing." Then if their lordships come to the conclusion that something should be paid you have not considered what that amount shmild bef—Yes, I have fully considered it. Judging from the sum that would be returned from a tax of threeeighths of a penny per mile as compared with the actuel maintenance of certain similar roads under my jurisdiction I have come to the definite conclusion that nothing should be asked for.
Now, 1 really must ask you again, have you considere4 what the sum should be?—Yes, I have considered it.
And what is your decision?—Nothing, and I think I could convince their lordships if they come to the conclusion that, something should be paid that they have come to that conclusion in error.
Well, let us just assume that their lordships have come to the conclusion that something should be paid can you tell me what sum that should be ?—I say that after facts which have come to my knowledge the husen should not be asked to pay anything more than they do at present, for I find that since the motorbus traffic my roads are costing less for maintenance. In Westminster creosoted wood paving, together with the rock asphalted roads, aro now costing less than they did per mile a few years back.
Do you know of any place outside London where the cost per mile is less than it used to be?—I have no knowledge of these matters outside London. My own experience of Westminster is unique as regards traffic ond I have no reason to go outside London fur information.
In your calculation ure you taking cost of maintenance and renewals together ?-1 siQ.• that takilig wood-paved and rocl: asp ha It en roads per en do per annum, i»einding ordinary repairs and ordinary renewals, the cost is less in Westminster now than it used to be.
The committee here adjourned.
Fourth and Last Day.
When the committee resumed their sitting on Friday Mr. J. W. Bradley, the engineer to the City Council of Westminster. was re-examined by Mr Balfour Bromic, K.C., on
behalf of the Omnibus Federation, and he stated that calculations showed that the cost of the upkeep during the last four years of a similar length of road as the proposed POW OHO was £2800, whereas the charge on buses using that road of 2d. per mile would have amounted to £4750 per annum. The cost. of the upkeep of wood-paytal and rockasphalted roads in Westminster was decreasing end had been decreasing for some years. Water-macadam roads were now absolutely obsolete, except in respect to second-class country roads, where buses could at present run without being called upon to pay anything although they were liable ti ■ do damage. In his opinion buses caused no such wear and tear Oil properly emstructed roads as to justify any special tax being placed upon them. An ordinary car going at a great speed were a toad quite as much as a bus, There were gareges for taxicabs itt Westminster, but the wear and tear of wood-paved roads and rockaisuhalted roads outside three garages was nothing extraordinary. The proposed new road being intended as a relief road for the congested I3rentford high road he did not see any reason why the traffic of hoses using that road shonld be taxed. Omnibuses already paid a large amount in petrol tax ; this went to the Road Board, who were contributing largely towards the cost of making this road.
Fulham's Experience the Same as Westminster's.
Mr. Francis Wood, civil engineer and surveyor to the Metropolitan Borough of Fannin], examined by Mr. Freeman, said he had had a long experience of roads in curious parts of the country, and he had made a special study of road construction. He had heard the evidence gi‘ en by Mr. Bradley, and, generally speaking, agreed with it. He had also made himself thoroughly acquainted with the way in which this new road was to be constructed, and in his opinion it would be impossible to construct the road on stronger principles, and he did not agree in differentiating between the traffic of motorbuses and other traffic on this road. In his opinion motorbuses running on a road of this character would rot do more damage than ordieary traffic, and he agreed with Mr. Bradley that to make a charge of f,.d. per mile would be most exorbitant. In his opinion there was no justification whatever for making any charge.
Cross-examined by Mr. Talbot., witness said he quite agreed that whatever material a road was constructed of the chief factors of wear and tear were speed amid weight of the vehicle.
And for speed and weight you can find nothing to beat the omnibus?—Oh, no. A. motorcar going at the rate of 30 miles an hour can do as much harm to the road as the motorbus. A comparatively light motorcar going at a high speed will intensify the damage quite as mach as a heavycar going at a moderate speed.
But supposing you have a proper road surface, will you not agree that a motor omnibus going at a great speed would do more harm than any other motor vehicle?—No, not on a proper surface. Tf the road surface is properly constructed. no motor vehicle will do mild: damage through speed. The damage is caused by friction and not so much i by ordinary travelling. The wear caused by a motorcar goinv at a high speed is greater than that caused by a motorbus going at ordinary speed.
Do you mean to say that with a road constructed on the best principles the light motorcar wears it. quicker than a motor omnibus?—Yes, that may be so. It greatly depends upon whether the weight of a vehicle is properly proportioned. A motor omnibus under ordininy circumstances does not make any greater effect upon a road than a motorcar. At any rate that is my experience in Fulham.
I suppose on such a road as this an omnibus would run at a greater speed than in the streets of London ?—That would depend upon the police. It is quite likely that omnibuses wordd go a bit faster, as there would be fewer stoppages, and where there are fewer stoppages there is of course, less wear and tear.
But is itnot the case that omnibuses going out of town make up lost time by increasing their speed f—I have not foond it so By Mr. Browne : He looked upon bus traffic as ordinary wear and tear.
St. Marylebone (Oxford Street) also Agrees.
Mr. J. Paget Waddington, engineer and surveyor for the
holough of Marylebone, said he had heard of the proposed road and the way in which it was intended it should be constructed, and in his opinion if the road was so construtted there could be no special damage caused to it by motorbus traffic. Re therefore thoroughly agreed with the evidence given by Mr. Bradley, and he did not see the smallest reason, with such a road as this was proposed to be, for differentiating between motorbuses and other traffic. He thought the proposed charge of id. per mile most excessive, and in his (-pinion there was no reas,n whatever why a special tax should be placed on buses using this road.
In reply to Mr. Talbot, witness said if the road was properly constructed there was no reason for saying that the heavier vehicle wore it most. All vehicles wore a road more or less, hut on a. properly constructed road the wear and tear was about the tarrot with all vehicles. With the old macadam roads, he agreed, the motor omnibuses made serious mischief.
Mr. Richard Tilling for the Owners.
Mr. R. S. Tilling, in reply to Mr. Balfour Browne, said _ Mr. R. S. Tilling, in reply to Mr. Balfour Browne, said _
he was a jobmoster and chairman of ii motor omnibus com pany owning a great many buss. He had considerable knowledge of the traffic of motorbuses in this country, and he kni;-tv that the fares charged en omnibuses running in London were cheaper than those charged in the country. The pas. sengers carried by the buses in Loodon in 1913 numbered 676 millions, and in 1914 they would probably number 715 minions. The proposal in the Bill to charge buses id. per mile for using this road was, he thought, a most retrograde step and practically meant going hack to the days of the old toll bars. This charge, tog, would have a most detrimental effect on motorbuses, and it was a most disproportionate tax, for it meant the paying of the whole upkeep of the road by one particular class Of traffic. Every vehicle wore a road more or less, and his experieuce was that with the improved construction of roads the motorbus did not do so much damage as the old horse bus did on the old macadamized roads. The new road, according to how it was to be constructed, should be able to resist any damage, for a great deal of imurovement had been inad.2 in buses and their weight was now fairly distributed. The motorbus was row a more scientific vehicle than it was when it first came upon the roads. Motorbuses at presont went through High Street., Brentford, which was very much congested with traffic, and there was also a permanent tramway. Supposing a heavy tax was placed on buses which proposed to use the new road he thought they would continue to use the old route, for the tax mentioned in the Bill was obviously unfair. In reply to Mr. Talbot, witness said it would be for the companies, if a tax were imposed in regard to this new road, to consider whether they would use it, and, personally, he should say that it would not answer their purpose to pay the tax, and he was not at all surprised to hear it said that on a properly-constructed road buses did no snore damage than other motor vehicles, but, of course, he had heard some 7,1kind people say differently. Those people who said that buses damaged the road more than other motor vehicles must be referring to roads that were not properly constructed. His gvinim was that vehiclos should not he made to suit the roads. but that roads should be made to suit the vehicle. If not, they would have to go back to saddle horses and Sedan chairs.
Mr. Browne: If the companies did not use this new road and kept.to the old route that would mean depriving the public of the advantages of the motor buses on that roadf—Yes. If this is to be a public mad do not you think the public have a right to have it used by means of their buses?—Yes. You say that all public roads should be so properly constructed as to be able to withstand all ordinary public traffic. —Yes.
Speeches by Counsel.
Nit'. Balfour Browne then rumour' red that these were all the witnesses he intended to call before their lordships, although he had other surveyors who were prepared to substantiate the evidence that had been given, and he confidently asked their lordships to strike out from the Bill Clause 25, which proposed this charge of id. per mile on the omnibus traffic.clause said that the omnibus companies should pay to the Middlesex County Council a stun equal to id. per car-mile for any omnibuses using this particular road, which was to be a main arterial road five miles long coming from the west into London. Their lorsbips had to remember that when the Bill was before the House of Commons the clause—which was then 23—was not in the form it was now, but it said that no motor omnibus should run on this road at all without leave of the Middlesex County Council; thus shutting up this read to all this important traffic without their absolute consent. But this clause was modified in the House of Commons to the terms now contained in clause 25. This matter was of vital importance to his clients, and it also materially affected the general public, for it was quite obvious that if their lordships allowed this heavy tax noon buses using this road the travelling public would inevitably have to pay more. Ti, was a well-understood principle of political economy that the burdens of taxation should not fall upon the consumer, but in this instance the tax would inevitably have to fall on the shoulders of the consumer, whose shoulders were not very well able to bear it. The companies were carrying in their 'buses to A. great extent the lowest wage earners in London. They were not carrying the wealthy classes to any great extent, and so the wealthier classes would practically be left exempt from this tax. To this he did not, of course, obieet, but eshet he contended was that this proposed new road should be a free road to all. In
statemeet WW1 was issued by the promotere of the Bill in the House of Commons, it was said that the Road Board approved of the scheme, but the Road Board only approved of the acheme for the construction of the new road, and against this he had not. one word to say on behalf of his clients, but the Road Beard entirely and emphaticallydisapproved of clause 23 as it was then presented to the House of Commons, and the Road Board were still disapproving of clause 25 as it
was presented before their lordships. The learned COUJISIA then read the Letters from the Road Board, as given in an earlier part of this reports and went on to remark that it was clear, under the circumstances, that the statement made before the House of Commons that the Road Board approved of the Bill in its entirely was an error. Their lordships should also not ovoelook the fact that the Local Government Board drew the attention of the Commons Committee to this clause, stating that it appeared to them that the proposal of differentiating between omnibuses and other vehicular traffic should receive serious consideration before being passed. And notwithstanding these adverse expressions of opinion both by the Road Board and the Local Government Board, the Middlesex County Council persisted in coming before their lordships with clause 25, giving them power to charge a sum of id. per earmile on all buses using the road. Mr. Samuel had stated that this question of the contribution by these users of roads towards the upkeep of such roads was not a local matter but a question of national importance, and whatever was done, do not let them get back to the principle of the old tell-bar. If this was the attitudeof the President of the Local Government Board, it seemed premature for the Middlesex County Council to ask their lordships to legislate in this direction, and he maintained that there was nota single precedent that could be brought forward to uphold this application. There was not it main road in the country in which such a thing existed at the present day as a toll upon omnibuses, and the object of the legislature for years had been to get rid of all tolls. Then again, this proposed charge was not a lair and equitable charge, for it did not apply to all traffic, but only to the poor man's interests, and there was no case where a new road had previously been made and powers given to make the charge of such a differential tax. The companies were not appearing before their lordships to ask for any MAL powers, but all they asked was that they should have the right to run over this public road without having to pay the exorbitant tax proposed. They only wanted the right to run over this road in the same manner as they had the right at the present time to run through the High Street of Brentford or over any other roads in Middlesex. Hu (the learned counsel), therefore, appealed to their lordships not to approve the principle contained in clause 25 of the Bill. It was admitted that this road was to be made fit for all kinds of ordinary traffic, and the principle of communal upkeep of roads was the principle which was in vogue in all parts at the present time. But clause 25 suggested a departure from the principle of communal upkeep, and sought to impose an exorbitant charge for upkeep upon one particular body. Their lordships had also to remember that this road was to be constructed largely out of the pockets of the motor omnibus companies, who paid to the Bowl Board 110 less a sum than .C-85,000 per year as petrol tax, for the Road Board were going te pay three-fourths of Lire costs of the constructien. This, however, seemed to be to some extant the intention of the promoters, although it was admitted that the motorbnses carried an enormous mosber of people and were of great service to the public. Then again, it had been shown to their lordships by the evidence of Mr. Bradley that a tax of id per mile on a road such as the one proposed would actually exceed the whole cost of the upkeep of tha road_ And what. was this road supposed to be for? It was said that it was intended to be a relief road, but how would it relieve High Street, Brentford, if the bus companies refused to pay the tax and continued to run along the High Street? If, boweyer, the buses were allowed to run Moue this new road under the -co-editions that at present existed in etagard to all other roads then the wear and tear arid congestion of the Breetfurti Road would
B.1.2 not be so great, and he (the learned counsel) felt convinced that their lordships would not pass clause 25 of the Bill. It would be a great injustice, for the tax would fall upon the poorest lot of wage-earners, besides being an arbitrary and unjust imposition upon the motor-omnibus proprietors.
Mr. Honoratus Lloyd, K.C., for the promoters, next replied to the argumente that had been raised on behalf of the several opponents of the Bill, and in dealing with the case of the motor-omnibuses and their objection to the insertion in the Bill of clause 25 pointed out to their lordships that there was no objection on the part of the companies to the road being made. Indeed, they all seemed to wish that the road should be made in order that they might be able to use it, but they objected to pay amything towards its upkeep. During that inquiry one curious fact had arisen, and that was the remarkable difference between the evidence given by surveyors on behalf of the promoters of the Bill and that given by surveyors called by the opponents. For the prometere very strong testimony had been given that the increase of the motorbus traffic had created an enormous increase in the cost of the roads, and Mr. Wakelam, the engineer for the Middlesex County Council, in particular gave. them figures showing how great the increase -had been since the introduction of this motorbus traffic. It seemed to be admitted, however, on all sides that the further they get into London the slower the speed of the buses, and that weight and speed were the two material factors in the whole ease. And what did this all mean ? Inasmuch as motorbuses ran to a time-table the longer time they took in travelling in lased= must be made up by quicker travelling when they got outside. According to the extraordinary evidence given for the companies it would seem that. the motorbuses were not damagers at all, but that the repair of roads now amounted to almost nothing and the motorbuses had become useful factors in the nature of steamrollers (laughter). He (the learned Counsel), however, contended that the wear and tear of the roads was very great, although no doubt this had been reduced to amimmum in congested areas where the speed was restricted, and so they got there the effect of weight only and not of speed. Their lordships had heard a great deal of the omnibus being the poor man's friend, but learned Counsel submitted that the omnibus companies were not quite the benevolent. institution' it was desired to represent them. It was, in fact, a service run for a profit, and there was not the least likeness between the private ear and the public motor-omnibus. His learned friend had complained about the correspondence between the Read Board and the Middlesex County Council having been kept back when the Bill was before the House of Commons, but he (Mr. Lloyd) did not think there was much ground for complaint. Then his learned friend had stated that there were no precedents for aclause like this, hut time after time the question had been raised as to corporations running their rare outside their own areas, and this raised the point of the injustice of the whole matter. The promoters of thisBill wished to put itbefore their lordships that it was unjust for the ratepayers of Middlesex to have to bear the whale cost of the upkeep of these roads which were worn by the buses of private connpaniss, whereas if local authorities wanted to go outside their own area they had to pay. Let them all be tarred with the same brush, and for this reason the Middlesex County Council asked their lordships for permission to make this charge. It had been said by some of the witnesses for the omnibus companies thatthroe-eighths of a penny per mile was an exorbitant sum, but the Middlesex County Council had no desire to inflict any hardship upon the oompardes. The promoters of the Bill only asked that they should contribute a fair amounts and if their lord-ships considered that the charge of three-eighths of a penny should only be for a settled period in view of what might he done with regard to these roads in the near future by the Imperial Exchequer the promoters were quite ready to accept their lordships' decision, but he asked their lordships to say that, having regard to the effect these motor-omnibuses had upon roads by reason of their weight and speed, it was only right and fair the companies should pay a proper proportion of the cost of the maintenance of those roads lased by them. If this scheme were carried out it meant is vast improvement in the communications between the Metropolis and the West, and he (Mr. Lloyd), in conclusion, asked their lordships to say that, haying embarked upon sueh an important project involving the expenditure of a large aim of money, itwas only fair and equitable that the provisions contained in the Bill should be a-greed to.
The Decision of the Committee.
The court was then cleared, and after about 20 minutes deliberation His Grace the Duke of Bedford announced that clause 25. which referred to the charge of three-eighths of a nenny our car-mile on buses, must stand.