1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
"The report on London regional JANUS planning may well become WRITES
Page 81
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
something of a collector's curiosity"
AS far as possible and within reason goods should be moved by rail Journeys to work into congested centres, especially central London, should be by public transport, particularly rail Other passenger movements are likely to be more and more by private car, which has an essential part to play in improving living standards and helping to provide a fuller life.
These ideas are not notably original. They are the inspiration of something like half the letters published in the Press on the subject of transport. What is surprising is to find them assembled as the tentative conclusions of such a body as the technical panel of the standing conference on London regional planning. The panel had been asked to examine the population, employment and transport situation in London and the surrounding area and to make recommendations on policy. The basic principles which emerge from this are that the private car should have priority and that all other traffic should as far as possible be transferred to the railways.
The facts on which the conclusions are based hardly seem to bear them out. Between 1951 and 1961, the number of private cars in Britain increased from 2-4m. to 6m., a rate of increase double that of goods vehicles, which went up from 0-9m. to 1-5m. in the same decade. Traffic movements in the London region increased proportionately much more than population and employment. Among the reasons given by the panel are the intensification of economic activities in the region and the general rise in living standards, which is reflected especially in the greater ownership and use of private cars.
The second reason might plausibly be regarded as a consequence of the first. It seems equally likely that an invaluable and irreplaceable factor in the economic improvement has been the work of the road goods transport industry. Proposals which would simultaneously curtail that industry and encourage the private car seem therefore contradictory.
The evident wish of more and more people to run their own cars cannot be ignored by the authorities. The motorist is entitled to expect satisfactory roads into London and satisfactory facilities for parking his car when he gets there. It is notorious, however, that the demands of the motorist conflict increasingly with the ideas of town planners and town dwellers, as well as visitors from other parts of the country and from overseas, on the functions of London as a community centre. Unless London is to become little more than a network of roads, there must be some restrictions on vehicles, particularly the rapidly increasing number of private cars.
The goods vehicle comes into a different category. It can save precious urban space as well as consume it. The well-stocked shops, factories and other premises can depend upon road transport to provide a constant flow of supplies and to remove promptly the finished product and any other items that may no longer be needed. The turn-thatlorry-round campaign by hauliers suggests that education is still needed on making the best use of road transport in order to eliminate industrial clutter, but the lesson is gradually being learned and there has been some improve
ment. The London regional planners might do worse than study this aspect of their subject.
What they must appreciate is that most goods can be collected or delivered only by road, whatever form of transport may be used for the intermediate part of the journey. Compulsory diversion to rail might often mean a more awkward road journey through London than would be the case with direct door-to-door delivery by lorry. The convenience of the customer is equally important. If he is to continue to play his part in the economic improvements which the technical panel record, he must be allowed to continue to choose the form of transport which suits him best rather than have either rail or road transport forced upon him.
Dr. Beeching has assessed the situation accurately His proposals are designed to improve those services where there is a chance that the trader will prefer the railways, and to eliminate the rest. The panel have studied the Beeching report, but appears not to have related it to their own terms of reference. The conclusions they draw are reasonably sensible, but irrelevant.
REVERSE THE TREND
"We are satisfied," say the panel, "that it is highly desirable not only to halt but to reverse" the trend from road to rail. This opiniort is based solely on the evidence available about the future prospects on the roads. It takes no account of the possible loss of efficiency by the people who would be denied the use of road transport. There is considerable spare capacity on the railway network, the panel continue, and this can be taken up "without any fresh need for land, or fresh impact on residential areas." The panel seem not to have considered that the spare capacity may be in places where the railways do not particularly need it, especially if the number of goods depots is to be drastically reduced, and that the space may be put to better use in other ways, for example by substituting a road transport depot for a railway depot.
Another document that the panel have read is the Hall report on the transport needs of Great Britain in the next 20 years. Once again, the conclusions reached from the same basic facts are not always the same. The panel's kindly attitude towards the motorist is not entirely shared by Sir Robert Hall's group. Their proposal is that the urban problem should be tackled partly by increased expenditure and partly by regulation of traffic, but this regulation, they add, should principally be concerned with the private car.
Never before have so many bodies been tackling the subject of transport. The Minister of Transport has expressed a certain pride in the number of inquiries he has initiated, including the Beeching plan, the Hall report and the London Traffic Survey. Whether this multiplicity of investigations will be of more interest to collectors than to the general public remains to be seen, but it is possible to guess that the report of the technical panel of the standing conference on London regional planning may well become something of a collector's curiosity.