Overall transport planning
Page 90
Page 91
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TN AN opening general appraisal of the current situation the Ministry states in its evidence that the evolution of the transport system is one of the most vivid examples of technological change. The Ministry then elaborates on the inter-relation of those changes with the structure of local government and the change in the pattern of travel.
Turning to the future structure of local government for transport functions, the Ministry admits that the operation of bus services could be carried out equally well by commercial undertakings or independent bodies established specifically for the purpose.
Dealing with the inter-relation between transport and other functions the Ministry maintains that the planning of land-use and the main highway network, policy decisions on traffic, public transport and parking should all be the responsibility of the same authorities. All these aspects must be developed as part of a single plan. The organizational structure of individual local authorities ought, therefore, to be designed for the efficient control of a combined planning and transport function, going wider than any existing single function of local authority.
Co-ordination of transport functions As to the co-ordination of transport functions themselves— highway construction, traffic engineering, parking, road safety and public transport—this should be done over a geographical area in which there was significant inter-action between them. It was possible to define this area in relation to towns, because they formed the focal point for all the economic and social activities of the areas and, therefore, for the movement of people and goods and of services which relied on transport. Each town had a surrounding transportation area which could be defined as the area within which the great majority of movement centred on a town took place.
There were broadly four sets of circumstances in which coordination of local transport functions throughout an area was of particular importance in determining the structure of local government. These were in and around the recognized conurbations which have large transportation areas often overlapping with peripheral towns. Except in the West Riding each of these conurbations has continuously built-up areas, which, together with the immediately surrounding country, were readily definable as areas over which integrated planning was clearly necessary. The West Riding conurbation was more akin to a group of free-standing towns.
Then there were the physically contiguous towns outside the formerly recognized conurbations which create single transportation areas in which integrated planning ought to take place. Examples were the Brighton-Shoreham littoral and Teesside. There were also free-standing towns with little or no overlap between their transportation areas and those of adjacent towns. Examples were Cambridge, Carlisle, Exeter, Leicester, Peterborough, Plymouth and Swindon.
Fourthly there were groups of free-standing towns with overlapping transportation areas where it was obviously desirable that there should be a degree of co-ordination between the planning for each town. Examples were the West Riding conurbation already mentioned; Burton-upon-Trent, Derby, Mansfield and Nottingham; and on a smaller scale, Bath and Bristol.
A special case
The area around Greater London was in the nature of a special case the Ministry contended. Here, as in other large urban areas, a very high proportion of traffic was generated within the built-up area. But there was also a good deal of traffic between Greater London and peripheral towns and groups of towns which were themselves considerable centres of attraction. Examples were Brighton and Hove, Woking and Ilford, Reading and Basildon, Southend and Chelmsford. The transportation areas of these towns tended to overlap in such a way that for transport purposes the area was capable of being segmented into reasonably homogeneous local government units with boundaries running outwards from Greater London. These would be northwards through midHertfordshire, eastwards along the Thames estuary, southwards between Eastbourne and Brighton or between Worthing and Bognor Regis and westwards between Windsor and Woking or between Watford and High Wycombe.
Elaborating on the need for adequate resources, the Ministry stressed that in every aspect of transport and planning there was an increasing reliance on professional and technological skills and resources. Local authorities needed to have both the financial resources and the range and quality of work to attract and retain specialized staff and to use them efficiently. It also needed to invest in and make full use of extensive plant and equipment. Comparatively few local authorities met this requirement at present so that in general this pointed to larger, and therefore fewer, local authorities than at present.
Responsibility for transport policy
In towns the Ministry considered that where the local authority was responsible for highways, traffic and land-use planning, it should also be responsible for policy towards all forms of mass transport within its area, at least to the extent of establishing the role of public transport in relation to the town's overall transport requirements.
Whether or not a local authority actually operated any public transport, it should be strong enough to secure the provision of the public transport infra-structure and services needed in its area and to influence the kind of public transport to be provided, including ability to ensure that local rail services were integrated into the local authority's plans for public transport.
However, the policy-making role of local authorities need not preclude public transport services from being operated by commercial undertakings, or the setting up of separate bodies to develop and possibly operate these services. It was admitted that there was no reason in principle why the operational areas of bus undertakings should necessarily coincide with local authorities' areas.
The evidence of the Ministry is then devoted to rural areas in which it is admitted that from the transport point of view, the advantages in basing a local government on the "City region" concept were less immediately obvious. The inter-dependence between localities was less strong and local transport problems were on a smaller scale. But an important duty of an authority for the rural area would be to secure the provision of sufficient rural bus services to meet social needs.
However the bus services in the areas were, in the main, part of the general network. Planning of services in the towns and their immediate hinterlands could hardly be separated in practice from the whole package of country bus services run by the undertakings concerned. For these reasons it would probably be desirable to extend some local authority areas well beyond the towns so as to take in the whole of the country areas between them.
A local government structure based on the framework of such transportation areas would result in some 30 to 40 authorities becoming responsible for major local government functions.
Operational advantages
In areas in which there are at present many small municipal bus undertakings, the Ministry claim that operational advantages would clearly accrue from amalgamation and hence from a reduction in the number of authorities responsible for operating those services. On the other hand it is generally held that for managerial and operational reasons a bus fleet should not, if at all possible, number more than about 1,000 to 1,500 vehicles and the proposed first-tier authorities would in many cases sustain fleets considerably larger than this.
The position of municipal undertakings in free-standing towns must also be taken into account. Where the size of a second-tier authority and the self-contained nature of its area made it suitable, it might be appropriate for the operation of its municipal transport undertakings to be assigned to it.