§ 33. Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Transport upon what basis of calculation he requires the amendment of the Holford Plan for Piccadilly Circus in order to provide for approximately 7,000 vehicles per hour of daylight.
§ Mr. MarplesThe basis was the general agreement between the London County Council as planning and road improvement authority and myself that major junctions in London should provide for a capacity of either 60 per cent.over the level of traffic in 1960, or the foreseeable capacity of the approach roads, whichever is the less. We estimate that the approach roads to Piccadilly Circus will be able to handle 50 per cent. more traffic than in 1960. If the Circus cannot match this capacity, it will become increasingly jammed.
§ Mr. RobinsonFirst, how did it come about that Sir William Holford was asked in his original remit to make provision for 5,000 vehicles only per hour? Second, if traffic considerations are to be paramount in this matter, what makes the Minister think that even 7,000 will be a sufficient figure in, say, twenty years? Will the right hon. Gentleman now, in the light of the Buchanan Report, beat a graceful 1132 retreat and accept the plan as originally submitted to him?
§ Mr. MarplesI must make clear that the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I never said, as Sir William Holford alleges, that traffic must be the first consideration in the Circus. That was never said. All we said to the London County Council was that we thought that the Holford scheme made inadequate provision for traffic and that 50 per cent.—not more than that—reserve capacity should be provided for this reason. All the roads radiating from Piccadilly Circus now have an extra 50 per cent. capacity and, if they have that 50 per cent. capacity and it is not matched by Piccadilly Circus, the result will be chaotic.
§ Mr. StraussWill the Minister tell us why the original remit to Sir William Holford was to permit a flow of traffic of 5,000 vehicles per hour? Surely, that was done with the Minister's knowledge, and, if it had not been so, all this difficulty would not have arisen.
§ Mr. MarplesI repeat what I said to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). We said to the London County Council that we thought that the Holford scheme made inadequate provision for traffic and that there should be 50 per cent.—not more—extra capacity reserve for traffic.
§ Mr. RobinsonWill the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question and my right hon. Friend's supplementary question? Why was the original remit for a circulation of 5,000 and not 7,000 vehicles per hour?
§ Mr. MarplesI have always asked for the 50 per cent. As far as I am concerned, I shall not use the funds allocated to me for road traffic for something which actually reduces road capacity.