Trafficking in politics
Page 13
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HOUSE of Commons transt committee's report on sport in London (CM, July without question, is the t important document to rge from that body since it established after the 1979 ?.ral eleetion. The great sea Iges which have afflicted the tars transport system over ast 18 months have ensured the backbench MPs' delibeons have reached the )nal headlines.
fact, the all-party committee ed its investigations in Febry 1981, when Ken Liv;tone was an opposition icillor known only to the e assiduous students of rter London Council affairs, bus and Underground fares ried set permanently to rise. earlier inquiry by the cornre had uncovered the need ok more closely at the orgaion and financing of transin the capital, and it is probfair to say that none of the Ps in the present committee my idea of the likely interest efforts would arouse, or the it would take to complete work.
3 final report examines all As of London's transport come within Transport itary David Howell's res
ibility, examing road policy ill as public transport.
th a weather eye open to egional politicians who can xpected to complain of unimportance being placed on iroblems of London, it says: "The rest of the country may well resent the cost, but cannot resist the logic, of the need for a determined national effort to relieve the crisis which faces London's transport system, and to ensure that standards of mobility and access at least begin to compare favourably with those in our other major conurbations, and in major conurbations overseas."
Comparisons with the outside world were based on visits the committee made to transport facilities in London, Toronto, New York, Washington DC, San Francisco, Paris, Hamburg, Munich, Copenhagen and Newcastle upon Tyne. The committee also took oral evidence on 21 occasions from 31 organisations and individuals, and was assisted by former London Transport vice-chairman Anthony Bull and Leeds University's Professor A. D. May.
The most fundamental recommendation to come out of its Herculean task is that a Metropolitan Transport Authority should be established to preside over transport policy in an area based on that of the pre-1969 London Transport area (which extends from Letchworth in the north to Horsham in the south, and from Slough in the west to Gravesend in the east.) Half of the MTA's members would be nominated by the local councils in its area, one member would be nominated by a new public transport users' committee, and the rest would be nominated by the Transport Secretary.
The committee hopes, though, that most of those nominated by the Transport Secretary would be directly elected representatives of the people, including MPs. This would place the body above the shifting political fortunes of the GLC and bring a consistency to policy making that has hitherto been impossible to achieve.
The MTA, like the Metropolitan Police and the Inner London Education Authority, would have power to levy all the ratepayers in its area, subject to a ceiling set by the Transport Secretary. It would be required to submit a Transport Policies and Programme document outlining its intentions to the Government, and would be eligible for such grants as Transport Supplementary Grant (TSG).
Road improvements, in the committee's view, are a key to solving the crisis, for they would relieve the plight of the users of public and private transport and aid freight movement.
It also believes that a major step towards making the necessary changes will be to vest the responsibility for the true trunk roads of the capital in the MTA. At present, the GLC, the Department of Transport, and London boroughs share the responsibility, and the committee says this division of responsibility, which is an historical accident, is not "conducive to the development of comprehensive planning of the capital's strategic road network."
It also reports: "It is particularly alarming that DTp officials should regard their own roads in London as the strategic network
Above: Committee chairman Tom Bradley in London, thus derogating to some lower category the Metropolitan roads which in fact carry much of the strategic throughtraffic in the old London County Council area."
It says there is much to commend in giving boroughs wider independent powers to carry out traffic management in their areas, but it wants the MTA to lay down guidelines for strategic traffic management policies throughout its area.
Better enforcement, it stresses, must take place to ensure that the present "flagrant violation" of parking and other traffic management measures is tackled. Estimates of the number of illegally parked vehicles in London vary, but the Home Office told the committee that there are probably 350,000 such offences in London every day, and one study revealed that 86 per cent of cars in a 10 per cent sample of London streets were parked illegally.
At present, there is a Home Office ceiling of 1,800 traffic wardens which the Metropolitan Police may employ, and low wages have helped keep the actual figure to just over 1,200. The committee says it is vital that higher wages be offered to wardens and that the force should be raised to 4,000. In addition, it wants individual boroughs to be able to top up this figure, and for them to be able to claim TSG support for such expenditure.
It says that the Home Office should examine whether there are sufficient resources available to the police for towing away illegally parked vehicles, and it also endorses the Government's intentions to experiment with vehicle immobilising equipment like wheel clamps.
But it is convinced that these experiments will work only if additional finance is provided for them. There also is scope, the committee believes, for refusing to relicense vehicles which do not pay their fines.
Until the overall public transport system is improved, the committee says it would be difficult to impose further restraints on vehicle movement, such as a supplementary licensing system. But it suggests, nevertheless, that there may be a case for supplementary licensing to be investigated.
It pre-empts the GLC by coming down heavily against any large scale lorry bans such as those being investigated by the Wood Inquiry. "We do not believe that anything other than serious damage would be caused to London's economy by a general prohibition on the movement of particular classes of commercial vehicles within the London area."
That does not mean that it believes all lorries may go anywhere in London, and it says there may be a case for restricting cross-London traffic after the M25 orbital route is completed, and for other bans to be applied after further major road improvements are made to the trunk road system. It also says there could be useful lessons to be drawn from developing an experimental break-bulk facility on the edge of London. The committee says it cannot discount the possibility of some freight being transferred from road to other modes, and it supports the availability of Section 8 grants for rail and waterway facilities. But it believes that far more long-haul freight will disappear from local roads once the M25 is completed than will be enticed on to other means of transport, The G LC's ill-fated "Fares Fair" cheap-fares-on-the-rates policy not only delayed the committee's report, but also altered its emphasis, and probably contributed greatly towards the birth of the MTA idea. The MPs' view of the extraordinary episode is that: "The Fares Fair policy was in itself a serious and genuine attempt to bring new life to London's transport services, and real benefits to London's travellers, The actual result has been of little benefit to either, or to London's ratepayers."
The committee says London's entire public transport System is in need of a face-lift, with more reliable, cleaner, and more comfortable co-ordinated services, and it believes that the level and quality of service, rather than the fares charged, will attract passengers to the system.
It wants responsibility for London Transport to be transferred from the GLC to the MTA, giving it all the powers and duties which the GLC has over LT. The committee believes this would remove LT from the "goldfish bowl" problem of running a large undertaking subject to detailed interference from local politicians, and would be more democratic than transferring LT into direct Government control. "If implemented, this recommendation will not deny the GLC a voice, and an important voice, in the affairs of LT, and it will have the effect of extending to the London boroughs and peripheral county districts an element of direct control over their major public transport operator which is lacking at present."
London Country would remain National Bus Company subsidiary, but woufd join LT and British Rail in a London Transport Operators' Partnership which would be responsible for timetabling and service integration, interchange investment and planning, the creation of common fares structures, and the marketing of services.
This would develop the existing agreements which apply among the operators, such as that on fares and service levels between LT and London Country. The committee makes no mention of the role of private operators.
Whatever those joint agreements may produce, it is clear that the committee sees greater long-term benefit in a policy in which capital investment is more important than revenue support. And it has also rejected LT chairman Sir Peter Mesefield's recommendation that there should be a El-for-El matching of public support to farebox revenue. It believes such decisions should be left to the politicians.
As a matter of urgency, the committee wants two action programmes agreed for 1983-93, and says that these should go ahead even if the MTA is stillborn. The committee says both action programmes should be presented for approval by the House of Commons, and that :they should form the basis of all major transport investment in London during the first 10 year period.
The first is that it wants the DTp to collaborate with the ( London boroughs, Lon Boroughs Association, and Standing Conference on Lor and South East Regio Planning to agree a short li! major road construction anc provement schemes, irres tive of their present classi tion.
The second is that for pi transport, it wants the DTp, LT, NBC, and British Rai agree on a short list of rr infrastructure and rolling s improvements over the ne) years,
It is concerned about the manning costs associated LT's bus and Underground vices, and believes that LT been unnecessarily sloN phasing out conductor-oper buses in central London.
The committee says it i not believe that trade unior sistance has played any rr part in keeping crew opera and says it believes that un will co-operate in reducing r ning costs once an action gramme is agreed.
It wants the Governmen increase by 20 per cent amount of capital support for public transport in the / area, and for this to inc provision for the replacemei buses. But it says this sh, only be paid after the ap priate management and t unions have agreed to new r ning levels.
It says that it is less eas arrive at a formula for expe ture on roads, but suggests the present proportion of motorway and trunk road get which is being allocate the M25 could be kept for London area once the /V12E proaches completion.
There is no obligation on Government to act on the rer which was produced princir for the benefit of MPs, but Tr port Secretary David Howe known to be keen to study detail.
He already plans to seek serve powers to take over and has indicated that the tr port committee report coulr fluence his final and more tailed plans.
Committee chairman 1 Bradley, a Social Democrat, pects that Mr Howell may pond in about four months, says that even though h lation based on the report is of the question in the next liamentary session, the Go% ment could start moving wards that stage by the autui • Alan IV