Intermittent v. Continuous Transit.
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The claims of the Adkins-Lewis sub-surface transit scheme, on the continuous plan of operation, were advocated before the Society of Engineers, on Monday night last, by Mr. W. Yorath Lewis, in the course of a napes entitled "The Bus v. Tram Controversy, and Other Aspects of the London Traffic Problem." Throughout his paper, Mr. Lewis discloses an attitude of hostility to motorbuses, whilst many of his statistical data are admitted to be based upon estimates. These two features undoubtedly mar the value of an otherwise instructive contribution to the literature of the traffic problem.
Mr. Lewis. on the opening page of his paper, vitiates the whole of it by inferring that the proprietors of London motor omnibuses possess a monopoly. That. is not the case—it is the tramcar undertaking which possesses a monopoly, of the steel rail and the flanged wheel. He then proceeds to asperse the impartiality of the reports of the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade, which is certainly in bad taste, to say nothing more. Next of the points which we notice, we observe that he considers the present attitude of the L.O.C. to tramways extension to be "a glaring act of disloyalty to London," on the ground that the electors "deliberately decided for municipal trading in passenger transport by means of tram-. ways." Mr. Lewis omits to say how many years ago that was, and to point out that the motorbus was not then available as an alternative to the ponderous and obstructive tramcar. He later asks, "Has London decided to abandon municipal trading, to throttle its trams, and to jeopardize £12,000,000?" Why is "jeopardize" used ? The L.C.C. may decide to save its £12,000,000 by taking up motorbuses.
The author of this Paper points out that "circumstances are entirely different" in London. We fully agree. They undoubtedly are. The traffic conditions of London differ from those in any provincial city, or in any European capital. In addition, tramcars in London have to win on their merits, and not by means of protection. Screened against all competition. it is well known that various provincial undertakings do pay well. Why should they do otherwise ? In London, as we have already pointed out very often, the tramcar, which is very properly excluded from the central areas by the responsible authorities, has no such easy or sheltered existence. That is why people who advocate tramcars are so greatly perturbed at their declining prospects We entirely disagree with Mr. Lewis's estimates of point-to-point speed. He has the temerity to state that this averages only four miles an hour for a motorbus within the central area. He also states that halfpenny fares have only been "lately" adopted by motorbuses, which statement is inaccurate. His statistics with regard to fare-ratings are contradictory and inconclusive, whilst his deductions with regard to motorbus results are based upon nothing better than a guess. Hereanent, we read: "If there is any quibbling, let the Traffic Trust (sic) publish complete returns, as the Government should insist upon its doing. The average fare is bound considerably to exceed one penny." He then proceeds to take the inclusive working cost for a London motorbus at 6.8d. per mile, which is at least .4d. too low. His reference to the central area .of London as the "Bus Paradise" is amusing. We do not care to commit to paper our views as to the state of that area if tramcars were allowed there, but it would certainly deserve to be placed in a very different category from a "Paradise" for anybody. His frequent references to the " monopoly " which is possessed by the proprietors of the motorbuses becomes nauseating. With his statement that "the. capital cost of a system is no criterion of its advantages" we are in hearty agreement, seeing that each electric tramcar which is owned and operated by the L.0.0. represents 27500—a sum which is sufficient to place on the streets and to allow the operation of not fewer than 12 double-deck motorbuses.
The burden of Mr. Lewis's paper appears to be that London traffic is conducted at distressingly-low effective speeds, involving colossal time waste, and that its citizens are most-seriously handicapped by its lack of cheap and effectively-rapid transport. He finds the solution in the Adkins-Lewis system, at an average cost of 275,000 per mile, or of, possibly, £500,000 per mile in the congested central area. On his own calculations, we fail to see that this system would improve matters, as, whilst admitting its attractions as a continuous system, large numbers of short-distance trips would not, with stations 440 yards apart, be accomplished any more quickly than they are by motorbus.
Mr. Lewis makes a specious attempt to put the, motor industry against the L.G.O.C. He tries it this way : "Surely the motor trade (which builds no buses for the L.G.O.C.) would benefit to a greater extent by freeing the 20,000,000 (sic) gallons of petrol, annually consumed by buses and cabs in London, for better service in other directions." Mr. Lewis evidently fails to grasp the fact that the motor industry has gained hugely by the L.G.O.C. results, by the wonderful recovery which that company effected, and by the world-wide advertisement for motor transport that has followed. There has been a big sympathetic accession of fresh business, ever since that recovery
began to be realized, in the year 1910. He also writes : "The fact that there are about 12,000 (sic) taxicabs operating mostly in the central area, is strong evidence that the public finds higher effective sneed essential, even though it costs at least 8d. per ridden mile."
It is not often that we have recourse to verse, but we are strongly reminded by Mr. Lewis's concluding passages of one that was written about Mr. Anthony Hope, whose surname is well known to be Hawkins, when he was sowing his democratic and socialistic wild oats at Oxford. This ran :— There was a young fellow named Hawkins, Who bossed all the Radical talkins, His idea it was great, He would smash Church and State, And leave but the people—and Hawkins.
We do not wish to suggest that any of London's transport undertakings might be symbolized by one or other of the above-mentioned institiitions, but we do find, and not only in regard to the proposals of Mr. Yorath Lewis, that the directing influence of many people who talk about the good of the community is some scheme of their own.