Vol. CXVIII — 3069
The ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
October 14, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments........................................ page 599, 600 New Needs and Modern Notions — No. IX............................. 601 Professional Societies................................................................... 602 Correspondence............................................................................... 602
New Clinic at Hackney Wick (Illustrations)........................... 603, 604 Squash Racquet Court, Hackney Wick (Illustration).............. 604, 605 Book Reviews............................................................................... 606 The Lesson of Ostia — II (Illustrations)................................... 607-10 Competition News.......................................................................... 610
Chimney Cottage, Minehead (Illustrations).............................. 611
Oldbury Secondary School (Illustrations).......................... 612, 613 Modern French Municipal Buildings (Illustrations) 614-616, 619 London Building Notes........................................................ 620, 623 The Week’s Building News................................................... 624, 627 Building Contracts Open........................................................... 628
Building Tenders................................................................. 628, 632 Current Market Prices......................................................... 631, 632 Current Measured Rates...................................................... 635, 636
NOTES AND COMMENTS
The question of London traffic is said to be engaging he serious attention of the Government, for wills information and consideration a report on the financial problems involved has been prepared by a sub committee of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Prom figures quoted in The Times, the number of passengers carried every year in public vehicles within a radius of 25 miles of Charing Cross has risen from 40, 000, 000 in 1860 to 3, 252, 000, 000 in 1925, and it is pointed out that both the growing congestion of the streets and the financial position of some of the trafic undertakings are going from bad to worse. It is, perhaps, as well that the financial considerations should be considered first, because the crux of the whole trouble in connection with London traffic lies in the existence of various vested interests fiercely competing with one another for traffic on the same routes and to the same districts. None of these undertakings can meet all the traffic demands of a particular district, and none can, in existing circumstances, afford to raise and sink further capital to meet the requirements of new or developing districts at present inadequately provided with transport facilities. It would, probably, have astonished the economists of a past day to learn that competition can be carried to a point when it becomes harmful, and not beneficial, to the body politic. We are learning that fact in many departments of industry; and London traffic is a striking example. Indeed, the chief recommendation of the sub-committee appeal’s to be the appointment of its superior body, the Advisory Committee, as an over-riding authority, -which will resolve and eliminate the evils of unrestricted competition between the various transport undertakings; which is to act in a judicial capacity for the settlement of disputes or complaints between these undertakings and a common management appointed to operate all the traffic undertakings in London; and which is, also, to review the existing facilities, the need for new developments, and to determine fares. Though this sounds a substantial and workmanlike proposal, it is, in reality, a mere tinkering with the question. The citizens of London require the best and most speedy methods of transport. Business men of the north gird at the short hours worked in London offices, forgetful of the fact that the journey of the London business man from home to office often takes three or four times as long as that of his northern confrere. The preservation of the slower and less efficient means of transport from competition will not solve the problem; it will only result in driving people to districts better served and raise fresh problems of congestion and difficulty.
The slow and cumbrous tramway undertakings should be scrapped. Trams not only congest other traffic on our inadequate streets, but are themselves congested by it. In consequence they are of no value except for point to point traffic, which can be better served by the quicker, because more mobile, motor omnibus. The scrapping of the trams would, probably, be fiercely resented by the public authorities owning them, ostensibly on the ground of the capital loss involved, but actually because these bodies in many cases are pledged to collectivist enterprise. But the main recommendation of the report, now before the Cabinet, appears to recognise that private enterprise is not fitted to cope with so vast a problem as the traffic of London presents. Our objection to the recommendation of the sub-committee is that it proposes a controlling authority only instead of an owning and controlling authority, and a controlling authority would be powerless to scrap systems of transport that are out of date and superseded.
Our suggestion would be the appointment of a public traffic authority for London which would take over all the existing transport undertakings, with control or running powers over the trunk lines for a radius of 30 miles from Charing Cross. The various undertakings would be acquired on the basis of an issue of stock on the lines upon which the Metropolitan Water Board took over the existing water supply companies. Its first work would be to draw up plans for a network of tube railways, the construction of which would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and, as these were completed, the less efficient surface transport facilities would be scrapped or curtailed. It would be arranged also that tube trains running below the central area should, at a certain distance outside it, come to the surface to continue their journey along the trunk lines. The effect, in short, would be to provide speedy methods of transport below ground and reduce the number of public vehicles on the surface roads. With the north, south, east and west termini all linked up underground, the number of taxicabs and of omnibus services in the central area could be reduced; and omnibus services could be developed as feeders for the tube system in the outer zones.
It would, necessarily, be a big undertaking and an expensive one, but not more expensive than the wholesale widening of streets which is the only other solution of the increasing traffic congestion. It would, so far as the tramways are concerned, remove the
The ARCHITECT & BUILDING NEWS
October 14, 1927
Proprietors: Gilbert Wood & Co., Ltd.
Managing Director: William L. Wood
Editorial, Publishing and Advertisement Offices:
Rolls House, 2 Breams Buildings, London, E. C. 4. Tel.: Holborn 5708 Registered Office: Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E. C. 4
Principal Contents
Notes and Comments........................................ page 599, 600 New Needs and Modern Notions — No. IX............................. 601 Professional Societies................................................................... 602 Correspondence............................................................................... 602
New Clinic at Hackney Wick (Illustrations)........................... 603, 604 Squash Racquet Court, Hackney Wick (Illustration).............. 604, 605 Book Reviews............................................................................... 606 The Lesson of Ostia — II (Illustrations)................................... 607-10 Competition News.......................................................................... 610
Chimney Cottage, Minehead (Illustrations).............................. 611
Oldbury Secondary School (Illustrations).......................... 612, 613 Modern French Municipal Buildings (Illustrations) 614-616, 619 London Building Notes........................................................ 620, 623 The Week’s Building News................................................... 624, 627 Building Contracts Open........................................................... 628
Building Tenders................................................................. 628, 632 Current Market Prices......................................................... 631, 632 Current Measured Rates...................................................... 635, 636
NOTES AND COMMENTS
The question of London traffic is said to be engaging he serious attention of the Government, for wills information and consideration a report on the financial problems involved has been prepared by a sub committee of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. Prom figures quoted in The Times, the number of passengers carried every year in public vehicles within a radius of 25 miles of Charing Cross has risen from 40, 000, 000 in 1860 to 3, 252, 000, 000 in 1925, and it is pointed out that both the growing congestion of the streets and the financial position of some of the trafic undertakings are going from bad to worse. It is, perhaps, as well that the financial considerations should be considered first, because the crux of the whole trouble in connection with London traffic lies in the existence of various vested interests fiercely competing with one another for traffic on the same routes and to the same districts. None of these undertakings can meet all the traffic demands of a particular district, and none can, in existing circumstances, afford to raise and sink further capital to meet the requirements of new or developing districts at present inadequately provided with transport facilities. It would, probably, have astonished the economists of a past day to learn that competition can be carried to a point when it becomes harmful, and not beneficial, to the body politic. We are learning that fact in many departments of industry; and London traffic is a striking example. Indeed, the chief recommendation of the sub-committee appeal’s to be the appointment of its superior body, the Advisory Committee, as an over-riding authority, -which will resolve and eliminate the evils of unrestricted competition between the various transport undertakings; which is to act in a judicial capacity for the settlement of disputes or complaints between these undertakings and a common management appointed to operate all the traffic undertakings in London; and which is, also, to review the existing facilities, the need for new developments, and to determine fares. Though this sounds a substantial and workmanlike proposal, it is, in reality, a mere tinkering with the question. The citizens of London require the best and most speedy methods of transport. Business men of the north gird at the short hours worked in London offices, forgetful of the fact that the journey of the London business man from home to office often takes three or four times as long as that of his northern confrere. The preservation of the slower and less efficient means of transport from competition will not solve the problem; it will only result in driving people to districts better served and raise fresh problems of congestion and difficulty.
The slow and cumbrous tramway undertakings should be scrapped. Trams not only congest other traffic on our inadequate streets, but are themselves congested by it. In consequence they are of no value except for point to point traffic, which can be better served by the quicker, because more mobile, motor omnibus. The scrapping of the trams would, probably, be fiercely resented by the public authorities owning them, ostensibly on the ground of the capital loss involved, but actually because these bodies in many cases are pledged to collectivist enterprise. But the main recommendation of the report, now before the Cabinet, appears to recognise that private enterprise is not fitted to cope with so vast a problem as the traffic of London presents. Our objection to the recommendation of the sub-committee is that it proposes a controlling authority only instead of an owning and controlling authority, and a controlling authority would be powerless to scrap systems of transport that are out of date and superseded.
Our suggestion would be the appointment of a public traffic authority for London which would take over all the existing transport undertakings, with control or running powers over the trunk lines for a radius of 30 miles from Charing Cross. The various undertakings would be acquired on the basis of an issue of stock on the lines upon which the Metropolitan Water Board took over the existing water supply companies. Its first work would be to draw up plans for a network of tube railways, the construction of which would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and, as these were completed, the less efficient surface transport facilities would be scrapped or curtailed. It would be arranged also that tube trains running below the central area should, at a certain distance outside it, come to the surface to continue their journey along the trunk lines. The effect, in short, would be to provide speedy methods of transport below ground and reduce the number of public vehicles on the surface roads. With the north, south, east and west termini all linked up underground, the number of taxicabs and of omnibus services in the central area could be reduced; and omnibus services could be developed as feeders for the tube system in the outer zones.
It would, necessarily, be a big undertaking and an expensive one, but not more expensive than the wholesale widening of streets which is the only other solution of the increasing traffic congestion. It would, so far as the tramways are concerned, remove the