Minibus services
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
continued from page 25
operating costs. Levels on the Underground must be high enough to allow for a subsidy to buses by the rail network (1971 budget: rail £3.2m profit; buses £5.5m loss—both figures excluding advertising and property receipts).
On buses, pre-paid tickets would help to achieve a faster boarding rate. LTE was considering an experiment to test feasibility and assess public reactions.
Only a handful of the public comments received on the Green Paper supported fares-free travel. Many Continental authorities had studied such a scheme but all had rejected it, the report comments. It reiterates the GLC's opposition to subsidized fares, which "would be an ineffective method of assisting public transport, since management dicipline would be seriously impaired and costs more difficult to control". Any fares subsidies should be only for the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. Thus it became a matter for central Government, a welfare authority such as the London borough councils or, in the case of school children, for the education authorities.
Shortages of staff meant a loss of eight per cent of scheduled bus mileage last year. Thus staff requirements must be kept to a minimum—o-m-o buses would help—and the GLC hoped that LTE would continue to improve productivity and efficiency. The GLC was also discussing the possible provision of assistance with housing for London Transport staff, particularly in west and north-west London where staff shortage was most acute.
While suggesting experiments such as the minibus services, the report dismisses advanced systems such as the Cab-track and Mono-rail—described as "unsuitable" for London, with its large areas of historical or architectural significance. In any case neither could be considered at present for financial reasons alone, but developments would be closely watched.