Motor Traffic in London.
Page 21
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A conference of Metropolitan Local Authorities was held in the Westminster City Hall, on December 12th, " to consider the evils and annoyance arising from the motor vehicles and heavy locomotives which at present traverse the streets of London, and to determine what joint action can be taken by the Local Authorities for securing the better regulation and control of such traffic." There was a representative attendance. The City of London, the City of Westminster, and twenty-four out of the twenty-eight Metropolitan Borough Councils sent representatives.
Councillor J. S. Rubinstein (Kensington) was appointed chairman. He said that the large attendance showed that the present state of matters, in connection with the motor traffic in the Metropolis, was intolerable. The streets of London were wholly unsuited for vehicles travelling at the excessive speed at which motor omnibuses ran. Colonel Webb, a member of the Kensington Borough Council, had written him pointing out the danger of the existing state of affairs, and said that motor omnibuses injured and killed people with impunity. (Laughter and applause.) Locomo tives used for haulage purposes were, also, a great nuisance, and did as great harm to people's nerves, in crashing past their houses in the middle of the night, as a small earthquake. He expressed the hope that the matter would be considered in a calm, temperate, judicious, and practical
Councillor W. F. Craies (Kensington) brought forward the following motions, which had been drawn up by the representatives of his Borough for the consideration of the Conference :— " (t.) That the unwieldy and objectionable motor omnibuses and unsuitable locomotives used for haulage purposes now in use in the streets of the Metropolis (a) constitute a serious danger to personal safety, (b) are
attended with grave discomfort to residents, and (c) have caused and are causing such damage and depreciation to property as to result in a marked and growing increase in the number of empty premises along the lines of route, and such a decrease in the assessment values as must tend to a most material loss of imperial and municipal revenue.
" (2.) That a memorial be addressed to the Home Secretary urging that immediate legislation is imperatively called for to secure such control and supervision over this class of traffic as will prove really effective.
"(s.) That the Corporation of the City of London and the Councils of the City of Westminster and the various Metropolitan Boroughs be requested to urge the members of Parliament for their districts to bring every possible pressure to bear upon the Home Secretary to secure the introduction of the suggested legislation.
" (4.) That strong representations be made to the Commis sioner of Police urging that, pending further legislation, no license be issued or renewed in respect of motor omnibuses until he is satisfied that the same are, as far as practicable, free from noise, smoke and smell, are provided with means to prevent grease or petrol from dropping on to the roadway, and are fitted with satisfactory tires and appliances for the prevention of vibration and side-slip."
In moving the adoption of the first resolution, he said that, in Kensington, people were leaving the district owing to the nuisance from motor omnibuses and locomotives. He thought they might put aside private motorcars, as they were not a great nuisance in the way of noise, and the police attended to the matters of speed and smell. The heavy locomotive traffic was carried on by old road-crushing machines, which were put on to pull vehicles bringing vegetables to market, or pantechnicon vans. No engines should be allowed unless they had springs.
Councillor J. V. Vesey-Fitzgerald, K.C., J.P., seconded the motion.
Councillor Henry James (St. Pancras) said that they did. not wish to interfere with the commercial motor traffic, or to impede its progress, but some regulations were required to bring it under better control. A leaflet had been circulated amongst the delegates to the Conference giving a reprint of an article in a motor journal. [The article referred to was, we find, the Editorial, entitled, " London Borough Councils and Motor Traffic," which appeared in the issue of "THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR" of the (eh instant. —End He asked the meeting not to be influenced by the article in question, which advocated that the local authorities should make roads to suit commercial motors. In St. Pancras, they paid 4,50,000 or £60,000 a year to keep their roads in proper order, and a great deal of this expense was due to traction engines and motor omnibuses injuring the surface. Alderman E. H. Tripp (Finsbury) said his Council had no great complaint to make against the motorbus traffic. (Applause.) They, however, wished to raise a protest against the heavy motor traffic, more especially as regards brewers' drays and the vans of carrying companies. Finsbury recognised that the problem of Metropolitan locomotion could only be solved in one of two ways, i.e., either by a considerable motor-omnibus traffic or a great increase in tramways. His Council, as now constituted, was not prepared to offer any great facilities to the L.C.C.'s scheme of tramways. (Loud applause.) By the resolutions which had been framed, it would almost appear as if Kensington was holding a brief for the extension of the L.C.C. tramways. (Renewed applause.) The Conference should not do anything to impede or retard the motor-omnibus industry, which was rapidly growing and which had come to stay. No one denied that the motor omnibus had its disadvantages, but every new machine which had been made had its disadvantages at first, and these disappeared in time. Motor omnibuses were a great convenience ; for instance, he (the speaker) ivould have been ten minutes longer in. getting to the Conlersnce, were it not for the motorbus. In conclusion, he moved the following amendment :—" That, in the opinion of this Conference, it is desirable that action should be taken without delay to secure more efficient control and supervision of motor traffic in London, and, more particularly, of heavy locomotives and motors used for haulage purposes."
Alderman Saint (Islington), in seconding the amendment, said the resolutions which had been framed were far too drastic, and would, if carried out, tend to the extinction of motorbus traffic in the streets of London. Motorbuses served the public need. They could not get a perfect motorbus at once, any more than they could get any other perfect machine at once. The injury and inconvenience caused by motorbuses were grossly exaggerated. Motorbuses were only allowed a maximum speed of twelve miles an hour, whilst electric cars were allowed to go at sixteen miles an hour, although there was quite as much danger from an electric tramcar as from a motorbus. (" Oh, oh !" and applause.) Councillor J. Jeffery, J.P., L.C.C. (Chelsea), denied that there was any idea, in drafting the resolutions, of destroying the motor-omnibus industry in London.
Councillor H. Thomson Lyon (Westminster) said the policy of the Conference should be regulation, not repres sion. A great deal had been heard, from time to time, as to the disadvantages of the motorbus, and it was only fair to say a word on the other side. There were, now, 79,5 motor omnibuses in commission in London ; three motor buses carried at least the same number of passengers as four horsed buses, but he would take it only as if each motorbus displaced one horsed omnibus. Each horsed omnibus was served by eleven horses, so that the displacement of those 795 omnibuses by motors had taken over 8,000 horses off the streets of the Metropolis, and off the streets of Westminster, because every line, practically, passed through Westminster. Those delegates present who were on cleansing committees and highways committees knew what was the cost of sweep ing the streets and ballasting them, and he thought they might confidently say that, if horsed traffic were done away with, as it would be in the near future, and the iron tire followed the horses, as it was bound to do, the result would be, at any rate in Westminster, that 4c1. in the Z't would be taken off the rates. The Chief Commissioner of Police was referring alt inventions for the prevention of side-slip and such-like, which were sent to him, to the Council for their opinion ; the Automobile Club was, he believed, offering prizes for inventions for the prevention of side-slip, and manufacturers and omnibus proprietors would snare no expense if something could be done in this direction. Noise
from motor omnibuses arose from IWO Ca II bi! ( I ) from defective machines, and (2) from the state of the roads. Outside the hall in which they were now sitting, there used to be once a great noise, but the replacing of .a few louse blocks had had a marvellous effect. The Commissioner of Police was taking the greatest interest in the whole question, and his efforts deserved appreciation.
Councillor H. J. Johnson (Hammersmith) said the horsed omnibus was doomed, and the Conference would not be serving any useful .purpose in throwing obstacles in the way of a coming great industry—motor omnibuses. Something, .however, required tobe done with regard to haulage traffic, and hc advocated a tonnage rate.
A Delegate :—''Why not have the old toll-gams again. sir? "
Alderman J. J. Musto (Stepney) said all the complaints seemed to come from the West of London. The springless horse-drawn country carts which passed his place coming to market were just as bad. as any motor. It had been said by gentlemen representing the West End that motor omnibuses were driving poople out of London-, and that empty houses were the result. In his opinion, however, empty houses were caused, in one extreme of society, by private motors giving facilities to get out of town, and, amongst the lower and middle classes, by the L.C.C. running tramways to the extreme boundaries of the County of London. The country was not overburdened with work at present, and it would 1_ a bad day for the United Kingdom if this Conference did anything to destroy this great new industry. A represe tative from SL Pancras had referred to a leaflet containity;the reprint of-an article in "THE COMMERCIAL MoTox." The gentleman's objection to the leaflet was probably because it
urgeJ, nod most properly urged, the creation of an independent traffic board, as against the L.C.C. taking over the highways. All this agitation against. motorbuses was largely due to a desire to promote the L.C.C.'s tramway schemes. Let them depend upon it, motor traffic had come to stay, and the sooner it entirely displaced horsed traffic, the better it would be for the cleanliness 'of the streets of London and the healthiness of its inhabitants.
Councillor R. Soper (Deptford) said the noise of the motorbuses was as nothing to the noise made by the tramcars, a noise which had caused many houses to be empty in his district. The great idea was to give the L.C.C. control over the highways. He hoped this Conference would not fall into the trap. There was more in this agitation agains, motor omnibuses than appeared on. the surlace—there were some people who, in their enthusiasm far municipal trading, desired to crush every kind of private enterprise. Councillor Craies, in withdrawing his motion in favour of the amendment, said the people in Kensington had no trams, and, therefore, could not tell what a nuisance they WOIT.
Alderman Percy Gates (Kensington) said that, although he came from the borough which put forward the motions, they were, in his opinion, of too drastic a character. He realised that motor omnibuses had come to stay, and were of advantage to the whole of the people of London. Alderman Tripp's amendment was then unanimously adopted. A committee consisting of one representative from the City of London, from the City of Westminster, and from each of the Borough Councils was appointed to consider how best to give effect to the resolution.