£35,500,000 the Annual Cost of Tramways to Road Users

8th February 1935, Page 100

8th February 1935

Page 100

Page 101

Page 100, 8th February 1935 — £35,500,000 the Annual Cost of Tramways to Road Users

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

I T is customary to extol the tram car as being the passenger vehicle which is, above all others, the most economical when operated on a frequent service in a dense area. In the very nature of things, it follows that a service of this description must be operated along routes congested with other traffic.

it is rarely the case that any tramways enthusiast also recalls that it is under those conditions that a tramcar causes the maximum of traffic delay, maximum of loss to other transport operators, and, through them, to the community at large.

The cost of tramways, assumed in terms of the delay, inconvenience and consequent loss which they cause to other road users, is difficult to calculate. Opinions differ widely. as to the unit of value of the roadway. Fortunately, there is now an authoritative standard set by the Minister of Transport.

He has declared that a motorcar, parked in a busy street in London, is occupying space valued at £20,000 per annum. The figure seems high and, no doubt, the areas in which it can be said to apply are few, even in London. It does, however, serve as a starting point for these essential calculations.

It is convenient, in assessing the value of streets in cities and urban areas, where trams must, of neces

sity, operate, to base the calculation on the capacity for traffic bearing.

Scone of the factors which have a bearing on the problem are the number of intersections (that condition turns on the size of the blocks of buildings which form the sides of the streets), the average speed of movement and the class of traffic which frequents the street. In the last-named regard, it is particularly important to note the presence or absence of trams.

Even in favourable circumstances, the average speed of movement does not exceed 15..m.p.h. That is the pace which, under present-day conditions of city and urban traffic, permits of the passage of the greatet volume of traffic.

In Fifth Avenue, New York, over 1,500 vehicles pass in one direction per hour. This street is wide enough to permit the passage of three lanes of traffic in each direction. Owing, however, to the temporary. parking of vehicles at the kerbside, the.outer lane in each. direction is only partially available for traffic. The inner lane is the one which is to be regarded as the most efficient, considered in relation to its traffic-bearing capacity, and there the maximum movement is stated to be 690 vehicles per hour.

Regent Street, London, has a capacity, under present conditions, of 500 vehicles per hour per lane.

The same seriesof experiments, carried out in New York, showed that tramways diminish the capacity of the lane occupied by as much as 50 per cent.

Many road users, recalling the frequency with which a lorry, bus, or car is liable to be delayed by trams, would have placed the figure at something considerably in excess of 50 per cent. However, the fact that the figure does not take into consideration the extra delays and the loss of traffic-bearing capacity of the other lanes, brought about by passengers crossing these lanes when boarding or leaving the trams, will go a long way towards reconciling these divergent views.

Even Mr. Frank Pick, -vice-chairman of London Transport, in his views on the tramways question, seems to support this deprecatory opinion, for he states that the " objec

lions to tramways in a city arise from inadequacy of the streets to accommodate the tramway tracks. There should be clearance at each side of a double track for not fewer than two lines of vehicles . . ." (Here again, it may be noted, the problem of load ing and unloading and the traffic congestion caused, is overlooked.) •

However, the main point is that the figure of 50 per cent., as the maleffect of tramways, appears to be reasonable. The next step in the argument is a matter of simple proportion. If a motorcar, occupying, say, 20 ft. of a traffic lane, is usurping ground valued at £20,000 per annum, what is the depreciative effect, in the same street, of a tramway, which, in a sense, has been shown permanently to occupy half the width of a traffic lane, throughout the length of each track?

The full value of a mile, on the above basis, is 1528,000, whilst half that figure (22(34,000) is the depreciation caused by a tramway. In the London area there are approximately 160 miles of double track and 320 'miles of lane, and the cost of these to the community is thus £84,480,000.

It is, however, obviously unfair to debit all tramways with roadways at Mr. Hore-Belisha's maximum value. Let us suppose it be discounted by .90 per cent., to £2,000, in which case London's tramways still depreciate the traffic-carrying capacity of the streets by the enormous amount of £8,448,000 Per annum.

There are still the provinces to be considered. The most recent census of Municipally owned' tramways, according to the issue of The ,Commercial Motor. dated March 1934, showed there still to be 1,530 miles of tramways in the provinces. These may Conveniently be divided

• as follow miles in the largest .provincial cities, Class I; 200 miles in industrial towns," Class II; and the balance, 930 miles, in Other areas, " Class III.

It is fair to assess the value of these streets as . follow, taking London as 10 :—Class I, 7; Class II, 43 and Class III, 2. On that basis, and making allowance for the double track, the "depreciation of street values brought about by tramways is, in Class areas, £14,784,000; in Class II districts, £4,224,000; and in the rest of the country 28,230,800. The grand total is £35,602,800.

It is a stupendous amount to lose on account of a form of transport . which was introduced only because of a paucity „if good roads and has been, in consequence, an anachronism for at least 10 years.