Janus comments
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Politics and the box
ONE disturbing if not sinister reaction to the development plan of the Greater London Council is the decision of the Labour Opposition on the GLC to attack certain provisions and in particular the motorway box around London. There is a danger that this unwelcome division on party lines could spread to road problems in other parts of the country and even to discussions on road matters in Parliament.
Special circumstances may apply in London. The GLC plan, which is ambitious and imaginative even if not perfect, was set in hand and largely completed during the lengthy period of Labour party rule on the council. The controversial motorway box and other road schemes are an integral part of the plan. They are not inflexible and may be altered as work on the plan progresses.
The new motorway system is not the only thing to be considered even in the field of transport. There is a promise to develop public transport "in all possible ways". There will be "improvements to the secondary network (the existing main roads), the delineation of environmental areas and management measures for the control of traffic".
There are hints of second and even third thoughts. "It is possible," says the plan, "that as a result of the local work there will be feedback, necessitating changes in the primary (motorway) concept." In a reference to the transfer of London Transport to the GLC the report adds: "Much work remains to be done, especially in the crucial matter of the balance between public and private transport which could in turn affect the relative scale of provision of road and rail facilities."
Mild contrast
These reservations, it has been pointed out, are in mild contrast with much more positive statements formerly made by Mr. Robert Vigars, chairman of the GLC's planning and transportation committee. To that extent they are possibly more in line with the thinking of the original Labour Party proposers of the plan.
Even when they held the reins not all the Labour councillors were enthusiastic supporters of the motorway provisions in the plan. There was possibly more agreement on this point among the Conservatives. When Labour lost power those council members who had had reservations all along no longer thought it necessary to restrain themselves from attacking a plan for which their own party was largely responsible.
They may have promoted and were certainly emboldened by the vigorous protests which then arose from sections of the public and of the Press. The motorway box was easily dressed up as the embodiment of dictatorship and the symbol of juggernaut. The motorist and the haulier were to have precedence over the ordinary citizen who merely wanted to live in peaceful surroundings and cultivate his garden.
If he was unfortunate enough to live in the path of the obscene, animated ribbon his house would be flattened in the name of progress and he would be left to fend for himself as best he could. If the house was not in the direct line he would have inflicted on him the misery of living cheek by jowl with a stream of clattering traffic day and night.
The technique is familiar. It appeals mainly to the emotions while throwing in an occasional acknowledgment that some traffic is essential and some roads desirable. Logic is the first casualty in an emotional issue and even a grudging acceptance of the need for roads has been jettisoned in recent attacks on the motorway box.
Even the slight hesitation in the GLC plan has been seized upon as reprehensible. Because the line of certain sections of the motorway route has been safeguarded against development for other purposes it has been suggested that the promoters of the plan would be happy to turn stretches of London into a concrete desert and then build the real road elsewhere.
A head-on collision almost of ideologies may be inevitable. There is not the same safety valve as exists in the controversy over the siting of London's third airport. The inhabitants of an area suggested for the purpose might be on weak ground hi arguing against the necessity. They escape the difficulty by claiming that the airport should be built somewhere else.
The same line cannot be taken on the motorway box. If it is to be built at all it must by definition be built in London and approximately on the line suggested. There may be room -for argument on the precise location of certain stretches but the alternatives are limited.
Blacklash
The controversial motorway box, which is the innermost of three proposed orbital routes, has been planned alongside railway routes and through areas of "housing stress." which are in any case due for re-development within the next decade or so. Any substantial change in route to suit one group of people would alienate others.
The only profitable argument on the other side therefore is that the motorway is a Monstrosity and that its promoters are by implication evil. The vigour of the protest along these lines appears to have surprised the GLC. There seem to be no immediate plans to meet it in time for the public inquiry which will give the opponents of the motorway box their great opportunity.
They may prove to be symptomatic of the backlash against the road programme as a whole. There have always been adepts of the simple life and lovers of a Golden Age long past who have stood out against the encroachment of the car and lorry. Their protests find an echo in most people's minds.
On the other hand there has been general agreement in Parliament and in official circles generally that roads are necessary and ought to be built. The party in power consistently claims that it is building more roads more quickly than its predecessors. The party in opposition always demands more progress and if necessary greater expenditure.
There is a danger that this unity of purpose may break up within the GLC. If the arguments are restricted to such matters as the choice of route no harm will ensue. If suggestions begin to be made that the roads ought not to be built at all the stake of party politics in transport—too great in any case—will be extended further.
The example of London may be followed in other areas where road developments are planned. Discussion will degenerate into a debate for and against roads as such. Local government is increasingly the mirror of Parliament. It would not be long before the same situation arose in the House of Commons.
Putting the clock back
Such an outcome would be putting the clock back. Many years ago when the road-rail controversy was still taken seriously there was an all-party Roads Group in Parliament. Its functions disappeared when virtually all politicians accepted that roads were essential. It would be regrettable if circumstances changed once again so that the group had to be resuscitated.
Operators should pay special attention to what is happening in London. The problem is not simple. There are flaws in the plan and even in the resources of the GLC. The British Road Federation has rightly emphasized how unfair it is that the GLC has no power to compensate property owners for the loss of amenity which may result from the building of a road.
It is as well that the BRF should make its opinion clear on issues such as this. When the public inquiry takes place a wide range of organizations A nd interests will wish to be represented and it is hard to imagine that the BRF would be left out.
The task of the supporters of the motorway box will be difficult and in some ways contradictory. They may have to attack some of the details while defending the principles. They will have to acknowledge the disadvantages while pointing to the much greater benefits. Above all they must overcome the arguments from the other side without widening the party political rift.