London Doomed Unless
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ccw E must have an authority armed with ample powers. They will have to take steps, by traffic control, to keep the streets clear, and to ensure that there is an adequate system of public transport. This would confer an enormous benefit on all road users. Nothing short of this can produce the public transport and traffic conditions that the citizens of London have the right to expect."
This was claimed by Mr. Alex Samuels, chairman, London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, when presenting a paper on Metropolitan traffic problems in London on Wednesday.
The basic transport question in London should be how people and goods could best be moved to their destinations, but the responsibilities for transport and traffic in London were so confused that it had been almost impossible for any of the administrative bodies to face the issue in these terms,
Objective not Achieved
Referring to the London and Home Counties Traffic _Advisory Committee, Mr. Samuels said that it had been hoped that the existence of this body . would have led to ensuring unified control of transport iti London. In fact it had not succeeded in achieving this objective, Although the Minister of Transport did consult this committee, he still found it necessary to consult many other bodies.
Experience as chairman of this committee since 1947 had convinced Mr. Samuels that it was almost impossible to effect any improvement quickly in the present situation, The Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act had helped to cut some of the worst knots, but could not tackle the problem caused by the number of authorities with responsibilities relative' to traffic problems. As a result of these separate responsibilities the problems had been examined in iSolation only although they are really different facets of a single problem. This should be considered. as the problem of moving people and goods as economically and rapidly as possible, allowing for individual transport preferences, but with a firm eye on the comfort and convenience of the majority. ,At present, Mr. Samuels said, there was no person, body or committee which could take that broad view.
Royal Conunission
A Royal Commission have recommended a reorganization of local government structures to provide a single authority with responsibility over the whole field of traffic and roads, but not public transport. Mr. Samuels said that he was convinced there was a need for a single authority to have such a responsibility. The social way of life depended on solving London's transport problem. and he considered that there was no point in having an otherwise acceptable form of local government for London if it could not adequately face and tackle that D8 problem. He added: "If congestion is not controlled, then London as we know it is doomed."
But even if reconstruction of organization and responsibility for London's transport problems were undertaken, the solution would still not be easy. There was in fact no one solution. In Mr. Samuels' view it was necessary to press forward as vigorously as possible on a number of fronts.
Themain 'statutory function of the' Traffic Advisory Committee since the war had been centred on the problems of how, through discipline and control, to make the best use of London's existing street system. The average flow of vehicles on main roads in central London had increased from 1,230 per hour in 1947 to 1,585 in 1958. During the same period average journey speeds had fallen from 11.8 m.p.h. to 10.1 m.p.h. Between 1954 and 1959 there had been a rise of 52 per cent. in the number of vehicles licensed for use on the roads in Great Britain, whilst the total number of vehicles was expected to double within the next 10 years.
High Demand
The inevitable result of this increase was the extremely high demand for the use of London's existing road space. The most important feature was that the number of vehicles was still" increasing and no estimate could yet be made as to its maximum extent. Mr. Samuels considered that large-scale construction of roads in London under present circumstances would simply attract more vethicles. Unless order and discipline in the use of the existing road system were first restored, a policy of unlimited urban road development would be useless.
The law recognized that a highway existed for two main purposes, namely to allow the passage of moving vehicles and to permit access to premises fronting the highway. But it was never intended for use as a public garage. Until recently in central London there have been 210 miles of street on which some 50,000 vehicles have been parked every day, 60 per cent. of them for long periods. All this unofficial garage space had been available without. cost to the parker, despite the immense disadvantage it had caused to legitimate users of the highway.
It had therefore been decided that parking on streets should be authorized only in places where it would have no ill effect on moving traffic or access to premises, with first priority to the short-term user. Moreover, the ratio between supply and demand for long-term parking needs was to be maintained by levying of charges. Taken together, the various schemes fc parking meters, if eventually approvet would provide for about 3,000 meters i all. In addition it was anticipated that total of about 25,000 car spaces in publi parks and garages in central Londo would eventually be available,
Moving Faster
The average traffic speed in the fin of the controlled parking zones ha increased by 9 per cent., Mr. Samuel said, whilst there was also some rectuctio in the accident rate. The control of wail ing by commercial vehicles had been a essential part of these first parking-mete schemes. It must be recognized that all purpose roads served to provide access t premises as well as to provide fo through traffic, and that commercial pre mises depended upon the facilities fo vehicles to load and unload outside them London must not be sacrificed to th motorcar, Mr. Samuels insisted, but ii order to cope with the future he con sidered it was necessary to have a limite■ number of main roads reaching almost b the centre. Each would be up to motor way standard, with limited access, am inter-connected by a small radius rim road. Traffic desiring to go througl London would use these and not the all purpose roads. Traffic wishing to stop ii central London would only have to corn plete the last mile or two by an ordinar: all-purpose road. Major improvement in a city must take lime if only becausi of the problems of land acquisition am legal procedure which must he followed In the meaotime, however, Mr. Samuel said he was attracted by the possibilit■ of building fly-overs quickly and cheapl■ by using the Bailey Bridge type of con struction,
Extravagant Cars
Referring to the extravagant demands upon space made by the private car ir city centres by comparison with pub Us transport, Mr. Samuels said there was s grave danger that the erosion of cities bs roads and car parks would ultimatels lessen their importance.
A vital question was whether publie transport conid be made sufficiently attractive to continue to cater for the existins proportion of commuters and possibly te attract some of those who at present prefei private, transport. The temptation tc switch over to private transport ww great with the rising standards of living Moreover, when a commuter with a cal considered whether or not to use it for hil daily journey he did not take all the cost, into account, probably ignoring depreciation. As a result in many cases it woult be less than the cost of a public transpori ticket. But if he were made to pay the full cost of his parking facilities in the centre then the expense of the private journey might be greater. If public transport was to be made more attractive thar private transport, it was essential thal
.rking facilities should not be subsized.
Returning to the problem of central sponsibility, Mr. Samuels said that if ere were such a body they would have look realistically at the present situam. If private-car transport could not catered for, it was essential to have an icient public transport system, and such body would have to ensure that buses re available.
The organization might decide that it is cheaper to subsidize public transport ensure that the services were good enough to protect the social fabric of life in London, rather than be forced to undertake road construction to the extent that would be required to enable a much larger proportion of the public to travel by private car.
New development, Mr. Samuels insisted, should be planned round a transport system, whether existing or projected, designed to run economically. But this could not be provided if the planning were done in a vacuum and the transport scheme left until the last. It had been estimated, for example, that employment in the centre of London, almost entirely in offices, would continue to increase by about 6,000 a year for the next 10 years. The aim should be to ensure that the centre of London remained the focal point with reasonably free access between that point and the rest of the area. If that were not, achieved then London would lose its present pattern and .could well re-form on a cellular basis, with a large number of local centres, but no focal point.
With proper, realistic planning, victory of the car over man could be avoided.