THE TRAFFIC OF LONDON.
Page 8
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Some Impressions and Comparisons.
FETE ROAD-BORNE TRAFFIC of London is regarded, particularly by foreigners, as one of the wonders of the world. Their admiration is especially claimed by the efficiency of the system under which that tratne is regulated. It has been said, for example, that if the system of Paris were to prevail for a day in London the traffic would become hopelessly congested, and the number of traffic accidents would increase immeasurably. There is much truth in this statement. Londoners, perhaps, become dulled to the efficiency of what is to them completely familiar. The secret seems to lie mainly in the stolid determination of the London Police Force to carry out ias 'duties to the letter and quite regardless of any personal risk. Even at times of extraordinary congestion, as, for example, during the week of the Coronation of the King in. 1911, London traffic, though it has inevitably slowed down, has still been conducted with astonishing regularity and safety. The absence of an equal measure of control led—to take a. parallel instance—during the visit of the King and Queen to Paris early in 1914, to complete blocks in the traffic at many important unctions and crossings.
8onie of the credit belongs also to the Londo4 driver, inasmuch as he is perfectly disciplined, and as a rule obeys not merely the law, but an unwritteri code little, if any, less important.
Traffic Regulation and Congestion.
Despite the most perfect regulation imaginable, the traffic of London is, however, peculiarly dense, and bad it not been for the introduction of motor vehicles we should some years ago have reached a stage at which very extensive street widenings in all parts would have become necessary. The general public does not fully realize what the motor movement has done for it in this way. Congestion is, of course, due to excessive 'occupation of the roadway by vehicles. The degree of 'occupation for which any particular vehicle is responsible is dependent on the size of the vehicle and fon the time during which it is present. If, then, we replace a slow-moving vehicle by one that travels twice as quickly, we reduce the occupation of the road to a half of what it was before the change was made. There is a certain amount of space available and a certain amount of time during which that space can be occupied. In effect the motor-has increased both the space and the time. It is a more compact form of conveyance than the horsed vehicle.
If we consider any class of traffic we shall find that for a given carrying capacity the motor vehicle is smaller, or at any rate shorter, than the corresponding horsed vehicle. An obvious instance us to be found in the omnibus. A 34-seated in.otorbus takes up no more room than did the old 22-seated horsed bus with its horses. It is perhaps a little wider, but it is probably a little shorter. Thus, •even if speeds were equal, the motorbus would in effect increase the carrying capacity of the road by about 50 per cent., as against the horsed bus. Speeds are, however, not equal, and here again the motor is at an advantage. Its capacity for speed is quite twice that of the horsed omnibus. Its actual achievement in traffic from which horsed vehicles have not as yet been entirely eliminated shows an advantage in speed of not less -wan 50 or 60 per cent., and probably more. Tf, then, we consider the amount of road occupation involved in the carriage of each passenger from some one paint o some other, the motor omnibus, having the advantage .both in time and in compactness, is seen to be altogether more than twice as efficient regarded as a unit of traffic. We can carry three people in a motorbus to two in the horsed bus, if we use the same
a330 number of vehicles. Because of the extra speed we can run three motorbuses in the place of two horsed buses without occupying the road any more. We can, then, by introducing motor omnibuses, carry nine people with the same amount of traffic congestion that used to be caused when we carried only four. This is tantamount in effect to increasing our roads to more than double their present width. If we consider what would be the cost of actually widening the highways of London on this scale we get some idea of how much the motorbus is really saving us.
Haphazard Roads.
Bo far as roads are concerned, London is badly served, though roail surfaces are on the whole good. It is in the distribution and arrangement of roads that London is inferior to many. other cities. We have never in the Metropolis put into force a really comprehensive scheme of town-planning .applied to roads, such as was introduced in Paris during the first half of the nineteenth century. A proper scheme leads to the construction of wide straight roads uniting and crossing at open places which form junctions. London has grown too slowly and too widely for any complete scheme of re-arrangement to be applied nowadays. The main roads of London started, like most roads, by being nothing more than the tracks made by animals and men in walking. Streets sprang up gradually on either side of these tracks. Snell streets were wide enough at one time, but later on became much toonarroW to tarry the increased traffic that came to use them.
Some of London's Bottlenecks.
In another respect the road plan of London is bad. It is not such as to throw into advantageous relief our great buildings and memorials. It may be said with some truth that a certain number of the latter are better hidden from the public gaze, but this does not apply by any means in every instance. The difficulties that were experienced in obtaining a. good vista when the reconstruction of The Mall and the building of the Admiralty Arch and the Queen Victoria Memorial were undertaken is a good example of this point. Even when everything possible had been done, there resulted no impression of continuance of The Mall 'where it reaches Trafalgar Square. Roads branch off in various directions, but it is obvious that these directions are due more to chance than to careful planning. Then, again, the Strand is a main thoroughfare this fact is recognized in the attempts to widen it, but the work goes on slowly and at great expense, and at present the street has a "bottleneck" near its western end. Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill are equally inadequate, ' and the best we could do was to offer an alternative route for fast traffic to the City along the Embankment and Queen Victoria Street. St. Paul's is as badly placed as it could possibly be from the point of view of obtaining a proper vista of this fine building from any.considerable distance. The Bank and the other famous build legs adjacent to it give none of that impression of breadth and grandeur which would be expected in view of their importance, again for the reason that the roads leading to them are the work of chance and not of true design. By this arrangement, or lack of arrangement, we may and no doubt do, secure a certain picturesque individuality, but the fact remains that, from the point of view both of breadth of vision and also of practical utility, the roads of London cannot be described as other than haphazard and inadequate. This renders all the more creditable the admirable scheme of traffic regulation which makes it possible for those roads to be used by an immense volume of traffic with comparative security.
A Tram-less City.
In a sense, the lack of proper planning and provision of roads in London has encouraged the adoption of motor transport. We have a, large central area from. which the tram must necessarily be excluded on account of the narrowness of the streets and the tremendous volume and the slow movement of the traffic using them. The consequence is that the motor omnibus has a certain field within which it has matters all its own way. Our tramway system is rathear in the nature of a number of lines aiming at the centre but never reaching it. Thus the through traffic by road from northern to southern or from western to eastern districts cannot generally be e'enducted other than by motorbus or motorcar. This is in itself a great advantage to the bus as against the tram, and is probably the -chief reason why the bus figures so much more prominently in London than in most other great cities. In Paris somewhat different causes lead to a rather similar result. There the tram is excluded from the centre, not because it is impossible but because it would be objectipnable. The Parisians rightly set store upon the preservation of the beauties of their city. They will not tolerate permanent eyesores in the nature of tramlines and standards in the smartest and most attractive parts. The motorbus, without being a fit subject for artistic raptures, at least has the advantage that its ugliness is self-contained, p.nd does not leave permanent traces when the bus itself is out of sight.