Jam tomorrow
THE ENVIRONMENT REX MALIK
What are we going to do about London's trans- port problems? Four months after the Gtx elections and what seems like centuries after the election of the swinging, with-it Govern- ment, the dilemma is the same as ever; the con- ventional wisdom oscillates between the fan- tasies of the total replanning advocates, the masochistic 'why don't they walk' brigade, and the technologically antique solutions (which could just as easily have been propounded dur- ing the reign of Queen Victoria) of those in power—though not in office.
Meanwhile, the likelihood that technologic- ally sensible decisions will be taken seems to dwindle. The brave new look at London's trans- port problems which was to have been taken by the GLC may still be on, but the circumscription of the GLC by decisions basically taken by the Ministry of Transport continues, and the ox's room for manoeuvre gets smaller and smaller every day. This is a pity, for the new ot_c was the first elected body in London for many years which had no ideological commitment to any particular systems of transport, and was not in fief or indebted to any pressure group involved in the transport industry; and, equally im- portant, was not bound by past administrative practice to either the solutions of its own County Hall experts, or those of its political colleagues across the river.
The central London road problem, for in-
stance, has been with us for the best part of three quarters of a century: and as with London, so with New York, Paris and many other cities. (I exclude Moscow and Peking. but I somehow don't think that a solu- tion lies in following their policies.) There is a temptation to go on scouring the world in search of a solution: this is an exercise in futility. No one has any solutions; indeed it is probable that anything worth while that has been done elsewhere is already on file some- where in this country.
So what should now be done? It may sound silly after the number of reports, pamphlets. studies and speeches that have been made during the last few years, but what we still need is some politically, technologically and economically realistic thought; something which has been conspicuously lacking. Most of the forecasts of traffic build-up in the next few years, for in- stance, are almost straight extrapolations of the recent past---and of present experience. The line taken is: 'The working population will be X in Y years' time, therefore we must have the facilities to cope with an increase in traffic of a commensurate order.' How true is this? If someone does know, he has most likely arrived at his conclusions by guesswork.
We are currently entering the greatest period of change since the enclosures. These changes are based on technology: on new materials, new means of generating power, and the applica- tion of very 'sophisticated' techniques to physi- cal phenomena--- as in the induction motor, the hovercraft, and the computer. The living and working patterns of the majority of those in .work are changing rapidly. There are, for in- stance, many hundreds of computer systems on order in this country, many of them destined for the London area. No one has yet done any serious study to estimate the changes that these will make to the daily movement of London's labour force. Yet from what we can already see from the toe-dipping .exercises of the City, the computer may well dramatically affect working patterns as well as the numbers of those em- ployed. And what the computer does, continued rising affluence and changes in approach to liv- ing may well accelerate.
The starting point, then, must surely be that any solutions that are proposed for London's transport problems should note that change is happening—and that this change is both social and technological. This is crucial, as any major systems of public transport laid down will prob- ably be with us for anything from a quarter to a half-century on—almost as a minimum. But, change is also evident in the technology of trans- port. There are a number of possibilities open to us which were not there twenty or even ten years ago. It becomes, then, most important that any solutions to London's transport problems should not be those which come out of obsolete or obsolescent technology. This is the objection to the Victoria Line extension. It is not a new one-- the same sort of objection was made by a number of critics during the 'modernisation' of British Rail. The technological imagination dis- played there was such that by the time the 'new' system has paid its way—however that is meas- ured—it will be even more of a museum piece.
As is well known, to extend the bounds of an existing proven technology by any really signifi- cant amount is a very expensive exercise; mini- mal percentage improvements are bought at high cost in these situations. The same expendi- ture in a newer, technologically more advanced field should bring much greater rewards. There has been much talk in recent years of mono-
rails, and the present Gt.c has helped to revive interest in the subject. But why stop at the con- ventional monorail? If we are to build mono- rails—and sooner or later we shall have to build upward—why not try to base them on our own advanced technology? We could do with some new products to flog abroad: so why not the in- duction motor powered hovertrain, a field in which as yet we have a clear lead. It could be quiet, easy to install in that it will not demand heavy investments in permanent way and tun- nels, and because of this it could be flexible.
But if we are to take this load off the surface, might I suggest something even more revolu- tionary? There has been considerable talk of traffic-free zones in shopping and recreation areas. Why stick at this? There are a number of areas, particularly in London's West End and in the City, which would prove eminently suit- able for moving-belt experiments, instead of traffic-carrying roads. This is not as fanciful as it may at first sound. Much of the technology exists and has already been proved in industry.
But there's a lot we can do without having to spend millions or start giant research pro- grammes. When are we going to face the reality that the personal transportation vehicle is here to stay? Not that that means it has to be the car for evermore. Currently, there is some work go- ing on to make it possible for cars in towns to be taxed by what are called road pricing schemes. As it stands, this is cowardice. What has somehow to be got across is that the taxing of personal transport vehicles in urban areas should be done not only with reference to the time of day, area, and the mileage, but also the car's size. Much of our existing road system, though crowded in terms of vehicles, is in fact under-utilised in terms of the number of people carried. One has no wish to curb the right of people to move about by means of individual transport—on the contrary; but is it still neces- sary in the late 'sixties for status to be linked to the amount of road space that a car occupies? I do not see that ministerial and other dignity would be impaired if those carried were re- stricted to vehicles whose wheelbase was, say, no bigger than that of a Mini. There is nothing in automotive technology which states that these cannot be as safe, as fast, or as comfortable as other vehicles. Moreover, it might help forward the development of the town electric car, and any moves in that direction are surely to be welcomed.
Could we not also make better use of the resources we already have? We have been faced with a number of minor problems for many years, and after much public discussion still seem as far away as ever from solutions. There is general agreement that roads should not be torn up in succession by gas boards, water boards, electricity boards, and the GPO, but roads are still torn up in succession by gas boards, water boards, electricity boards and the GPO—as well as the people who then come along to repair them. Must London continue to be so badly signposted that central London is need- lessly used as a through route simply because people cannot find their way through else- where? Do we have to -remain the worst served major European city when it comes to late night transport?
This is only to scrape the surface of a com- plex subject, but all the measures I have briefly outlined would make a contribution to a solu- tion. It may have been grandfather's time when a solution was last realistically visualised—but that still doesn't alter the fact that `solutions is what problems is supposed to 'ave.'
Previous page
