An Independent and Impartial Traffic Board?
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Early publication of the supplementary report of Col. Sir Herbert Jekyll, K.C.M.G., whose labours on the problem of London traffic have been unremitting since his appointment in July, 1907, is now promised by the President of the Board of Trade, and the appearance of this official volume will mark the next step in the tedious chain of events which are tending to bring order out of chaos in the Metropolis. It is more than three years since the Royal Commission on London Traffic presented the first of the eight volumes of its report, and, since that date, it has been universally recognised that the development of motorbus and " tube " companies has introduced factors which were not sufficiently appreciated by the Commissioners in the course of the 112 meetings that were held between the date of their appointment* and the spring of the year 1905. The Commissioners, who were admittedly without adequate data, cursorily dismissed the claims of the motorbus in their report. They stated : " Experience alone can finally determine the limits of their usefulness They will practically supersede horse omnibuses, and thus remove from the streets, greatly to the public advantage, a 'form of vehicle which, although it has been of great public utility, is now one of the principal causes of congestion in many streets. But we think that, on routes suitable for tramways, where there is large traffic, tramways will continue to be the most efficient and the cheapest means of street Conveyance, and we cannot recommend the postponement of tramway extension in London on the ground of any visible prospect of the supersession of tramways." We characterised the report proper (Volume I), when criticising its contents in our issue of the 27th July, 1905, as "a brief for tramways from start to finish," and, when the second volume (No. VII) was issued, some ten weeks later, gave extracts to show that the Commissioners' conclusions were largely at variance (see this journal, i9th October, 1905, page 87) with the opinions of their advisory board of en gineers—Sir John Wolfe Barry, the late Sir Benjamin Baker, and Mr. W. B. Parsons. Those competent engineers did not condemn the motorbus any more than they blessed the tramway, and it remains unexplained to this day that the Commissioners set their imprimatur upon tramway enterprise, except in the light of the significance which. may attach to their reservations. We fear that the reservations in question have been wilfully overlooked in some quarters and, therefore, repeat them : " . suitable routes . . . where there is a large traffic." Around these necessary stipulations a great battle has waged : both must be considered from the standpoint of the requirements and convenience of other users of the highway, rather than exclusively from the standpoint of profits for the trarnwa■••s.
The question next arises, who is to determine whether a particular route is " suitable," or whether a large traffic in passengers should be considered a conclusive argument in favour of a tramway if its adoption hinders and prejudices other commercial traffic? The necessity for a panel of arbitrators was recognised, and the Commissioners' outstanding recommendation was that a " Traffic Board " should he created. It was strongly urged that not .less than three or more than five members, appointed by the (;overnment, should be chosen to assume duties that were to include those which are set out below :— " (a) To present an annual report to Parliament dealing with such matters as the control of traffic, the regulation of the statutory powers of breaking up the sbeets for various purposes, the removal of any special obsructions to traffic, the provision • of new•lins of railway or tramway, the calling attention in any errors or oversights in the maintenance of stieets and road's on the part of local or street -authorities, • the progress-of :street widenings, new street construction, and 'loop' roads; (b), the: preliminary examination: before consideration, bY. Parliament of Bills seeking statutory powers for the construction or extension . of works affecting the means of locomotion and transport in , Greater London .; (e) to sit continuously, with reasonable periods of holiday ; (d) to make suggestions for improvements,. and to settle clauses in Bills; (e) to investigate certain railway,', tramway, and other problems; (f) to report, Where required, to the Government or, with tha Government's -approval, to 'local bodies, on such subjects as: (1) the improvement of the main roads leading out of London ; (2( the Building Laws as affecting districts not yet built over within the area of Greater London' ; (3) the revision and amendment of the laws regulating the breaking up of streets ; and (4) the consolidation and amendment of the laws affecting traffic."
We are afraid that the very powerful influence of the L.C.C. accounted for the untoward delay and inaction which supervened for a full two years, at the expiry of which, for very shame, the Government constituted a temporary traffic branch at the Board of Trade, under Sir Herbert Jekyll, as we reported at the time. This department, however, was not established until something in the nature of a scandal had been caused by the determined and obvious attempts at capture of the coveted .powers by the upon whose efforts and suggestions we commented in severe terms, under the title of " From .Philip Sober to 'Philip Drunk," in our issue of the 22nd March, 1006. It still remains tobe seen whether there is to be a capitulation, in which event, after all, the monopolistic section of the L.C.C., which fears private enterprise and competition, will emerge in the dual capacity of suppliant and judge, or whether the Traffic Board will prove that independent and impartial body which the issues and interests at stake demand.
553 554 565 556 657
Fires at Country Houses.
We have, apart from the questions of economy and efficiency as a whole, several times advocated the use of selfpropelled fire-fighting plant, on the ground that the speed and endurance of such road vehicles enables them successfully to travel distances which cannot be undertaken by animals. Our most recent comment, in last week's issue, when we urged that County Councilsshould take into consideration the establishment of county fire brigades, happened virtually to coincide with three disastrous conflagrations at the country residences of well-known men, the destruction of property being very considerable in each case. We refer to the fires at Normanhurst, near Battle, the seat of Lord Brassey, at Burley-on-the-Hill, near Oakham, in the occupation of Captain Frederick Guest, and at Cowfold Lodge, near Horsham, the residence ct-f Mr. Arthur Labouchere. These must be regarded as instances where, in spite of no small expenditure on private installations for fire-extinguishing purposes, highly-rated houses and historic works of art, pictures, documents, tapestries, old furniture, and costly interior fittings of the buildings have been reduced to different
stages of ruin, or have been annihilated. A Cabinet Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, was a guest at -the secondnamed house, and in this instance, we are informed, a telephonic appeal for the aid of Leicester's self-propelled fireengine was courteously but firmly refused. We are obliged to endorse the action of the Leicester authorities in this matter, as Burley is 25 miles away, and it is not safe for a large town to weaken its own resources; the money baying been spent for thc protection of the town's own ratepayers, the head of the Leicester Fire Brigade owed it to his Council and employers, no matter how urgent the appeal from without, to decline to :travel. so._ many miles beyond its own: suburbs. We, in common with all observers of these events; deeply regret the sacrifice of property involved—there was,. fortunately, no loss of life in any of the three cases named,. We cannot omit, however, to point out that these countryhouse fires point the moral which we have endeavoured to inculcate. Let county councils take it into consideration forthwith, that they establish a chain of fire stations for the protection of their ratepayers. We see no sufficient reason. for hesitancy in the matter. It is no proper answer for a, county council to assert that the majority of country houses have their own fire brigades and fire equipment, as no: amateur efforts can equal the services of trained men. Of course, much may be done to check an outbreak in its initial stages, even by guests and servants, but we are confident that the majority ryf private installations and brigades, though some may he directed by an experienced man, whose presence is contingent upon the willingness of the individual property owner CO pay comparatively large wages year after year, cannot equal the average degree of effectiveness which attaches to a professional brigade, whose establishment and maintenance is a fair charge on any county rate.