AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE TRAMWAY BIAS OF THE L.C.C.

6th March 1928, Page 68
6th March 1928
Page 68
Page 69
Page 68, 6th March 1928 — THE TRAMWAY BIAS OF THE L.C.C.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Why the Proposal for Enlarging the Kingsway Tunnel Should be Opposed. The Council's Appropriation of Road Space.

By Rees Jeffreys.

IN its issue of January 17th, 1928, The Motor directs attention in forcible terms to the fact that a Bill is to be promoted in Parliament by the London County Council to authorize the reconstruction of the tram subway under Kingsway, London, so that it May be capable of taking double-deck tramcars. The object is to link up the north and south tramway systems. In place of the few single-deckers which now cross and obstruct the narrowed Thames Embankment there would be a nearly continuous stream crossing and obstructing the most important east and west route in central London used by motor drivers.

This proposal, combined with the fact that in less than a mouth there will be a London County. Council general election, forms a suitable occasion in which to review the tramway policy of the L.C.C. and to consider what should be the attitude of the motor community towards

What are the Facts ?

The L.C.C. at its meeting on July 19th, 1927 :— (a) Refused to proceed with a number of road improvements in London recommended by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and, in particular, certain schemes of great interest to motorists for providing alternative routes for traffic at a cost of £600,000.

(b) Decided to proceed with the scheme for enlarging the Kingsway tram subway between Waterloo Bridge and Southampton Row at a cost of £326,500.

(c) By a majority of 68 to 28, rejected an amendment that the Improvements Committee should report further within six months on the scheme of improvement proposed by the Traffic Advisory Committee.

At the same meeting the annual report of the tramways undertaking was submitted. It showed a total capital expenditure on tramways account of £17,105,215, of which £2,615,735 is regarded as having become obsolete. There was a deficiency on the year's working of £275,158. This sum has to be made good by the ratepayers.

' The L.C.C. Tramway Bias.

The L.C.C. is interested in tramways to the exclusion of all other forms of transport, and this fact operates to bias the administration of the principal municipal, authority in London. For this bias no criticism can be directed against the L.C.C. It is a statutory authority. -It is responsible for the administration of 17 millions of the ratepayers' money invested in tramways. It is its duty to do all it can to protect that investment, even although other interests may suffer.

How the Bias Operates.

• The following examples show how this bias operates in practice.

(1) The L.C.C. is not a highway authority, but the Thames Embankment is vested in it. The L.C.C. in practice has appropriated one-third of that Embankment for tramway traffic. It has erected shelters and other obstructions on the roadway with little regard to the needs of non-tramway traffic.

(2) It has recently lowered the highway of Queen's Road, Battersea, below two railway bridges to enable double-decked trams to pass thereunder, such lowering Increasing the danger of this highway for other traffic.

(3) It erected recently near Tooting Junction a tramway station in the middle of the highway to enable Its cars to be changed over from cable to overhead and

1142 vice versa. The roadway used for the purpose reduces the space available for other traffic, causes congestion and increases the risk of accident. Although unbuilt-on land adjoined the highway at the point, the road was not widened.

Encroachments on Open Spaces.

(4) The L.C.C. is the authority for the principal parks and open spaces of London. Any proposal for improving a roadway in the interests of general traffic at the expense of an open space meets with fierce resistance from the Parks and Open Spaces Committee of the L.C.C. On the other hand, if any sacrifice of an open space is required in the interests of tramways, it is made. See, for example, the erections and alterations that have been made on Clapham Common, near• Clapham Common Tube Station, where both the Common and the convenience of all classes of traffic _have been sacrificed to the demands of tramway traffic.

(5) The L.C.C. made an agreement with the South Metropolitan, Tramways Co. for operating a length of line between Tooting Junction and Mitcham Cricket Green on the main Brighton road via Mitcham and Sutton. The last mile of this road has not been used for tramway purposes for some years and, by reason of the narrowness of the roadway, which does not give the statutory minimum between the kdrb and the tram lines, is quite unsuitable for tramway traffic, unless the road is widened throughout its length. The County Council, however, has commenced to run a very frequent service of double-deck cars, and for this purpose has been and is spending large sums of money in heavier tramway rails to carry their double-deckers.

Widening of Roads Neglected: , It is spending no money on the widenings which are as urgently necessary in the interests of general traffic as were the heavier rails in the interests of tramway traffic.

(6) The L.C.C. is the bridge authority and permitted the tramways to be carried over an unwidened. Putney Bridge. It is impossible to conceive such permission being given if the authorities had been separate and independent.

Those who watch the way in which the machinery of local government works will understand how this bias of the London County Council is inevitable. The Tramway Department is strongly staffed by capable officials. They are able to influence the improvements, the highways and the finance committees of the council for thoSe improvements which will help their undertaking. On the other hand, there is no internal corrective. There is no department of the L.C.C. directly inferested in other forms of traffic and actively seeking to improve the roads and streets for their benefit.

Motor Drivers and Political Action

Can those who are interested in the motoring movement apply the necessary corrective? There is no sign yet of their being able to do so. Motorists have been singularly ineffective in influencing the municipal government of London either directly through the London County Council and the borough councils, or indirectly through Parliament.

The Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders find that municipal administration interests' their members in only a general way. They, therefore,

devote themselves to activities which make an immediate and personal appeal to their members.

Tbe Roads Improvement Association, which has to deal with this, is starved financially by the motor organizations which .possess the funds and is not supported by the individual motorist. The individual motor owner thinks that, having paid his annual tax to the Road Fund and his annual subscription to his organization, he has done his part and it is up to them

to protect his interest in the road. In this he reasons wrongly. Constant vigilance is the price of safety. The individual motor oWner-and the motoring organizations neglect these matters at their peril. They have already seen a large portion of their taxes diverted to other purposes. They will see the road space also appropriated unless they put up, both individually and cAlectively, a continuous fight. In other words, the motorist has yet to make himself politically effective.


comments powered by Disqus