-? ' APR ^'^ '91P .--^^^ D n ^5; 5 ^- 2 9 ^— ; * 2 ^ — i 1 ^^sS 2 -1 3 srp _Mo. 132. Board of gi Estimate and Apportionment / CITY OF NE-W^ YORK J Frcif'y COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF FRANCHISES Transmitting the paper read before the National Conference on City Planning held at Toronto. May 25-27. 1914. upon the UTILITY OF THE MOTOR BUS AND MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO ITS OPERATION JUNE 1. 1914 M. B. Bbown Printing & Binding Co., 37-41 Chambers Street, N. Y. 412-14-150 Board of Estimate and Apportionment, The City of New York, Bureau of Franchises, Room 801, 277 Broadway, May 28, 1914. Hon. John Purrov Mitchel, Mayor, Chairman of Board of Estimate and Apportion- ment: Sir — The subject of motor bus transportation has engaged the attention of this Bureau for something more than a year, and pursuant to the directions of the Board I sent Mr. John A. McCollum, Assistant Engineer, to London and Paris last summer for the purpose of making a study of the operation of these vehicles in those cities. Mr. McCollum's report was presented to the Board on November 13 of last year, and I am pleased to say, has attracted much attention in the technical papers both here and abroad. Some few months ago Mr. McCollum was invited to present a paper at the Sixth National Conference on City Planning, which was held at Toronto May 25-27, 1914, and as this paper, which was prepared and read by him at the conference, throws some additional light upon this subject, which the Board now has under consideration, I am transmitting the same herewith for the information of the members, and would call their attention to the fact that it is our opinion the motor bus is going to prove a very important factor in transportation facilities, both in the urban and suburban districts of the City in the near future. Respectfully. HARRY P. NICHOLS, Engineer, Chief of Bureau. UTILITY OF THE MOTOR BUS AND MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO ITS OPERATION. By John A. McCollum. Assistant Engineer, Bureau of Franchises. Read Before the Sixth National Conference on City Planning, Toronto, May 25-27, 1914. Self-propelled vehicles for the transportation of passengers have only recently begun to attract attention generally on the American continent. The extensive opera- tion of the motor omnibus in some parts of Europe, particularly in London and other parts of England, has so completely proven its capabilities of efficient service that we have the right to assume it will be given a thorough test, and as a result it may eventually take an important place in the passenger transportation field in this country as well. Any new or additional transit facility is important from the standpoint of city planning. The purpose of this paper is not to treat of all the questions relating to the operation of the motor omnibus. Rather, its aim is to present facts sufficient to show the efficiency of the motor bus and the magnitude of its present use ; to suggest its possible fields of utility in this country, and to point out the advantages of the independent vehicle and the problems which may confront municipalities in its employ- ment. Almost as soon as the motor car came to be recognized as a vehicle capable of endurance, efforts were made on the part of engineers and manufacturers to adapt its use to the carrying of passengers in the streets of London. The streets in a large central area of that city are, with few exceptions, short, narrow and crooked, and not adapted to the operation of a sufficiently comprehensive system of street railways to meet the demands of surface passenger traffic. The street railways being excluded, this area promised to be the most lucrative field for the operation of the motor bus. Because of this, and the further reason that a new form of transit in the streets to supplant the horse-drawn omnibus then in use was needed, it was not unnatural that the greatest energy should be focused on the attempt to use the self- propelled motor vehicle as a means of relief. If, as a result, a new and efficient pas- senger carrying agency has made its appearance, more credit should be given to those who have made the London system possible, than to any other group of individuals. The date of the first appearance of the horse-drawn omnibus in London is not definitely known, but it is certain that corporations owning and operating such vehicles were in existence as early as 1855, and during tlie year 1862 more than 42,000.000 passengers were carried by the 600 vehicles of one company alone. The maximum number of horse-drawn vehicles was reached in 1901. In this year 3,736 were licensed. Subsenuent to that time the number gradually decreased until a few months atjo, when the last horse-drawn omnibus was removed from the streets of London. The new era began in 1901, when 10 motor buses were licensed by the police. No large increase in numbers took place, however, until 1905, when 241 vehicles were licensed; this number being 208 more than had been authorized in any previous year. From that time down to the present, the numbers increased by leaps and bounds ; the largest increases being in more recent years, and amounting in 1912 to about 1,000. There are at present in London more than 3,000 motor-driven buses, which have entirely supplanted the horse-drawn vehicles. These have a seating capacity of 34 passengers each ; operate on regular schedules ; move with an average speed somewhat in excess of the surface railway cars, and carry with regularity and dispatch, at a rate of fare exceeding by only 20 per cent, that of the street railways, an aggregate of 676,000,000 passengers per annum, a total greater than the number of cash fares and transfers collected on all the street surface railways of the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx in the City of New York. This seems miraculous when we consider the short period within which motor-driven vehicles have been developed and adapted to this severe use. The operating efficiency of the motor bus in London may be well illustrated by the fact that during seven continuous months of the year 1913 about 2,200 motor buses ran an average of 117 miles each per day, or an aggregate of 55,000,000 bus miles, with a loss of scheduled mileage equal to only .12 of one per cent, of the total. This probably exceeds the efficiency of many street railway systems. In Paris there are more than 1,000 vehicles of a type unlike those in London, operating under differ- ent conditions, but performing nevertheless an efficient passenger service. New motor bus routes are being established daily in European cities. Some are being added to street railway systems and are designed to supplement the railway service by extension into districts where the traffic does not warrant the permanent investment of the large sums necessary for the operation of a railway. Thus transit facilities arc furnished to communities which would otherwise be neglected for many years to come. Conditions in New York. New York is probably the only American city in which the horse-drawn omnibus, regularly operating upon a fixed route, was used to any extent up to the time of the introduction of motor vehicles. However, the lines operated on Fifth Avenue and other thoroughfares by the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, while forming a neces- sary part of the passenger facilities of the city, were used largely for sightseeing, and for this reason were not looked upon as a transportation feature worthy of as serious consideration as the more efficient street railway. This company, keeping pace with the introduction of the motor bus abroad, has now in operation more than 100 motor vehicles which carry 90,000 passengers each per annum, at a fare double that charged on the street railways. These vehicles are now generally considered to be a desirable means of transit, and they have during the past two years yielded a profit to the operators. Comparison of the operating statistics of this company with those of the street railways operating in the Borough of Manhattan shows that the average daily mileage of each surface railway car is about one-third greater than the average daily mileage of the motor bus, and. that the average speed of the motor bus is slightly greater than the average speed of the railway car. The efficiency of the motor omnibus as a passenger vehicle having been proven, companies have been formed for the purpose of extending the service in New York and for the initiation of operation in several other cities. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor car bodies have noted the development and are now directing their attention toward the production of vehicles particularly adapted to this service. At the beginning of the year 1913, the laws applying to stage lines in the city of New York were such that the only existing company within the city had, and would continue to have, a virtual monopoly of the omnibus business unless amendments were effected by the legislature. Obligations, which in many cases would be impossible to fulfill, were required by the law of new companies, while practically no conditions were imposed on the existing corporation. A bill designed to correct this inequality was therefore drafted by the city and introduced in the legislature during the session of 1913. This bill subsequently became a law, though it was bitterly opposed by the railway interests on the ground that motor bus operation would open the door to general competition and diminish the volume of their business. The law now subjects all stage or omnibus companies seeking operating authority to the same procedure as applicants for franchises of any other character, and leaves entirely with the city the right to impose such terms and conditions as it sees fit. The only law under which such companies may be incorporated dates back to 1854. While this is applicable to stage or omnibus companies, it presents some difficulties which may be overcome by future amendments. During the time action on this bill was pending, or within a few months after the law took effect, three companies were incorporated to operate stage or omnibus lines in the Borough of Manhattan. Each of these companies and the existing operating company presented to the Board of Estimate and .Apportionment applications for franchises to operate routes aggregating in length more than 150 miles. Since the presentation of these applications, the Bureau of Franchises of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment has devoted a great deal of time and study to the situation. Many of the routes of the several applicants are identical and some parallel, in the same street, the lines of existing street railways. Questions have therefore arisen : First, as to the advisability of granting motor bus franchises on existing street railway routes, thereby permitting general competition between the motor bus and railway facilities; and second, as to the wisdom of authorizing the operation of more than one motor Iius company on the same route, thus opening the way to competition between different motor bus companies themselves. These questions have served to delay final action upon the applications, but a tentative form of franchise is now being prepared, reserving to the city the necessary control of operation. In addition to the three mentioned, one company has been formed and has made application for franchise rights to operate in a suburban district in the Borough of Queens. Other companies are being organized to operate routes in the outlying districts. Characteristics of the Motor Bus. There are two characteristics of the motor bus which distinguish it from every other public transportation facility. The first is flexibility; that is, flexibility of vehicle movement and flexibility of route. Because of this feature the vehicle re- sponds quickly to operating requirements and to traffic conditions ; e.g., passengers may enter or leave buses at the side of the roadway without risk or danger of crossing dense vehicular traffic ; delays to other motor cars do not result from breakdown either of a motor bus or any other vehicle, and daily or less frequent changes of route may be made to comply with traffic conditions. All of these are advantages not to be found in any car confined to rails. The second distinguishing characteristic is its independence of extraneous equip- ment, such as expensive and delicate power generating and distributing systems or expensive track equipment. The railway investment must, in a large measure, in- crease in the same ratio as the length of the track, while the motor bus investment grows only in proportion to the number of vehicles employed or, what is the same thing, in proportion to the daily vehicle mileage. The importance of this feature is shown by the comparison of the capitalization of the street railways in the Boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx and the municipally owned and operated surface railways in London with the largest omnibus undertaking in that city. How- ever, the ratios given serve no purpose as a basis for comparison between other existing or proposed operations. The number of passengers carried in the year 1912 by the London railway was about the same as the number carried by its omnibus system. In Manhattan and The Bronx the total number of passengers paying cash fares and presenting transfers exceeded by about 20 per cent the number carried by the London omnibus system. The aggregate lengths of route operated were about 148 miles by London railways, about 230 miles by Manhattan and The Bronx railways and more than 300 miles by the London motor buses. Yet at the close of 1912 the London railway investment, less the accumulated sinking funds, was $53,000,000; the Manhattan and The Bronx railways' capital was $190,000,000, with an appraised property value of $166,000,000; while the amount of capital employed by the omnibus company, as evidenced by its outstanding securities, was only $15,500,000, including an increase during the year of $5,000,000 for the purpose of supplying funds for additional facilities, the benefit of which will accrue in subsequent years. Thus we find that the London railway invcstm'cnt is about i'/i times that of the omnibus. 8 The capitalization of the street railways in Manhattan and The Bronx is more than 12 times and their appraised value is almost 9 times as great as the capital used for London omnibuses. Five per cent profit upon the capital of the railways of Manhattan and The Bronx would equal more than 13 cents for each car mile operated. If in the comparisons just made the route mileage of the motor buses had been either more or less, the capital needed would be the same, so long as the number of vehicles and vehicle miles operated did not change. On the other hand, if the route mileage of the railway were increased, then the capital required would be greater, though the number of cars operated or car miles run remained the same. Flexibility and independence of movement are features which could not be considered heretofore in planning transit systems, and they suggest advantages of the motor bus over other transportation facilities. They make possible the operation by the same equipment of a diversity of routes, changing during the different periods of the day or during the different days of the week to correspond to the desires of the traveling public, thereby obtaining maximum service of each unit. Thus, in performing the more economical operation, each vehicle gives a more efficient public service. In this respect the motor bus would make an ideal "feeder" to rapid 'ransit railways because of its ability to immediately adjust its operation to conform to new directions of traffic made necessary by new facilities. It may be possible lo provide by the motor bus transit facilities in many communities where no relief could be had for years to come, were it not for such a flexible free-moving vehicl';. Whether a community is to have service will not depend so much upon the measure of invest- ment risk as upon whether or not enough traffic can be induced at a sufficient fare to pay operating expenses, plus an acceptable margin of profit. If insufficient profit results, the operator will withdraw the vehicles and look elsewhere for a more profitable field. With the element of investment risk so largely removed, no doubt many will be induced to invest in the business without having sufficient understanding of its meaning, resulting in the usual number of f,naiicinl failures under such con- diti ns. Cost of Service. The ultimate test of the motor bus must, of course, be the cost of the service to be rendered. This will include the expense incident to the operation, sinking funds to provide for depreciation and interest or profit on capital invested. So much of what may be said in regard to the possible uses of the motor bus depends upon the cost that it should be here considered. We have reason to believe, judging from what has been accomplished in London, that the operating cost, however high it may now be, will diminish as better vehicles are produced and more is learned of the operating economies. The cost per vehicle or scat mile is not the only item to consider in estimating whether a particular operation will be profitable. The capabilities and variety of possible service of the independent vehicle are such that its present apparently high cost of service may be more than offset by its earning power. Accurate data with respect to the cost of mechanical traction on roads is difficult or impossible to obtain. There are so many varying conditions that in all probability only the most general estimate can be made for given conditions. Without quoting figures, the following general comparisons may be made between the operating ex- pense of the largest existing motor bus undertakings and that of the street railways : In London, where the operation is skillfully managed, where the pavements are kept in excellent repair and where the improvement in the type and construction of vehicle has been most rapid, we find that the bare operating cost is relatively low. It is less than IS cents per bus mile and probably does not exceed by more than 10 to IS per cent the cost per car mile of the municipally owned surface railways. The excess cost is, however, more than offset by the lower interest charges on motor bus operation, and the total cost per bus mile probably is less than the cost per car mile. The relative seating capacity of vehicles used in this comparison is 34 for the motor bus and 78 for the surface car. This ratio of seating capacity brings the total cost per motor bus seat mile greater than tliat of the car seat mile. In Paris, where a much heavier vehicle of about the same capacity is operated on pavements less smooth, the cost per mile is considerably greater than in London. Many conditions abroad bearing on the cost of operation differ from those in America ; e. g., the comparatively low cost of labor in England, particularly mechanical labor, of which so much is required in motor omnibus operations. The mere com- parison, therefore, of the operating costs of the motor bus undertakings here with the costs abroad would serve no purpose, although some idea may be gained by considering the cost of motor bus operation in the Borough of Manhattan as compared with that of surface railways in the same borough. Within this borough railway operation is more expensive than in other boroughs of the city of New York, principally because it is largely carried on in congested districts and because the maintenance of way and structures of the underground contact system is more expensive than that of the overhead trolley. In comparison with this expensive operation, the bare operating cost of the motor bus per mile, although gradually decreasing, is greater than that of the railway per car mile; but here as in London the cost per bus mile, when interest on investment is included, becomes more nearly equal the" cost per railway car mile. The depreciation of the motor bus is much more r.ipid than that of the street railway car and other railway equipment and requires provision for replacement funds at a greater rate. The total amount of depreciation may not exceed that of the railway, although the rate is higher, because the value to which the rate is applied is much less. In London the life of motor bus equipment is estimated to be from five to six years, and in New York depreciation funds are provided sufficient to replace the vehicles after three years' use. Proliably the average life of motor buses constructed abroad when efficiently maintained is much longer than five years, but the mechanical improvement in type and construction has been thus far so rapid that the vehicles become obselele before they are worn out. 10 The cost of operation, and probably the rate of depreciation as well, will vary greatly with the type of the vehicle and the character of the pavement upon which it operates. The large differences between the costs of the various motor bus operations leave th*e impression that ultimately more economical results will be attained. At the present time, however, the cost seems to be sufficiently low to insure profitable operation in certain classes of service. Field of Utility. We have in nearly every city and town street surface railways giving on the v.-hole admirable service. The question which may suggest itself at this point, therefore, is: What in this country is the held of utility for the motor bus in its present state of development? The limiting conditions seem to be : First, the rate of fare to insure profitable results in the operation of known types of vehicle in this country probably must be slightly greater than that on the street surface railways, or if the same fare is charged, then the average length of ride must be less; second, operations should be excluded from routes where the motor bus would seriously compete with existing transit facilities and should be allowed only on such routes as will supplement the railway service. Probably there is no other public utility from which the people get more for their money than from the street railway, and a general right to operate motor buses, resulting in interference and competition with the surface railways, would invite disaster to this efficient public service. The railway and the motor bus should each have its sphere of utility, and the development of each should, to conserve the best interests of all, be limited to its own field. The experience of most cities has been that the greater use of transit facilities is stimulated by their enlargement or improvement. Statistics show that the number of rides per capita increases under such conditions at a greater rate than the increases of population. Therefore if the motor bus is used as an additional transit facility it will, without doubt, find a service to perform in carrying the increase of traffic due to the additional facilities which it provides. An unfortunate condition exists in London, where the extent and direction of motor bus development is guided only by the operating companies themselves. Traffic has been diverted from the municipally owned railway to the motor bus, so diminishing the railway revenue that a deficit will occur in the near future unless relief is obtained from some direction. This situation is due largely to the lack of municipal supervision of motor bus routes and to the peculiar traffic conditions already described, which exclude railways from the business center of the city. In Paris there is no competition between street railways and motor buses. Both systems are owned by the same company and each supplements the other. This is without doubt the better method. One use of the motor bus seems to be shown by the operation in New York, where the fare is 10 cents. The increasing number of passengers carried indicates that at least in metropolitan cities there is a demand for facilities at a relatively 11 high rate of fare. This operation, because of the difference of fare, cannot be said to be in direct competition with the street railways. In the congested Borough of Manhattan, with its elevated and subsurface rapid transit railways, and with almost every available north-and-south thoroughfare occupied by street railways, there are districts of dense population between which no direct transit communication exists. Large areas on the east and west sides of Central Park, so situated that their centers are less than one mile apart, are almost as completely without direct connecting transit facilities as though they were separated by several miles. The railway com- panies have made no effort to obtain franchise rights to give such service. There are many suburban communities also without sufficient local transit facilities. Jamaica and vicinity. Long Island, may be used as an illustration. Though it is within the boundary of the city of Greater New York and has, with the imme- diately adjacent development, a population of more than 60,000, this community is almost entirely without means of public conveyance between the railroad stations, business districts and homes. Real estate development has thus been limited to a district less than a mile in width adjacent to and along each side of the Long Island Railroad. Extensive public improvements have been made on adjacent property, well situated for home development, but practically no building has taken place because of the lack of provision for local transit. The rapid transit facilities of the Long Island Railroad are apparently adequate to serve a much larger population. By this means one may reach the business districts of Manhattan in 18 minutes and of Brooklyn in 21 minutes. A study of the situation shows that there is probably a sufficient diversity of local transit business to warrant motor bus operation during a greater part of the day, securing almost full use of the vehicle equipment. The operation of a reliable motor bus service upon a number of short routes connecting the residential with the business sections and the railway stations at a modest fare would not only open property well situated for the building of homes, but VN'ould greatly add to the convenience of the present inhabitants. An oinnibus company is now preparing to operate several of such routes in the belief that it will be a prolitable venture. Other communities elsewhere within the limits of Greater New York await local transit facilities. If the motor bus can be operated at a cost such as to enable it to supply this need, there is an immediate lield for its operation. This will grow with the population of the community. Municipal Problems. The rapid strides made indicate that the use of the motor vehicle for general passenger service is in its infancy, and we arc, in the opinion of many, on the eve of a considerable development. Such development should be encouraged by the municipal authorities, but be so guided that the public interests will be best con- served. It will be well for the municipal authorities to have a watchful eye on the problems which must be confronted in its accomplishtnent. Mcnliun has already 12 been made of possible results of general competition, which may be prevented, and the need of careful selection and regulation of routes, which may be accomplished. This may be done by the enactment of proper laws, expert surveys of each situation and the exercise of good judgment on the part of those having authority. Other problems are the prevention of accidents and the protection of road pave- ment. These already exist in many places because of the increasing amount of motor traflFic, and without doubt are capable of a satisfactory solution. Figures were recently officially reported by the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade from which the following comparison may be made between the number of the fatal and non- fatal accidents caused by motor bus and street railway operation for one year : The motor bus killed five times as many as the railway per million miles run ; seven times as many per million passengers carried and eight times as many per mile of route operated. It injured three and one-third times as many as the street railway per million miles run ; twice as many per million passengers carried and twice as many per mile of route operated. These comparisons omit one important feature; i.e., the density of traffic within which the operation of each system takes place. If that comparison were made, probably the motor bus would not be put in such an undesirable light, since the density of the vehicular traffic is by far the greatest in the central portion of the city, where a large percentage of the bus operation takes place, and from which the railway is excluded. We need not expect the operation of motor buses in such large numbers in the most congested portions of American cities as in London, because of the efficient railway systems already established, and therefore the problem of protection of lives will not be so difficult. However, the application of lifeguards or fenders and the regulation of traffic to prevent accidents are important enough to direct the attention of the authorities when granting rights for the motor bus operation. Street pavement is to the motor bus what the steel railway track is to the railway car, but unlike the railway track it is provided at public expense. Its preservation, therefore, is one of the problems which will confront the authorities if large numbers of heavy motor buses are to be operated, particularly in suburban districts, where the pavements are usually less permanent than in city streets with dense vehicular traffic. Probably the chief destructive effect of motor traffic on roads is produced by the churning, sheering or grinding action of the driving wheels on the road surface. This obviously increases with the weight and speed of the driven vehicle. Weak places also in the foundation are quickly discovered by heavy and fast-moving traffic. The capacity — hence to some degree the weight — of the motor bus is an extremely important consideration from the standpoint of economy, for the cost of operation per vehicle does not increase at the .same rate as the number of persons which it may carry. Therefore, where the volume of traffic is sufficient, a larger vehicle is more desirable. Speed and rapid acceleration up to certain limits are also essential for passenger service. In consequence, reduction of weight per unit capacity or other im- provement in design must be depended upon to keep down road repair cost rather 13 than reduction of speed in motor bus operation. Speed, while important, is not so essential to the commercial vehicle, and by proper speed regulations and reasonable load limits some of the road destructive effect of that type of vehicle may be eliminated. Heavy commercial motor vehicles are making their appearance in increasing numbers on roads of all kinds, without regulation either as regards weight of load or rate of speed except the general speed limits, which apply to all vehicles, designed for the protection of life rather than the preservation of roads. Mechanical traction has attained such dimensions in so short a period that road surfaces in outlying districts, at least, have been subjected to traffic conditions different from those originally in- tended. Important regulations have only recently been issued affecting Paris and the sur- rounding country. These limit the load, for the unit tire width, fix the maximum gross weight of commercial vehicles and regulate the speed according to the varying gross weight. Public vehicles, however, are not so limited as to speed as are commer- cial vehicles. Motor buses operated in London, Paris and New York vary in weight from 219 pounds to 365 pounds for each passenger which the vehicle is capable of car- rying. The lightest vehicle is used in London and weighs about 3J4 tons unloaded. This is the maximum weight permitted by the police for a public service vehicle. It is possible to obtain American-made single deck buses, 24 passenger seating capacity, that probably do not exceed in weight the maximum per passenger capacity authorized in London. Whether those vehicles will prove successful in the severe trials of motor bus work is yet to be proven. It may be that after a thorough investigation, rules and regulations may be de- veloped which will so regulate the weight, speed and width of tire of both commercial and public service vehicles that practically no excessive cost of road maintenance will result. Certainly regulations affecting commericial vehicles may be devised which would result in less destructive effect on roads. However, such rules, if applied to motor buses, might be so severe with respect to speed as to destroy their usefulness for passenger service. There is a great need for a careful research into the whole problem of mechanical traction on roads, particularly the effect of vehicle weight and speed upon the cost of road maintenance. If it is shown that the motor bus is particularly destruc- tive to roads, the operators should pay something toward road maintenance. Co-operntion between the municipal authorities and the motor bus operators, and between the different municipalities as well, is much needed, for the proper develop- ment of this new facility, both in its initiation and during subsequent operation. Fol- lowing arc the apparent essential general features of procedure to be observed in the beginning: First, the enactment of general incorporation laws to provide for the formation of operating companies. These should give to some local governing body tlie authority to fix routes and to supervise operation. Second, a thorough study of trans- portation and traffic conditions and of the needs of the community in wliich the operation is proposed, to aid in the selection of routes upon which transit facilities are required and upon which there will not be undue competition with existing facilities. 14 Third, the collection and preservation of data pertaining to (o) cost of operation, (fc) rate of depreciation of vehicles, (c) effect on different classes of road surfaces and foundations, and (d) efficiency of difTerent types of vehicles. Fourth, the limitation of the operating rights to a comparatively short period until more is learned of the capabilities of the motor bus and, the eflfect of its operation. The Bureau of Franchises would be glad to receive any data in relation to this subject, to the end that the, problems of motor bus operation may be successfully worked out.