1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
Car Ban to Boost Bus Services?
Page 142
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NK comments regarding the restrictions imposed on road passenger transport in London, in contrast with the freedom of operation of private cars, were made by Mr. T. E. Thomas, general manager (road transport) of London Transport, in a gaper entitled "How London's Road Passenger Transport Works," which be read before the Leeds and District Section of the Institute of Transport. at Leeds, last week.
Mr. Thomas remarked that there seemed to be official timidity in dealing with private-car owners. In London the private car could multiply without check, whilst public service was segulated into a state of embarrassment. There was a danger that this policy might lead to the retardation of development of public transport, or even to a withdrawal of existing facilities.
The provision of unremunerative services could not exceed a definite proportion of the whole if commercial prudence were to be exercised, and, as in the first stages of development there was loss, a healthy spread of population would be restricted under present conditions. A case in point was that of the London Transport coach services.
Restrictions not only prevented the natural routeing of these services, but affected stopping places to the extent of considerably reducing their traffic value to the public and to the Board. It was certainly a grievance that private cars should not be discouraged from making journeys, which, for the most part, could be made by public vehicles without increasing the total number upon the streets.
MO Suggesting the need for amendment of the present regulations as to the dimensions of buses and the number of standing passengers permitted, Mr. Thomas remarked; "As rush-hour requirements are several 100 per cent. above those at normal hours, we are faced with a situation which can be met only by the employment of a more elastic vehicle than can be constructed within the existing regulations."
Discussing fare standards, Mr. Thomas said that only one basis for statutory fares was required, and not the present anomalous system of workmen's and ordinary fares. Cheap fares should be related to the law of supply and demand, and not to arbitrary periods of the day. Why should a man working from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. travel more cheaply than one who worked from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.'
Referring, in conclusion, to the Board's position as owner of a quasimonopoly, Mr. Thomas remarked:— " The price of monopoly is great. So is the expectation. But the reward is little."
Mr. C. R. Tattam, Bradford Corporation's passenger transport manager, said, in the discussion, that he thought the solution of the problem, of rush-hour traffic in busy centres was to have maximum-capacity vehicles in which there were no seats. Mr. Thomas did not see any reason why there should not be vehicles with hinged seats, which could be lifted up out of the way during rush hours, and let down for use during slack periods.
Latcaster Corporation has obtained sanction to 'borrow £13,950 for the construction of a bus station,