Sorry-Go-Round
THE letter to the LCC from the Ministers of Housing and Transport concerning the plan for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Circus con- tains phrases so telling that it is worth quoting the following paragraph in full (the italics are ours): In the view of both Miniver., it is essential to re-examine the current proposals against this trend [of increasing traffic]. They do not now in this light regard the proposals for the re- development of Piccadilly Circus as acceptable in their present form. They are now seen to do little to provide for the almost inevitable future traffic increase; and are bound• to result in, and Perpetuate, an inadequate traffic provision at a key junction in the centre of London.
It raises the following questions. Which Ministry is running which? And, if it is Transport, why has it taken Housing, which received Transport's objections in 1961, till now to come round to these views? From past experience can we have any confidence that the new estimate of 85,000 vehicles for the twelve daylight hours is any- thing like accurate? What sort of Piccadilly Cir- cus would it be anyway that could cater for up- wards of 85,000 vehicles? When, one wonders, did such trend planning become gospel and does it not imply an abrogation of the responsibility to govern? Is it not conceivable, finally, that we
might at some time halt the proliferation of private vehicles that is destroying our city centres, say by the introduction of special and expensive licences, and even initiate a trend back to public transport? It had seemed the great virtue of Sir William Holford's plan that it would turn the Circus from its present vulgar mess and death-trap into a place for people. Clearly the Ministers reject this view and see it primarily as a junction for traffic.
Previous page
