Bolstering the London Tramway Systems.
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE determination with which the Minister of Transport has given effect to the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee operating under the London Traffic Act has, apparently, taken many people 'by surprise. The general public has been intensely interested, because it observes that what is threatened is the existence of thatslight excess of seating capacity whicri helps it on its necessary'journeyings, whilst there is imperilled the bare sufficiency of seats or standing room at traffic peak hours. The bus operators regard the motives underlying the action of the Minister as obscure and generally are up in arms about it. Outside of London they are wondering how soon will come the time when the Minister will feel impelled to extend his sympathies towards provincial tramway and railway undertakings, which are as badly hit by motorbus competition as are the tramway and railway undertakings of London.
That the bus-operating concerns, or any section thereof, are in any way parties to the new proposals, as is asserted in some quarters, is not the case, because the recommendations are the work of the regular members of the Traffic Advisory Committee, to the meetings of which on this particular subject the additional members representative of the bus interests have not been invited.
The aim of the, recommendations is, obviously, to gain time and thus to permit of delay in coming to a final decision about the fate of the tramways. The tramways of London are running at a loss; the concern with the greatest mileage of track does not earn enough to cover its expenses ; the L.C.C. system covers its expenses, but not its overhead charges. If we could start to-day with our present knowledge no tramway would be built, for three buses could do the work of two tramcars, without the awful incubus of the construction and maintenance of the permanent way and the upkeep of the road, and without the unfair impost which has been laid on so many tramway undertakings for road widening, alteration and compensation.
Facts have to be faced, however. it would cost 125,000,000 to replace the tramways, by bus systems, and we can find no indication of willingness to provide capital for the purpose. The more economical course at the present time is to continue to employ the permanent way and the tramway rolling stock and general organization until it is worn out and calls for replacements, or until the actual loss not covered by depreciation reserves is small. The only hope for the tramways lies in the possibility of finding a' cheaper type of vehicle, one more economic to run, reduced permanent-way costs and relief from road maintenance costs.
It is admitted that the tramway system provides a service which bus undertakings have never proffered. The conveyance of passengers at workmen's fares, the running of all-night services on certain routes and of a considerable service of early morning conveyances have greatly benefited a certain section of the community. But for the statutory obligation to carry passengers at absurdly low fares during certain hours of the day, the tramways should actually be able to pay their way, but there is no political party that dare venture to alter the law in this direction.
Evidently, therefore, we are doomed to a period of tramway bolstering and it will be necessary to secure the help of the public, in the way of protests against meagre travelling facilities, if the bus services are not to be robbed of the position which they have already fairly earned. In one way the suburbs stand to benefit, because any displaced buses can be employed to open and develop many cross-routes at the moment neglected.