Before mass motorisation - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 70

Construction of tramways originally required their own individual Act of Parliament,
but a general Tramway Act passed in 1870 made promotion much easier. In the 1890s
acquisition by local authorities was often linked to their ownership of electricity
production. Conversion from horse to electric traction extended the effective range of
tram systems, especially in London. At the beginning of the 20th century trams enjoyed
a period of great success and profitability in the main cities. Public authorities used them
either as a source of revenue to supplement their rates or, as in the case of London, as
a means of overcoming housing problems by holding down fares for longer distance
journeys to new workers' housing estates being built at the city periphery.
In London itself, because of road congestion, a special Act was passed in 1872 which
prevented tram development in the centre of the capital. This created the conditions
in which sub-surface railway development became a commercial proposition. Routes
which now form the Circle line of London Underground were first built on a 'cut-and-
cover' basis using steam locomotion. The later introduction of electric traction made
possible the development of the city's 'tube' system using deep-bored tunnels.
The substitution of motor for horse-drawn buses in the early years of the 20th century
had a revolutionary effect. This was due not simply to their advantages as a transport
mode (greater speed and range than horse-buses and freedom from the infrastructure
costs and operating limitations of a tram track) but to their pattern of ownership.
The low costs of entry into the industry meant that motor bus services were a highly
competitive business from the outset.
Many local authorities sought to develop bus services of their own, either as extensions
to, or as replacements for, their tram routes. (Electric trolley buses were also utilised in
much the same way.) But authorities had no general powers for bus operation and had
to secure individual Acts of Parliament which were hedged about with conditions and
obligations. Private operators by contrast could set up business without such hindrances.
This together with public concern at the aggressive and potentially dangerous tactics
of competing operators on the roads, led to an entirely new licensing system being
introduced under the 1930 Road Traffic Act. This regulated bus services for the next
half-century, for much of which they were the dominant mode of urban transport.
The 1930 Act required new types of licence for the operators and drivers of bus
services. Each route also required a Road Service Licence incorporating conditions
relating to fares, stopping points, and times of operation. To prevent what was perceived
as wasteful competition, licences were normally awarded to a single operator along
a particular route with priority being given to the dominant or longest established
operator along it. The failure of an operator to run services responsibly could lead to the
withdrawal of his licence for a particular service or ultimately to disqualification from
operation altogether.
A completely new system of administration was set up to consider licence
applications. In place of the myriad of local authorities, traffic commissioners were
appointed on a regional basis. (For operator licensing this system is retained to the
present day.) In relation to services the role of the commissioners was essentially passive,
i.e. responding to the applications submitted. Some desirable changes, e.g. to achieve
better co-ordination of services, could be brought about by informal negotiation or by
imposing conditions. Preference would also be given to applications which included an
element of cross-subsidy, i.e. combining different sections of route, times of day or days
of week which individually might be profitable or unprofitable in order to deliver a
comprehensive service. However the commissioners had no duty to 'plan' services nor to
promote agreement or amalgamation between companies to achieve greater efficiency.