THREE CHEERS FOR TWO JAGS
The motoring lobby scents blood but John Prescott has got his roads policy right, argues Ross Clark
LOUDER even than the traffic on White- hall is the screech of vultures circling over Westminster. The roads lobby has smelled a wounded animal in John Prescott and surveys his ample carrion with delight. Oh, how they must be enjoying themselves in the Turkish bath down at the Royal Auto- mobile Club, how they must be sniggering in the boardrooms of Tarmac Inc. Get those legs in trim, John: you really will have to get used to those 200-yard walks once the ministerial Jaguar goes.
They're probably right, the motoring lobby: Mr Prescott isn't likely to keep his portfolio beyond the next election, if that long. But it would be a tragedy if, among the manic celebrations of the Motorists' Liberation Front, his eventual going were not marked with an acknowledgment that somewhere, deep down in the multiple pile-up of his syntax, there are the begin- nings of a reasoned transport policy scram- bling to get out. Does anyone have a better idea than congestion-charging to make sure that Kevin the travelling salesman can get home in time to eat his microwaved supper in front of Hollyoaks? Er, no.
But lots of people think they do. According to Leo McKinstry, writing in this magazine last week ('It's enough to drive you mad'), it's all down to them bleedin' cones, innit? Cones, in all but three cases, were found by investigators on behalf of John Major's 'wretched' cones hotline to be essential to enable workmen to inspect the tarmac and keep it in a con- dition safe for Mr McKinstry's wheels. John Redwood has some ideas, too. One is a road-building programme which would make nonsense of William Hague's promise to cut taxes. Another, he revealed in the Times last week, is to get rid of all those 'kerbs and refuges' which litter our highways — traffic islands which are usual- ly put there to help vehicles turning right from impeding the flow of traffic. Oh, and there are 'too many parked cars and deliv- ery lorries'.
Just one objection: while a blitz on park- ing and lorries might help to clear the roads for the car commuter from, say, Wokingham, how are you going to sell it to the car-owners of Hammersmith who have nowhere other than the side of the road to park their vehicles, and the tradesmen of central London whose businesses are total- ly dependent on, er, delivery lorries?
The problem with Redwood's populist ramblings is that they have a habit of bit- ing back. Prescott's much-vilified M4 bus lane must have seemed a tempting target when it was introduced back in June. But the truth is that the bus lane has not only saved bus passengers an average of three minutes over the three-mile section of motorway involved, it has also saved car- drivers an average of one and a half min- utes in the morning and two minutes in the evening. Moreover, daily traffic flow along the section has increased from 52,800 to 55,300 vehicles since the bus lane was introduced, contradicting any suggestion that traffic has spilled over on to other routes.
The reason for the improved flow is this: before the bus lane and its associated 50 mph speed limit were introduced, motorists were changing lanes much more — an activity which, in spite of gaining the odd motorist a few seconds' advantage, causes more time-consuming accidents and makes for less efficient use of road space and therefore slows everyone down.
The M4 scheme is in fact that rare beast: a public-policy triumph. Let's have bus lanes and 50 mph speed limits everywhere. If you want to drive into London any faster, they are your only option. The motoring lobby would clearly like us to
think that the only thing lying between us and a decent road system is Swampy, but the reality is different. It is not just politi- cally impossible to ease congestion by building more roads, it is economically impossible.
The big snag with congestion is that it tends to be worse in places which are wealthiest and most heavily built-up. Unfortunately, these also happen to be the places where property is most expensive, and therefore the bill for compulsory-pur- chase of necessary land is greatest.
Ever felt frustrated trying to wend your way through the winding, disjointed streets between Wandsworth and Notting Hill, a five-mile journey which can take more than an hour even outside the rush hour? The good news is that there are provisions for a dual carriageway called the West Cross Route which could relieve your misery. The bad news is that the plans are 40 years old and, although two short sections were actually built, it will never be finished. Along its proposed route lies some of the most expensive property in Europe, where houses with no more than a 30-foot road frontage sell for more than £1 million. Just to buy the land to finish that road could swallow the entire £5 billion annual UK roads budget.
If I were Swampy, I think I'd give up tun- nelling and start talking up property prices: it's a surer means of keeping the bulldozers away. But what about increasing the bud- get? The Chancellor raises £32 billion a year in motoring taxes and only spends £5 billion on roads, complains the roads lobby ad nauseam. It's a devious little statistic dreamed up by the British Roads Federa- tion. The £5 billion includes only the money spent on the tarmac itself and leaves out such items as the police, who have the responsibility of keeping traffic moving. The £32 billion tax bill, on the other hand, includes more than £8 billion of VAT — a spending-tax levied on most goods and services. Does anyone expect the government to build golf courses with the VAT raised on golf clubs? No.
Increase the road-building budget and the money will inevitably end up being sucked into projects which are politically easy, in areas where land is cheap, but which are far removed from the real con- gestion. It would mean, in other words, yet more empty dual carriageways for Tyne and Wear and nothing for Surrey commuters.
However much motorists huff and puff, Prescott is right. You can fiddle around here and there, but ultimately if you want to cut the congestion, you are going to have to price the poorer motorist off the road. If that is not politically acceptable — and it probably won't be — then traffic should be left to find its own level, congestion itself acting as the deterrent to drivers. Perhaps those angry Mr Toads should invest in a few of those 1950s I-Spy books to help them pass the time while they sit in the jams.
Previous page
