TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON (Hansard, 22 February 1955)

§ Mr. Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

The subject that I wish to raise on the Adjournment tonight is that of traffic congestion in the London area. I am only sorry that it has come on at such a late hour, although I make no apology for raising it again, as many of my hon. Friends and I have done in the last year or so, because it is a vitally important subject. Unless something is done fairly quickly to ease the position, I fear that traffic in the centre of London will come to a standstill. That does not prevent my saying how sorry I am to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for keeping him up so late and hoping that tomorrow night, when he will also be replying to the Adjournment debate, he will be a little luckier.

There are many long-term and short-term plans which have been produced in the last few years for solving London's traffic problem. I should like tonight to draw attention to one or two of the defects of the long-term plans and bring in one or two of the short-term plans also. My first query about some of the long-term plans is the attitude of my hon. Friend's Department to the question of roundabouts. Many small roundabouts at various places in the London area have proved themselves failures from the viewpoint of easing the traffic problem, and I think that before long there will be many more instances where the same thing happens.

To quote only two examples, roundabouts on the North Circular Road at 1239 Brent Bridge and Neasden Circus have recently had to be replaced by traffic signals because they were too small to deal with the large volume of traffic using those two junctions. I hope that, in the light of the experience at those two points, the Ministry will reconsider seriously every road improvement scheme which involves a roundabout of that kind, because many others are already getting jammed up at certain times of the day.

One has only to go outside this House at about a quarter to six in the evening to find that the roundabout system in Parliament Square is usually at a complete standstill, sometimes for five or ten minutes; and the same thing is apt to happen in the early morning traffic hours between, say, half past nine and ten o'clock. The roundabout at the west end of Lambeth Bridge—again, not far from here—also gets very congested at certain periods of the day. As for Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner, those places are liable to get congested at any time of the day, and at certain times they, like the others I have mentioned, also result in traffic being brought almost to a standstill. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced that he is reconsidering the Hyde Park Boulevard scheme, for there is a great danger of the proposed roundabout system being completely inadequate.

I know that a traffic census has recently been taken by officers of the Road Research Laboratory to ascertain the volume of traffic at certain parts of the present Hyde Park Corner roundabout system, and I hope that the figures will be studied with great care. A great deal of study has been given to this problem in the United States, where it has been found in practice, I think, that 1,800 vehicles an hour is about the maximum practical limit that a roundabout can deal with, no matter what its size, when one takes into consideration the convenience of the traffic as well as its volume.

I suggest that the north-west corner of the proposed roundabout at Hyde Park Corner, when the boulevard scheme is completed, will be far too short to allow the necessary weaving of traffic which comes along the new road from Park Lane and wants to go along Constitution Hill, with the traffic coming 1240 eastwards from Knightsbridge and wanting to go along Piccadilly. On the map it appears to be a very short space to allow for that to be done comfortably.

Hyde Park Corner is the worst place in London to drive round. The worst part of it is the west side, near St. George's Hospital, where it is uphill. I would prefer to wait for a red light to turn to green rather than have to weave through the traffic at that side of the roundabout. One has to look to both sides, making sure that no one is trying to overtake on the left as one looks for a car on the right. At the same time one has to take one hand from the steering wheel to be able to use the handbrake if one has to stop. It is the most tantalising place to drive round in London. The system gives rise to the instinct of selfishness in drivers, discouraging them from giving way to others. I would much prefer traffic lights.

Some years ago the London County Council passed a proposal for a roundabout at the Elephant and Castle. The proposal was, I believe, for a raised roundabout, so that pedestrians passed beneath it. There was an enormous roundabout, of the same kind as those in many other places, which might prove to be too small for the volume of traffic. I hope that scheme will be reconsidered in the light of the tests made at Hyde Park Corner. If mistakes are made roundabouts eventually have to be replaced by traffic lights. That is a costly business. I mentioned the removal of those at Brent Bridge and Neasden Circus. I was astonished to find that to remove the Brent Bridge roundabout, replace the road, and make any necessary road improvements cost £20,000—to be exact, £19,896. That is a stupendous figure for a comparatively small piece of work—moving a mound, laying out the road, and laying new concrete. The roundabout at Neasden Circus, which was slightly bigger, cost £24,000.

I wrote to the Minister last week hoping to get details of how the money was spent. I appreciate that the figures are not available because I may not have given him enough time. These fantastic costs mean that if 50 roundabouts were found to be inadequate and had to be replaced by traffic-lights the cost would be £1 million. That money could be much better spent on getting the right road improvement from the first.

1241 I hope that this question of roundabouts will be looked at seriously, taking a view not two or three years ahead, but ten years ahead. I always regret that the plans for Hendon Way, where it crosses the North Circular Road, which were made some 30 years ago, did not include a fly-over junction. That would have saved a great deal of money. What was done cannot be undone at anything like the cost of the original work.

I turn to the question of one-way streets. I find the Ministry of Transport and the authorities in general very resistant to the idea of introducing one-way streets. I know from experience how long it sometimes takes. About 30 years ago I suggested in a letter to "The Times", which was the only means I had of voicing my opinions in those days, that Harley Street and Wimpole Street should be made into one-way streets. I had the joy, when I was a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee about 21 years later, of being on the committee when the proposal was approved.

It took years before such obvious places as Grosvenor Square and Belgrave Square could be made one-way streets. I know that the volume of traffic in those two squares is not very great, but it makes for much easier driving, especially on a wet night when the roads are inclined to shine, to know that there is a one-way system and that one need only look for traffic from certain directions rather than for two-way traffic all round, when one never knows exactly where a vehicle might come from.

Nearly all squares should have one-way systems, irrespective of the volume of traffic. There are many small squares—two are Connaught Square and Hyde Park Square, Paddington—which do not carry very much traffic but it would make conditions much easier and reduce the number of traffic intersection points if one-way regulations were introduced. In a place like Russell Square it would cause a great upheaval, because one side of the square, Southampton Row, is a main road; but there are many other squares where one-way traffic would ease driving conditions.

If we are to solve the London traffic problem from a short-term point of view we ought to have one-way working on a much larger scale. Last Autumn the 1242 Emperor of Ethiopia paid a State visit to this country and his reception and journey from Victoria to Buckingham Palace caused a large part of the West End to be made into a temporary one-way traffic system. I imagine that something similar happens when Parliament is opened, though I am usually inside this building then and not outside.

On the occasion of the State visit even part of Charing Cross Road had one-way instead of two-way traffic. I had to make a journey from Piccadilly Circus to the Strand at that time and instead of being delayed by enormous traffic blocks, caused from traffic being diverted from the St. James' Park area as I expected, I found that with the one-way working the journey took a very short time. It was a great improvement on the normal arrangement.

A great deal of consideration should be given to the introduction of more one-way regulations even though in some places such a step may sound revolutionary. I believe that it would ease congestion and certainly it would reduce the number of points at which traffic has to intersect. In a certain area of Paris I understand that there are over 600 one-way streets. I would not mind betting that there are nothing like that number in a corresponding area in London. There is not all the difference that is sometimes made out between road conditions in Paris and London from the point of view of the lay-out of the streets. Even a street of the width of the Rue de Rivoli has one-way working, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary knows. That would suggest that if Regent Street were in Paris it would be a one-way thoroughfare. The progress made in Paris ought to be taken into account when we consider the appalling problem in London.

Another point about one-way working which is a great advantage is that it enables a progressive system of traffic signals to be installed. One does not get stopped at one signal, get past the next, and get held up at the third. One gets a clear run through at a predetermined speed, perhaps 20 or 25 miles an hour, without the frustrating delays which occur under the present system. I feel it would be worth while trying out a number of schemes, even if they did not succeed. I know that the Westminster Chamber of Commerce recently discussed 1243 a one-way working scheme with the Ministry, and that it has been turned down. It may be that some parts of it were impracticable, but unless we try out some of these schemes we shall never make any progress.

We shall never be able to find out whether they work if we never experiment. I do not think that there is anything wrong in trying out such schemes and, if they are found inadequate, going back to a two-way system. No loss of face on the part of the Ministry or anyone else should be involved if a one-way working scheme were tried and proved a failure.

I want to say a few words about the "no waiting" regulations. I know that my hon. Friend will say that they are working quite satisfactorily in some of the main thoroughfares, such as Oxford Street and Piccadilly. I do not dispute that fact, but I think that they are a complete failure in some of the side streets, such as Jermyn Street, Dover Street and Albemarle Street. What the solution of the traffic jam which sometimes occurs in Jermyn Street early in the morning is going to be, I do not know—unless it is to do away with the so-called "no-waiting" regulations and introduce unilateral waiting regulations instead.

In answer to a Question of mine the other day, the Minister said that he was experimenting with unilateral waiting regulations at the north end of Dover Street, but I hope it will be extended to the whole of Dover Street and Albemarle Street before long, because I find that at any time of the day vehicles are parked indiscriminately on both sides of the road, and this narrows the carriageway. I have come to the end of my time if I am to allow my hon. Friend the right amount of time to reply. I feel that this is an urgent problem which, before long, if we do not do something fairly drastic about it, will cause traffic to be brought to a standstill in central areas of London. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to hold out some prospect of something being done.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

I never complain when my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) refers to the difficulties that we encounter 1244 in connection with London traffic. He has in the past served upon the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which is a statutory body, upon which we rely very much for help and advice in dealing with this difficult problem.

Since my right hon. Friend became Minister I can truthfully say that there is no matter to which he has given more time and thought than to the problem of London traffic. For a long time I felt that with every week that passed London traffic was getting worse, but I would make the modest claim tonight that since the introduction of the last batch of traffic regulations there has been a quite perceptible improvement. Today, although the position is not yet satisfactory—far from it—on the whole traffic in the West End of London is moving more easily than it was about six months ago.

My hon. Friend has referred to four or five main points, and I shall try to deal with them briefly. He doubted the desirability of roundabouts. It is essential that roundabouts should be well designed and large. He mentioned two roundabouts in his constituency, which were built before the war and, as a result of the great increase in traffic that has taken place, have been found to be too small and have therefore had to be removed. I am sorry the cost was so great. It is always costly to carry out alterations to the arrangements on the roads.

My hon. Friend asked for an explanation of the high cost of removing the roundabout at Brent Bridge. I cannot give him the full information. The average number of men employed was 15. No overtime was worked, but 10 full days were lost by wet weather and other causes, and on other occasions an hour or two was lost for the same reason.

Generally speaking, we believe that if roundabouts are large enough and are well designed they are the best way of dealing with a large volume of traffic. They have the effect of reducing the speed of all traffic to the same rate, and therefore they result in a great reduction in the number of vehicle accidents. I admit that where they are not large enough to cope with the volume of traffic expected they are not satisfactory.

My right hon. Friend has already informed the House of the changes that 1245 are intended at Hyde Park Corner. He has the whole matter under review. As regards the Elephant and Castle, I would refer to the answer to the Question put by my hon. Friend recently, in which my right hon. Friend said that he was satisfied that a roundabout was the best solution.

We are not opposed to the principle of one-way streets. In many cases they are extremely useful. Whereas there are 16 points of conflict with vehicles where two streets intersect with two-way working in each, these are reduced to four where streets with one-way working intersect. This generally results in an increased capacity for dealing with traffic. In all suitable cases we are in favour of the introduction of one-way working.

There are two great disadvantages. Complicated one-way systems are difficult for all but local drivers to understand. They need complicated signposting and they are unpopular with front-agers. Where mainly local traffic is concerned, the distance which has to be travelled in order to arrive at a place not far away is sometimes disproportionately large.

My hon. Friend underestimated very much the congestion and obstacle to that traffic caused by motor car parking in London. Our view is that the problem of the long-term parker in London roads is the most serious with which we have to cope. Where streets are very wide, a certain amount of parking by the roadside can be allowed without any im- 1246 mediate blockage ensuing, but in many streets, and certainly in St. James's Street at luncheon time, one often sees vehicles abandoned by what I call the rather selfish motorist who drives to London and leaves his vehicle parked on the Queen's Highway for the whole day, and those which arrive to deliver goods and who park on the road. It is of the utmost importance that we should deal with the parking problem.

My hon. Friend has previously asked me about Jermyn Street, He did so on 7th July last. We do not consider that 11.30 is a sacrosanct hour for commencing to restrict parking, but at the present time we think it best to have one regular hour certainly throughout the centre of London. As I have said on a previous occasion, the Commissioner of Police tries to ensure that there are police on duty in Jermyn Street in the early hours of the morning before the "no parking" regulations come into effect. We are very conscious that things in Jermyn Street are not entirely satisfactory, and both the police and my right hon. Friend have the matter under review.

Finally, we are constantly considering, in consultation with the police, what can be done to improve the circulation of traffic in London, and I am always grateful to my hon. Friend when he has suggestions to make.