)L1(7 ' by Janus 6 But over the past 10
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
years the public perception of motorways has changed . . . The public has become disenchanted with the interminable roadworks. 9
The route to new bypasses?
THE BYPASS is back in the news. In the 1930s it was this 'type of road which attracted the attention of the motoring public. The Kingston bypass and its contemporaries were the first modern roads which British motorists had the opportunity of using. Many more were planned, and when the road programme re-started in the mid-1950s, it was naturally with the schemes which had lain dormant for nearly 20 years.
But there was a significant change which gradually had the effect of eclipsing the bypass in public attention. Following one of Hitler's few good ideas, it was accepted that Britain needed a completely new network of roads that were designed specifically for motor vehicles, and, even more important, were confined purely to their use.
Thus when the Preston, Lancaster, Slough and Maidenhead bypasses were opened they were already seen as part of the M6 and M4, and not simply as bypasses to remove traffic from town centres.
The pledge by the Ministry of Transport to complete the first 1,000 miles of motorway "by the early 1970s", the razzmatazz associated with Ernest Marples during his five years as Transport Minister which coincided with the first burst of motorway completions, the glamorous Royal opening of the Severn Bridge, and above all the very obvious benefits of the new roads themselves, all captured the attention of the public.
Opposition to the routes of the new roads was minimal, and almost totally confined to the people whose land would be taken. There was scarcely a sign of the opposition on general environmental grounds which is such a feature of proposed new motorways — for example, the M40 extension — nowadays.
The central section of the M4 through some of the loveliest country in the South of England was the subject of only one public inquiry. The concept of the motorway itself was not challenged.
All this led to the humble bypass falling out of public view. True, Lord Hailsham's famous "flat cap" visits to the North-East of England, in order to demonstrate Harold Macmillan's concern about regional unemployment, led to important stretches of the Al being bypassed, but these were built as motorways, and were eagerly drawn into the network by a Ministry of Transport increasingly worried that its 1,000-mile target would not be met.
But over the past 10 years or so the public perception of motorways has changed. No user would suggest that they are not needed. But the public has become disenchanted with the interminable roadworks, even on relatively new stretches.
Much more important to the road transport industry, however, is the radical change in the attitude of the general public. The loudest protesters may not be typical of the population as a whole, but no longer are new motorways seen as an automatic benefit, as they tended to be 20 years ago.
The reasons for this change in public attitude are complex. One element could be that the original motorway programme was over-ambitious — not in its conception, but in its time-scale. In a relatively few years the motorways dramatically made it much easier for road vehicles, and especially lorries, to undertake long inter-urban journeys. This inevitably encouraged the enormous switch of freight from rail to road. It would have taken place in any event following the implementation of the Beeching plan, but not so quickly. Added congestion in the urban areas, which are the normal destinations of most lorries, was the result.
In retrospect, it would probably have been more beneficial if greater emphasis had been placed during the late 1950s and early 1960s on bypassing towns. Inevitably this would have been at the expense of the motorway programme, but that would not necessarily have been a disadavantage, even in the short term. Urban congestion has hampered hauliers since long before motorways. Moreover, if, by considerably reducing the hostility to the lorry, it had avoided the growth of the antilorry feeling which is such a major feature of Britain today, hauliers might have had their higher weights many years ago.
That must remain speculative. What is certain is that the message has been absorbed by the Department of Transport, and that in future the emphasis of the road programme will be on bypasses. Road transport would doubtless agree with this switch (with perhaps a reservation that the problem of London remains to be solved). So, probably, will the general public. It is noticeable that controversy over plans for new bypasses tends to be about their route, and not the need for them.
This new emphasis is, however, coupled with the possibility of using private finance for road construction. At first glance this, too, might seem welcome. Anything which could speed up the road programme must surely be a good thing.
But only a moment's thought is necessary to see potential dangers.
First, it would add a new tier to the already top-heavy machinery for planning routes, which already takes several years. Second, in addition to the cost of road-building there will be the profit which private financiers would expect. This would have to come from the industry's pocket. Third, it presents a new stick with which the anti-road lobby could bang the drum, by claiming that the road profit motive has improperly influenced the choice of route, or even the decision to build the new road itself.
And, most serious of all, it could easily lead to charging tolls. That is ruled out at the moment; Ministers say that payments will come from royalties related to traffic using the new road, out of general taxation. But a future financial crisis might lead a Government to decide that the royalty should come from those using the privately financed roads, rather than from the Government itself.
The industry should point out clearly to the Government that the resources required to build new roads — men, machinery and materials — are standing idle at the moment. Using private financiers might "launder" the public sector borrowing requirement which so preoccupies the Chancellor, but it will not affect the real world of road construction except to slow it down and make it more expensive.