Meet Transport 2000's new chief
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ampaigning on an aglet
THE MODEST headquarters of Transport 2000, the lobbying group that played a key role in diluting the Department of Transport's original heavy lorry plans, are not the easiest to find. They nestle between a betting shop and an obscure branch of one of the printing unions, within a few minutes of London's Kings Cross station, but that location — above some roads used by constant lorry traffic — disguises the effectiveness of a strong pressure group, writes ALAN MILLAR.
The Kings Cross premises now have some new occupants, as former director Keith Buchan and his assistant, Nick Lester, have left to occupy jobs created by the Greater London Council. The new director is Susan Hoyle, a former civil servant and mother of two sons who until last month was part of the public affairs team with the National Federation of Women's Institutes.
The one surviving member of the former three-man team, Jonathon Roberts, is now deputy director and jokingly refers to himself as the "statutory man", while the new team will be completed next month when Susie Ohlenschlager, an experienced campaigner employed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, starts work.
If freight transport lobbyists expect their opponents to be slightly nutty, ranting, luridly dressed idealogues, then Susan Hoyle will let them down. She is a thoughtful, quiet spoken realist who, while not afraid to advance an argument in favour of causes she believes in, accepts that there must be compromises, and is at pains to put over a rational case.
She is the executive head of an organisation which has acquired a reputation for being the front for the rail unions and British Rail, but she insists it is not part of the railway lobby. "We are funded by all of our national affiliates, and, yes, we do get money from the National Union of Railwaymen and British Rail. The NUR is not just a rail union; it has bus drivers and lorry drivers."
But she adds: "They don't give us money to do their work for them. It so happens that the environmental value of public transport involves the preservation of a rail system that is still not bad."
Of the 20 or so board members, the majority are from the wide range of environmental and pro-public transport pressure groups affiliated to Transport 2000, and six are nominees from its own regions.
She accepts that the rail lobby derives benefits from being affiliated, but would be happy if the Bus and Coach Council, for instance, added its funds to the coffers. They need all they can get, for she admits that all of the campaigning is done, not so much on a shoestring as on an aglet, the plastic bit at the end of a shoestring.
One major activity to which its attentions are being directed is the GLC's consideration of night and weekend lorry bans. That stemmed from the Wood Report on the possible effects of a range of controls throughout London, and Susan Hoyle believes a ban would be a good thing.
"I hope it will come in, as it means a good night's sleep for people who live on lorry routes, and it means that they will be able to wander around at weekends without being threatened by lorries."
She wants to see more effort being made to "civilise" the lorry, with smaller vehicles being used where possible, and is looking for results from the Department of Trade and Industrysupported CIFIV90 project to develop quieter lorries.
Rail and water could carry more freight, she believes, but is equally ready to accept that their scope is limited. It is all a question of making the best use of existing resources, not building new roads without being convinced that they will work.
The additional transport costs imposed by trans-shipment of loads entering London would be marginal, she believes, and in any event the public would pay extra. "The unpopularity of lorries is such that I am sure most people are prepared to accept the extra cost."
She draws on personal experience to back up her argument. Heavy lorries was one of the issues guaranteed to raise the hackles of the predominantly ru ral and middle-aged membership of the women's institutes. "I am not talking of people living in trendy areas of London. This is a very real concern and they still moan about it."
And she recalls with horror waking one morning last summer in her home in Islington, North London to find that her electricity supply had been cut off in the aftermath of a fatal accident in which a French meat lorry overturned and caused extensive damage to many houses nearby. That, she said, brought a lot of local response, with residents knocking on doors seeking action.
She argues that residents' complaints can be trampled under by the representations of business interests. "It is always easier for commercial businesses to put figures on a lorry ban and have them accepted. But these figures can still only be guesstimates."
Meanwhile, Transport 2000 is busy lobbying for major changes to proposed public transport legislation. The London Regional Transport Bill and the proposals to abolish the GLC and metropolitan counties worry Susan Hoyle, because they will take London Transport and the PTEs away from their present level of democratic accountability.
And plans for reduced offpeak services next spring on British Rail's Southern Region, a response to Government strictures on cost control, are the sort of move she fears could spread across the public transport network of Britain.
Within London, Transport 2000 fears the concessionary travel scheme which, at present, gives pensioners free travel within the GLC area, will break down.
The answer, instead, lies in developing public transport's resources, as LT has demonstrated with its Travelcards. She quotes GLC figures which show that in the eight months since they were first issued in May last year, they have generated sufficient extra business to suggest an extra £40m revenue per year, and have cut car commuting by nine per cent.
"That kind of success indicates how cheaply it can be done, and without double-glazing grants and houses being pulled down. We want to see this being done before people talk about building new roads."
She dislikes the Government's present policy of permitting public transport to compete with itself, especially on what Transport 2000 considers to be an unequal footing. She wants an integrated transport policy, controlled with a "light hand" rather than a vast bureaucracy, in which there is no needless competition, and in which the track costs of road and rail are derived from the same basis.
Susan Hoyle has worked long enough with the women's institutes to know that far more of their members use buses than trains, and she most certainly is not anti-bus. Not only does she want to embrace the objectives of the BCC and its campaign, but she is not anti-coach either.
"I am certainly not against them as a legitimate form of passenger transport. They are desirable and need help." She would prefer if there was less competition with British Rail, but believes that they offer a different standard of service.
Susan Hoyle describes herself as a quick learner, having had to step into her first television interview at short notice on her first day at Transport 2000. No doubt she will also learn fast that our bus readers will love her more than the freight industry, but her voice will still carry weight in their business.