1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 
IT (£5.9m. loss) agrees with
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mrs. Castle on future shape LONDON TRANSPORT lost £5.9m. in 1966 and carried 7.2 per cent fewer passengers on its buses and coaches compared with 1965, according to the Board's fourth annual report published on
Wednesday.
The deficit was blamed partly on a £4.5m. increase in working expenses and a delay, at the request of the Government, from May 1965 to January 1966 in introducing a fares increase. Interest charges also rose by f+m. during the year to Elm.
Discussing the question of what form the future overall traffic and transport authority for London should take, the report states that the general conclusions on the subject of urban transport contained in Mrs. Castle's White Paper of last year are in line with views the Board had already expressed to the Government.
While doing useful work the Transport Coordinating Council for London could never wholly overcome the basic defects of divided responsibilities referred to in the White Paper.
Five points essential to the future of public transport in London are outlined in the report. They are:— 1. Construction of new Underground lines. 2. Reorganization of the bus services based on London Transport's reshaping plan. 3. Roads freed of traffic congestion. 4. Priorities for public transport. 5. Much improved interchange facilities between different transport services.
On points 3, 4 and 5 the report says that the Board is continuing to press for action and adds that there is general agreement on many of the measures which ought to be taken, but progress in terms of what can be seen in the streets is disappointingly slow.
Turning to buses, the pattern of 1965 with staff shortages and traffic congestion affecting the regularity of services was continued in the early part of 1966 and in January the overall shortage of central bus crews was almost 12 per cent of requirements. In consequence more than nine per cent of the scheduled mileage could not be operated.
However the wage increase in June, together with the effects of the change in the economic position from July onwards, resulted in a considerably better staff position by the end of the year, when 195 more drivers and 172 more conductors were employed on central buses compared with December 1965.
The scheduled bus mileage lost as a result of the staff shortage rose to 21m., or 8.4 per cent. This compared with 19m. in 1965; the increase was caused by the overtime ban at the beginning of the year. Scheduled miles lost through traffic conditions in 1966 were 3.5m., or 1.4 per cent of the total—almost the same percentage as in 1965.
The report gives more details of the 150 new AEC Merlin single-deckers with MCW bodies due for delivery later this year as part of the reshaping plan for London's bus services.
Fifty-two of the buses will have 50 seats and a front entrance/exit for use on central bus routes in the suburban areas; 33 will be country buses with 45 seats, front entrance and central exit; 16 will have 25 seats and space for 48 standing for an extension of Red Arrow services in central London; and 49 vehicles with a similar layout will be used on the first experimental flat-fare suburban routes.