1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
THE THREA1 OF THESE URBAN MEARWAYS
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Analysis from the Trader's Point of View of the Effects of the Proposed Peak-hour Clearway in West London, and of Their Long-term Threat to Many Road Transport and Trading Under takings by R. E. G. Brown,
Secretary, London and Home Counties.. Division, Traders Road Transport Association IT was an event to see and hear the residents and traders of a community rise as one in outraged protest at the suggestion that the interests of their community were secondary to those of people passing from A to B who had to travel through their precincts.
That is precisely what 300 Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington did recently at a protest meeting organized by the Chamber of Commerce against the Minister of Transport's proposals for an experimental Peakhour Clearway from Brompton Road to the Chiswick Flyover. The experiment would involve a ban on all stopping (with a few exceptions, including buses) between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m, and from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. No passengers could board or alight from vehicles; no luggage, no goods could be unloaded or loaded during these hours from or to shops, hotels, guest houses, business houses or private houses, all of which are part and parcel of the life of Kensington.
Hence the dollar-earning capacity of the great shops, the . reception of visitors from all parts of the world, the needs of the residents, and, by no means least, the supply of essential food and commodities, are all to take second place for four hours a day to commuter traffic moving into and out of London!
That is the meaning of the proposals. For a long time the T.R.T.A. have maintained that these things are not secondary to traffic flow in importance. Now we have the great awakening. Suddenly traders, residents and the council of a community are as one with us on this vital point But the battle of Kensington is only the beginning. Introducing the Second Reading of the Hyde Park Bill on February 1, Mr, Marples said: "I am certain that when we mark the road to the airport—and during the peak hours we shall remove standing vehicles—we shall get a far greater volume of traffic moving to and from the West and London. Another study which the new Traffic Management Unit is making is to try to get some arteries, as it were, in the inner part of London within a two-mile radius of Aldwych. We have already earmarked 50 miles of roads which we hope will be main arteries."
Later on, he made a further reference to 40 miles of link roads, and then later: "I maintain that the first priority on a street in the centre of a city should be for moving traffic. . . Where we have spare space it should be used in one of two ways, for the loading and unloading necessary for the commercial life in the city, and secondly for temporary parking."
A Survey A further statement was: "We are making a survey of the principal arterial roads to the centre of London, so that we can see that these roads especially during peak hours are kept free from stationary vehicles. That would mean that a large number of motorists would be able to move in and out during these periods. The first experiment is an urban Clearway from Knightsbridge to London Airport."
We arc, therefore, left in no doubt of the Minister's views. He believes that moving traffic has first priority. Loading and unloading and other requirements for commerce take second place. Those at the protest meeting held exactly the opposite view.
Both sides are making a simple black and white issue of a fundamental problem which exists in every borough in London and in the centre of every town and city. in the country. When the Minister refers to another 90 miles of London roads it is clear we are at the cross roads of policy.
The T.R.T.A. does not see this at all as a simple matter of black and white. Both functions are important. It seems quite futile to try to pretend that the one is more important than the other. For this reason, the Association has tried to be reasonable and constructive in its attitude. For years we have accepted the limitations on loading and unloading which are imposed by ordinary "No Waiting" regulations.
These ought not to be underestimated, and perhaps a recap is not out of place here. After 11 a.m. loading and unloading is limited to 20 minutes; work taking longer must be completed before 11 a.m. But there is more to it than that. First, the goods vehicles may only stop in a " No Waiting" Street if there is no adequate side or rear access to the premises. Secondly, a police officer can always order a driver to move to avoid causing obstruction.
The Association was one of the first, if not the first, organization to come Out in full support of the parking meter system, despite the fact that this has involved considerable restriction on loading and unloading because of the extensive complete bans at important intersections, and the many miles of parking meter bays. But clearly it has been to the advantage of our members to accept the scheme. We have exchanged the uncertainty of getting to the kerb at all, and of " hoping for the best" double-banking, for the certainty of getting somewhere near, though not necessarily outside the building to which access is required.
Also, subsequent to the Minister's 1960 Pink Zone arrangements, we have accepted bans at major intersections and pinch points outside the parking meter zones (incidentally, without the same certainty that the adjacent space will be kept clear of parked vehicles).
This is, I think, ample evidence of how the T.R.T.A. has tried to be constructive rather than obstructive about these difficulties_ Every proposal is examined on its merits. What the T.R.T.A. has not and is not prepared to accept without the strongest protest is any proposal that goods vehicles should be banned from a natural and normal use of long stretches of highway, in order that other privileged classes of vehicles can have exclusive and better use of them. That was the implication of the peak-hour loading ban proposals at the 23 sites. That is the implication of the urban clearway proposals.
In the 23-site inquiry, which lasted three weeks, evidence was put on record of the daily miracle of distribution by British Railways, British Road Services, the Road Haulage Association, the Traders Road Transport Association and by over 30 trade associations, which keeps the Metropolis supplied. This evidence showed that between 60 and 70 per cent, of all food, drinks and perishables are put into
London's shops, restaurants, hotels and canteens by noon. It also showed that the commencing times of these deliveries are conditioned and determined largely by the operation of overnight nation-wide trunk services, and by the workings of the great food factories, bakeries and dairies, and the great markets at Smithfield, Covent Garden, Billingsgate. and so on. As a result of all this, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee advised the Minister not to impose the bans. This is what the report said: Conclusions and Recommendations s(i) We consider that a ban on loading and unloading, possibly with certain exemptions, would improve traffic conditions at the 23 sites and that such a ban may be capable of being proved necessary and equitable at any or all of these sites, On the other hand we are convinced that such a ban would involve hardship in varying degrees to traders, distributors and the shopping public. We are not fully satisfied, on the .evidence presented to us, that the case for a prohibition of loading and unloading at the 23 sites has so far been adequately sustained. We therefore recommend that no such ban should be imposed on these sites at present
(ii) We nevertheless accept that a ban on loading and unloading may eventually be desirable and we recommend that in any proposals for bans of this kind in the London Traffic Area, the necessary traffic counts and details of shops on the sites should be presented in a standard form mutually agreed by the Divisional Road Engineer, the police and the local authority concerned. The statistics should include particulars of all types of waiting vehicles and details of all premises on the proposed sites which are likely to be affected. Such statistics should be related directly to each individual site proposed.
(iii) We recommend that further studies be carried out to compare the effect of a prohibition of loading and unloading limited to the vicinity of an intersection with one which extends to a whole stretch of street.
(iv) We recommend that further studies be made of the effect on traffic capacity of bus stops, taxi ranks, pedestrian crossings, etc.
That is what happened in 1957, Full democratic procedure for the airing of protests was available. It is not so now. The Traffic Acts of 1956 and 1960 have produced a very different situation.
Police Restrictions The first gave the police powers to operate experimental restrictions merely by announcement for six months, with a further extension of six months if required. After that, they must be made permanent or ended. In the 1960 Act, the Minister was given power to act without reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and without the agreement of the borough council if he did not have it.
He has, therefore, clear-cut powers to impose the western Clearway experiment and 90 miles more if he decides so to do. He will obviously take note of the experiment. What will it prove?
The route is very carefully chosen, The character of most of it is such that there is only limited need to stop. Over perhaps 5 miles a ban for four hours will have little harmful effect. In fact, so few vehicles do stop, that it is doubtful if the ban will make any difference at all to traffic flow. Rather less than a mile (most of it in Kensington) consists of shops, hotels, and business houses. These will be really affected. The frontagers and those who supply them are asked to be patient. Give the experiment a fair trial. It may cause inconvenience, it may cause loss, but give it a trial.
Suppliers and hauliers will find ways of coping with o10 the ban. Knightsbridge is a relatively small part of London. Schedules can be stretched, extra vehicles put on, special arrangements can be made—on a small scale like this.
And at the end of six months . • ?
The London Traffic Unit will show a fractional increase in the average speed of traffic. The police can obviously enforce a complete loading ban much more easily than a partial restriction. Both will claim the experiment a success. It will be judged on traffic flow.
Cry* " Wolf "?
Trade and Commerce? The Traders Road Transport Association, private and public haulage, and the chambers of commerce will be told that, despite their fears, they managed. They may even be told that they cried " Wolf! " unnecessarily (as they have been told in relation to the Putney High Street experiment). The fact that something has been added to the cost of putting food into shops will not be considered, nor that makeshift arrangements on a small scale cannot be continued on a larger without cumulative effects on distribution costs and efficiency.
The experiment will be voted a success. Carry on! Cam on in Park Lane, Edgware Road, Baker Street, Gloucester Place, Charing Cross Road, Tottenham Court Road, Hampstead Road, Kingsway, Eversholt Street, Houndsditch, The Minories, Middlesex Street and Russell Street! These are the streets mentioned as " examples " by the Minister.
How are these other boroughs going to react to the Minister's statement that these communities must take second place to the interest of putting cars into and out of Central London? Will they agree with the Minister, or will they agree with Kensington that they must not?
At last the fundamental issue is out in the open.
Is the interest of the motorist travelling to work in Central London, or anywhere else for that matter, paramount to the interests of the community through which he passes? Paramount to the commercial job carried out by goods vehicles, putting food, drink and clothing into the shops?
T.R.T.A. says "No." It will therefore continue to oppose extensive and discriminatory bans on goods vehicles of this kind by every possible means. Warning is given that wide• spread bans will materially increase the number of vehicles required to deliver bread, milk, fruit and vegetables, fish. meat, soft drinks, beer and all the other goods necessary to keep a commercial centre going. Delivered these goods will be, but the extra cost will go on the commodities. The loaf of bread, the bottle of milk (or beer), fish, meat—all will cost more.
Let there be no mistake, this will be the price of putting more and more cars into Central London by restrictions on other traffic—cars which many people think should be discouraged, if not actively repelled,