TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, CENTRAL LONDON (Hansard, 15 July 1953)

§ Mr. Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

I wish to bring the House back to land and to raise the subject of the operation of no-waiting and unilateral waiting regulations, particularly in the area of Central London. Before doing so, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for attending the debate as I understand that he has been feeling very unwell all day, has been running a temperature and has come here specially. I am very grateful to him for not asking me to postpone the discussion.

The no-waiting regulations which have been in operation in Central London for some time now are, in my opinion, a complete farce. I particularly refer to those in streets like Jermyn Street, Dover Street, Albemarle Street and Hay Hill. The first is a two-way street which is very narrow and at whatever hour of the day one drives through one finds cars parked on both sides of the road.

The same applies to the other streets except that two of them are one-way streets, which makes the situation not so bad, but the fourth, Hay Hill, is a very narrow two-way street which is a vital link in the one-way traffic system in the Berkeley Square and Piccadilly Circus area and if it gets clogged great congestion can ensue. At half-past five yesterday, when no-waiting regulations were in force, two large motor cars were parked there. They were offending the 2210 regulations because they were not loading or unloading. One can find this happening at any hour of the day whether no-waiting regulations are in force or not.

On the other hand, the unilateral regulations which were brought into operation last January are an experiment based on about seven streets in the Central London area and about 20 streets in various areas outside London, stretching from places as far apart as Harrow and Purley. My experience of them is that they are working very well indeed.

The street of which I have most experience is Tothill Street, and, to a certain extent, I have been affected by the regulations. I was in the habit of parking my car in that street before the regulations came into force, and now I have to park it in New Palace Yard and go to my office on foot.

Nevertheless, these regulations are working very well indeed, and usually one finds one side of the road completely clear of cars. Occasionally, one finds a large car parked on the side where there is no parking. I suppose that there will always be motorists who cannot see a notice unless it is in neon lights or floodlit.

There is one vital difference between the no-waiting regulations and the unilateral parking regulations. The no-waiting regulations allow loading and unloading in certain conditions, and vehicles may park on either side of the road, even when the regulations are in force, to load or unload goods.

To my mind, that completely vitiates the regulations, because when it happens in a narrow street it only needs one stationary vehicle to be on one side of the road and another vehicle on the opposite side at the same time to narrow the roadway to about a third of its normal width. The unilateral regulations, on the other hand, do not allow loading or unloading on the side on which there is no waiting on a particular day, and vehicles may only wait for 20 minutes on the other side, except, of course, such vehicles as furniture vans and fire engines. If all the cars parked on both sides of a street were parked on one side—and that is the state of affairs that occurs during most of the day—the flow of traffic would be much easier.

2211 My second point is that if the police really want to enforce the no-waiting regulations, with the exception of the exempted vehicles, then they should use the no-parking notices which, for example, are put up all round Lord's when there is a Test Match in progress, and at other sporting events. No motorist who is not a fool defies those parking notices.

Another point is that the no-waiting regulations and the unilateral regulations come into operation much earlier in the provinces than in London. In High Wycombe, for example, I noticed that they come into operation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and that takes in the early rush hour which those in Central London do not. I wonder why the same thing cannot be applied to London. I know that traders would be inconvienced, but, presumably, the traders in the provinces are inconvenienced and do not object.

About three years ago, I put down a Question, in all innocence, to the Minister of Transport asking for a list of the towns in which those regulations began before 11.30 a.m. I thought there were only about half a dozen, or, at the most, a dozen of them. To my surprise I received about six foolscap sheets of paper on which were the names of I do not know how many towns typed in single spacing. It must have been one of the most unpopular Questions ever addressed to the Minister.

I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will tell me what are the prospects of the application for unilateral waiting being granted in Wembley. This application, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, was originally made 2½ years ago, in February, 1951. The experiment in progress at present is being tried in about 15 other boroughs adjacent to London, and I am wondering, although I have not given notice of this, whether I could be told when these applications were made; and whether they were made before Wembley made theirs.

It seems rather ridiculous that a borough has to wait 2½ years before being allowed to try a system, even as an experiment. On 11th December last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the proposed streets in Wembley were of little traffic importance and I agree that that may be so, but with one important 2212 exception. St. John's Road has a substantial flow of north-south traffic, and it is particularly congested on a Saturday afternoon. Could my hon. Friend ask the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which has made so many successful recommendations in the past, to investigate this matter again, and see whether this experiment can be started very soon?

I know that unilateral waiting regulations usually bring objections, and Westminster City Council's objections to regulations now in force in central London formed one of the causes for the delay in bringing those regulations into operation. But there are always objections to changes and to progress, in whatever form. It has been proved by experiments in the past in other parts of England and Wales that unilateral waiting, once adopted, is seldom abandoned. It is in force in about 250 towns in England and Wales, and is, I might mention, in widespread use abroad.

A few years ago I was in Monte Carlo, during the summer, and I found that unilateral waiting was in force in the main street, not from 11.30 to 6.30, but throughout the whole day and night. People could park cars on one side only for just as long as they wished; the only objection if one did so was that one could not go to bed before midnight, because one had to change from one side to the other when the next day came. There are also some very successful unilateral waiting regulations in Paris.

I have often been told that traffic conditions are very different in places abroad. I agree that London is different from other places in this sense, for the traffic is usually more dense, the streets narrower, and the problem, therefore, more urgent; and for that reason, I hope my hon. Friend will tell us that it can be dealt with urgently.

A real solution to London's traffic congestion, which is getting more serious each week, depends, I realise, not so much on the Ministry, as on the Treasury in giving permission for the carrying out of the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which were published in 1951. But these restrictions, the making of the no-waiting regulations effective, or replacing them with unilateral waiting regulations, will all have some effect, and 2213 I do hope, therefore, that these will be brought into use, and extended where possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite)

This debate flows from those initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), on 27th February and 11th December last year. I am very grateful that these interesting points have been raised on the Adjournment again tonight. This short debate comes at an opportune moment, as we are about to review the working of the present experimental scheme of unilateral waiting in London, which came into force last January.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the points he has raised will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend when he decides in what form and in what streets unilateral waiting is to continue, and whether the scheme is to be extended. In the meantime, I think it will be most helpful if I try to deal as shortly as I can, in the time available to me, with the main points which my hon. Friend has raised this evening.

His first point was that the present no-waiting regulations are a complete farce, while unilateral waiting is very successful. I cannot agree with this view. We could not get along in the main thoroughfares of London at present unless there were no-waiting regulations on them. Conditions in Piccadilly and Oxford Street, for example, if waiting were permitted, would be quite chaotic. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, on whose advice no-waiting was introduced have reviewed its working from time to time and, while my hon. Friend was one of their members, they put it on record that no-waiting was of great value in improving the flow of traffic, reduced impatience and irritation among drivers, made for safer driving, and helped to keep traffic moving at a reasonable speed. I fear that my hon. Friend has retrogressed since he adorned that body.

Moreover, accident records in no-waiting streets have much improved following the introduction of the restrictions. It would, therefore, be a retrograde step if we repealed no-waiting restrictions generally. On the other hand, it is certainly true that in a number of thoroughfares of secondary traffic 2214 importance there is a great deal of unnecessary waiting, due to an alleged need for setting down and taking up passengers and loading and unloading goods. In some streets, where there is a genuine need for this kind of thing, we may have to review the situation and turn some of these streets into unilateral streets, as suggested by my hon. Friend. I promise that we will review this very carefully, in co-operation with the police, to see whether some adjustments might be made.

The second point raised by my hon. Friend was the exemption included in no-waiting regulations, which allows vehicles to wait for 20 minutes for loading and unloading, and its omission from the unilateral waiting regulations. I agree that it would be far better, from the traffic point of view, if all exemptions were removed, but I must point out that traffic does not move merely for the sake of moving. Vehicles have to stop for business purposes, and if the exemptions to no-waiting were withdrawn, we might well have to shorten the period of restriction, as much of the business in Central London involves the collection and delivery of goods.

Moreover, the present total prohibition on loading and unloading in unilateral streets is causing complaints. In all this a spirit of compromise is necessary. In the streets selected for no-waiting, the period of restriction must be right, and the exceptions to the rule the minimum. If we were to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestions about one-side parking we should hope to have the co-operation of all road users. I think he would agree that without that none of these experiments can be expected to operate successfully.

It would not be possible in London at present to enforce strictly a law which was not regarded as reasonable in the circumstances by the general body of traders and road users. Before I pass from this point, I would like to take this opportunity to ask some of the motoring public to show a little more sense of responsibility in this matter. We cannot expect, with the shortage of police manpower in London today, to have as much policing of restricted streets as we would like, and we must rely on the public to respect restrictions which were carefully considered before they were imposed.

2215 I therefore appeal to the motoring public to bring to an end some of the abuse of unilateral waiting in London. If a street is to be restricted on one side, and there is no space free on the parking side I hope drivers will try to find suitable parking places elsewhere. If a driver waits on the restricted side he may not only restrict the flow of traffic in that street but cause an immense amount of trouble in nearby main thoroughfares. We really must ask for more co-operation in this matter.

The next point was the suggestion that the police should be encouraged to use the no parking notices used from time to time, on such occasions as the Test match at Lord's and other places where sporting events take place. Here I should explain that the police have powers under the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 to make ad hoc arrangements for the control of traffic on special occasions. But the powers are not sufficient to allow them to impose more or less permanent restrictions on waiting of that kind. I can imagine my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) bestirring himself considerably if that suggestion were accepted in this connection.

A further point raised which might be dealt with here was the time during which the regulations in London operate. The hon. Gentleman asked why the regulations come into operation later in London than in provincial towns. The explanation is simple enough. Office hours in London start later, of course, than in provincial cities, as the journeys from the periphery and suburbs occupy considerably more time than they do for those who work, for instance, in the centre of the City of Bristol, a division of which I have the honour to be a representative. The press of traffic in the West End starts later than elsewhere, and it is both practical and sensible to allow traders to get their loading and unloading done before the main pressure of traffic.

This late start was agreed to by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee after careful consideration, again while the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of that valuable body. I am not certain, however, with the present traffic, whether we 2216 shall be able to go on much longer without restrictions starting earlier, but it is our aim not to increase the already quite onerous regulations unless the case is overwhelming.

I am told they already place a great burden on delivery schedules of carriers who have to see that their vehicles arrive at unrestricted times, and my right hon. Friend has already had representations, particularly from the meat trade, that the loading and unloading cannot be properly done in unilateral streets because ships and refrigerating stores have to be cleared from the docks all round the clock. I therefore submit that, on the whole, the present compromise is a reasonable one which ought to be allowed to continue for the time being.

My hon. Friend probably feels that I have not been able to meet him very much on his points so far, but I can close with one observation which I know will cheer him. This is in connection with unilateral waiting in Wembley. It is true that for a long time past the Wembley Borough Council and, indeed, other councils on the outskirts of London, have been pressing for the introduction of unilateral waiting in further streets in their area. They do not want, however— and I am sure my hon. Friend is pleased with this—to have the total prohibition of loading and unloading in these streets. After discussion with the police, agreement has been reached to an extension of unilateral waiting in a number of streets off the High Road in Wembley and elsewhere, but without the restrictions which we have found it necessary to impose in Central London.

I hope that we shall be able very soon to obtain the recommendations of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on final arrangements and that my last observations will demonstrate—not, I hope, for the first time—that we in the Ministry of Transport are always alive to local difficulties and problems and do our best to make such arrangements as will adequately meet them.