SIR,—Mr. Southam has overlooked one contribution that London Transport has
made to ease of intra- metropolitan movement.
On September 10 last, having observed that at a
certain bus-stop post in this neighbourhood notices were exhibited stating that a particular service both did, and did not, stop there, I wrote to the Board inquiring which indication I could safely follow. As by September 27 I had received neither reply nor acknowledgement, I repeated my inquiry, enclosing a prepaid card of acknowledgement for my two letters which the Board might send me. Ten days later, since neither reply nor acknowledgment had yet reached me, I was driven to the conclusion that the Board had ceased to exist, and that London's buses and tubes were now iust carrying on spontaneously.
I therefore wrote to my Town Clerk, to the
Ministry of Transport, and—in a personal letter to his private address—to the Chairman of the presumably defunct Board, to inquire who had inherited its statutory responsibilities for running London's traffic. The following day I received a letter from the Chairman's Assistant, informing me (a) that both my previous letters to the Board had
been acknowledged; that it had been the intention of the Board's Public Relations Officer to reply on the next day to my original letter, and enclosing a photo- static copy of the reply he was going to send me; and (b) that the buses in question did stop at the point in question. and that the notification that they did not referred to a past time when they did not.
This happened a week ago. Yesterday the ambivalent bus stop• still told me that the buses in question both did, and did not, stop there.
Previous page
