in London, and with an effective deployment of managerial theory, he subjects the contribution of Ashfield and Pick to close scrutiny. Ashfield encouraged a “questioning, collaborative style of leadership” (p. 118). Possessing political acumen and a flair for public relations, he worked effectively with Pick, who, though less gifted, was an outstanding executive manager with undoubted administrative skills. The combination worked well for some years, although the emphasis on centralisation and cost control was becoming outdated by the late 1930s. Some of Fowler’s analysis could have been taken further. His assessment of passenger benefits would have been strengthened by including additional tests, while the analysis of investors’ returns should have ensured that like investments (e.g. fixed interest bonds) were always compared with like. And it is a pity that the text contains a fair number of typographical errors, which suggests that proofreading was rather perfunctory. Nevertheless, this is a provocative book which offers a valuable reassessment of the LPTB and directs our attention to the perennial themes of public v. private interests in the management of urban transport. It should stimulate further research into London’s experience with public and quasi-public provision.

中文翻译：

---

David Starkie，高速公路时代——战后政府如何应对快速的交通增长

在伦敦，通过有效运用管理理论，他对阿什菲尔德和皮克的贡献进行了仔细审查。阿什菲尔德鼓励“质疑、协作的领导风格”（第 118 页）。他拥有政治敏锐度和公共关系天赋，与皮克有效合作，皮克虽然天赋不高，但却是一位出色的执行经理，具有无可置疑的行政技能。几年来，这种组合运作良好，尽管到 1930 年代后期，对集中化和成本控制的强调已经过时。福勒的一些分析本可以更进一步。通过包括额外的测试，他对乘客福利的评估会得到加强，而对投资者回报的分析应该确保始终将同类投资（例如固定利息债券）与同类投资进行比较。遗憾的是，文本中存在相当多的排版错误，这表明校对相当敷衍。尽管如此，这是一本具有启发性的书，它对 LPTB 进行了有价值的重新评估，并将我们的注意力引向了城市交通管理中公共与私人利益的长期主题。它应该激发对伦敦公共和准公共供给经验的进一步研究。