topic
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
London roads and party politics
HITLER and his military machine have the chief credit for the German motorways or autobahnen built before the war. This unfortunate historical association of ideas — coupled with the other transport legend that Mussolini at least made the Italian trains run on time — help to explain the British reluctance to build new roads, or even to improve the old, until a most rigorous and sometimes tortuous democratic procedure has been played out to the full.
Opponents of the London motorway box exploit the situation. Two of three questions put by Mr Anthony Crosland in the short debate on the Layfield report were concerned with public opinion, as expressed in the recent all-party report of the Select Committee on Expenditure and in the words of the leader of the Labour group on the Greater London Council, who had said that,. if his group took control, it would refuse to build the box.
Londoners should be mystified by this. It was under a Labour-controlled GLC (or LCC) that the Greater London development plan was prepared. The Conservatives took it over, as well as following the next natural step of appointing a panel of inquiry.
Until about the time that the panel started its work, London seemed to be following the national pattern. Each Government, whatever its political complexion, carries on the roads programme of its predecessor with only rare changes of policy. Ministers with responsibility for transport will announce plans for 10 years or even longer as though they will be holding the reins of power indefinitely.
Successive Ministers, whatever their party, have had no hesitation in taking their share of the limelight as opportunities arose. Most of them have also claimed to be progressive. They have taken pride in their own contribution to the motor-way building programme. At other times, more on the defensive they have pointed to their difficulties, both financial and administrative. They have even suggested that the procedure should be streamlined by cutting out some of the consultative requirement of the law.
Will future Ministers dare to go so far? Mr Geoffrey Rippon, Secretary of State for the Environment, has given the Layfield report a cautious, some would even say lukewarm, welcome. The Government, he said, -accept in principle" that Ringway 1, or the motorway box, should remain in the development plan; and, in general, that a primary road network on the reduced scale envisaged in the report "will be necessary
even with a successful policy of transport improvement and traffic restraint."
As Mr Rippon made clear in his answers to the House of Commons, acceptance in principle is a long way from a final decision.
There would be formal opportunity to make representations, he assured Mr Douglas Jay.
If necessary, there might have to be a further public inquiry. Even with reasonable progress, he estimated that the plan would take 20 to 30 years to implement.
In the intervening period there will be other Governments and other Ministers. We have already travelled a long way from the carefree days of the Preston bypass and the Ml. a mere 15 years ago. There may come a time when new stretches of motorway — assuming permission is ever granted for their construction — will have to be opened in secret at dead of night; and when the first vehicles along the route will be the armoured cars of the strong military guard needed to protect the officiating Minister.
Protests against motorway construction have had some good effects. Mr Rippon's statement accepts the need for a new approach. The panel of inquiry and the Urban Motorways Committee which reported last October agree that local authorities should be given wider powers to integrate new roads into their surrounding areas and to compensate people whose properties are affected.
These safeguards will not satisfy everybody. The strongly vocal, if oddly named. London Motorway Action Group, has already, through the medium of a letter to The Times, expressed "the strongest possible protest against any proposal" to build Ringway 1 and radial links through inner residential London. The plan would have a "devastating effect on wide areas," the letter continues.
Anybody with enough time and patience to drive round the proposed route will agree that there are some buildings or amenities which it would be a pity to destroy or damage. There are long stretches elsewhere on the route that must already be scheduled for improvement at an early date, let alone over the next 20 or 30 years.
The opposition comes strongly, if not exclusively, from the Labour side, and the Labour party may come to power in London after the next GLC elections. If the party's representatives then decide to reject the Layfield report, and virtually abandon the development plan, the transport prospect for London will indeed be gloomy. However, it is not unknown for politicians to change their minds once they take office.