LONDON TRAFFIC.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 October 1924, Page 14

LONDON TRAFFIC.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU’S SUGGESTION. In an article in The Times on London traffic problems, Lord Montagu of .Beaulieu suggests the construction of overhead ways as a remedy for congestion. After discussing . alternatives, Lord of Beaulieu goes on to say ; The only possible plan remaining is uhe building of overhead roads, clear or existing streets and houses. ' Such a scheme for overhead. ways might be tried, first of. all, from- London Docks to the neighbourhood of the Edgware Road, while a similar road could run from the Surrey Docks towards Wandsworth,, and a cross road north and south might run from the neighbourhood of the Crystal Palace towards Tottenham or Highgat-e and be carried over the Thanaes on' a doubledecked bridge, probably at Charing Cross. , »-

A viaduct carrying a roadway 60ft wide, sufficient for six lines of traffic, built at a height of 200 ft where necessary to cross important streets and buildings, and declining to an average, say, of 100 ft. where smaller streets and lower houses are concerned, borne on 300 ft. spans, and resting upon piers at least 65ffc. by 70ft, would costabout. £3,000,000 a mile. If it were kept ,at the 200 ft. height throughout, it would cost £3,500,000 a mile. ' For the' whole distance of 3^-miles, therefore, £1Q,500,000 for the undulating road and £12,250,000 for the road at a uniform height of 200 ft., respectively, would be the sums required for construction. ,

The piers carrying the road should be inhabited, and they would contain at least seven floors —probably more. For these floors, approximately £2OO a year could he obtained as an average, or, say, £IOO per annum pier. With 300 ft spans, there' would be nearly 18 of these to the mile, Bht every half-mile at least, ,we should have to provide for the traffic entering and leaving the overhead way, and there would have to be lifts and escalators, leaving only 16 piers producing rent. These 16 piers would bring in £22,400 a mile, or, to put it in another way, suck a rental would provide 5 per cent, interest on about £400,000.' These estimates and figures are only intended to he approximate.

There would be a. system of lifts every half-mile for vehicles, in-addi-tion to vehicle escalators to take the lighter traffic to the higher level. In addition, it would be well worth considering whether a circular road, winding up inside or outside the piers, would not be possible, with a gradient of, say, about 1 in 20 to 1 in 15. There, are precedents for internal roads within towers, such as those at Ambroise on the Loire. At the two ends of the road there might be ramps from the surface level, or lifts or escalators on a bigger scale than at the intermediate half-mile points. Even, if only traffic the destination of which was more than one and a. half miles from its starting point were to use such a road, I estimate that at least 50 per cent, of the traffic using the average London main thoroughfare would be taken' from the surface street to the overhead way, thus effectually relieving congestion. The local traffic only, the traffic most valued by the frontager and shopkeeper. would remain.

To the cost of construction, the cost of the land upon which the piers are to stand ‘and of the demolition of some existing buildings and the rehousing of the tenants must be /added. In addition, compensation might have to be paid to some of those houses the light of which might be impaired. If £2,000,000 in the case of the Marble Arch-Mansion House route, be allowed for this—although I consider this figure to be more than ample—we arrive at the following interesting comparison. The cost of widening the 3} miles of this main thoroughfare through London on the surface would be about £35,000,000, the tunnel would cost £14,000,000, and the - overhead way would cost £12,500,000 or £14,250,000, according to the height of the overhead way, while ia rental of nearly £BO,OOO a year would he derived from the rentals of the piers. The next question to be considered is, who is. to. pay for any ,of these schemes? There would be the possibility of building such a roadwith public money, out of loans or funds of a local or a national character, or by private enterprise, making toe traffic subject to tolls of some kind. Or, perhaps, ,a private company might cooperate with local and national authorities to carry out the project. Any efficient means of-speeding up traffiic between the heart of London and its outskirts, op even for shorter distances, would be worth many millions sterling yearly to the commercial and professional community. All . through traffic would naturally use this through road. Two roads east and west, such as I have described, would cost, in round figures, £12,000,000 for about miles on each side of the Thames, while a cross road north and south, with a double-decked bridge over the Thames at Charing Cross, would cost another £12,000,000. Therefore, for something like £36,000,000 —this figure is necessarily an ‘approximate one—London would procure relief for a great many years to come in regard to most of its through and long-distance traffic. And as against the charge at 5 per cent, per annum mi this sum, amounting to £1,800,000 (less about £240,000 a year from rentals), property in Outer London would rise greatly in value, and probably in Inner London as well; local authorities in the outer areas and for considerable distances beyond them would soon secure a large in-* crease in their rateable values, and increased transport facilities would mean an ‘increase in the value of lands and houses, which, except in some special eases, generally follows.