§ 5.57 p.m.
§ LORD POPPLEWELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering the possibility of providing tunnel motorways in London and conurbation areas. The noble Lord said: My Lords, following Part III of Lord Jellicoe's Bill, which deals with the abandonment of vehicles and other refuse which are cluttering and forming a nuisance on our streets and roads, it is not inappropriate that I open a discussion on this Unstarred Question, attempting to deal with another nuisance. This Question of mine, in drawing attention to the need for underground motorways in London, and probably in other conurbation areas, has some relation to Part III of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the Committee stage of which we have just completed.
§ All will be aware of the growing, concern in the minds of many people living in London, and also of visitors and business people attending London, about the effects that motorways are likely to have. This concern at the moment is focused on the so-called motorway box principle. This is the only declared motorway that has so far appeared and been launched on densely populated areas and land of relatively high value. It is hard to understand the reason why this should be so. The concern is even greater because it appears that the authors of these proposals—that is, the motorway box proposals—are themselves the only ones with real confidence in them. There remains a considerable body of public opinion—and some of this consists of some of our most experienced planners, people experienced in dealing with traffic problems—who express considerable doubts whether this motorway box principle is the real answer to deal with the additional traffic that is concentrating on London. It necessitates very expensive super highway construction and other features that I will mention in a moment or two.
§ Two major factors seem to spring from this motorway box. First, this scheme was projected long before the London Traffic Survey was instigated. In the absence of any cohesive, positive road plan for the whole of London something had to be done, and done quickly, and 1235 in my opinion the motorway box originated in that way. Secondly, there was a need for quick action in order to find cheap land, chiefly in public ownership if at all possible, such as disused railway land or slum property which was to be pulled down. The motorway box was to be constructed in accordance with the principle of land being available, or of having upon it properties which were to be demolished, or of already being open space.
§ What was lost sight of in these proposals was that none of the factors which led to the proposal for a motorway box was decided in accordance with traffic needs and with the demand of a survey and analysis of the traffic problem. I suggest that it was a question of the availability of land rather than of the real traffic problem. Careful thought was given to many of the areas and it was considered that radial roads were needed more quickly and urgently than circumferential roads. The experts have given considerable thought to this matter, and if my contention is correct it will be necessary, in planning for the needs of the future here in London, to provide sufficient and adequate radial roads linking up the whole of this motorway box. Ring roads, whether they be outer or inner ring roads, will certainly not solve the difficult traffic density problem which will undoubtedly grow with the passage of time. This line of approach may provide some local relief, but I suggest to your Lordships that it will be little more than that.
§ Two excellent volumes of the London Traffic Survey have been produced. Presumably when the third volume is produced it will be based on the plan for motorways and other roads for London, dealing with the conclusions and considerations of the two previously published surveys. In the meantime there is a real lack of final proposals by consultants. In their opinion there is an unhealthy and indecent haste to foist upon the public motorways which no doubt will be admirable feats of engineering but which may well go down in history as one of the greatest planning errors of our time. I think your Lordships must seriously consider this problem. We all know the thrombosis that takes place on the roads of London from time to time. We have 1236 all experienced occasions when traffic has come to a standstill for quite long periods, and we have to analyse the causes for this. We have to visualise not only the 1967 volume of traffic but the volume of traffic that will have built up by the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. By the turn of the century it is expected that traffic will have more than doubled. Therefore it is up to us to plan for the future.
§ The motorway box was estimated to cost something of the order of £500 million. From the figures that are now appearing it is obvious that this figure of £500 million, even for the motorway box itself, will not be nearly sufficient to meet the cost; the final figures will be far and above that. Strangely enough the figures which are given in regard to costs are usually those that affect the Ministry or the authority concerned with land acquisition and the physical construction of the motorways. The cost as a whole to London—and it may ultimately be extended to other conurbations—has never been shown in these costing figures about which we have heard so much. I suggest to your Lordships that the missing figures which it is our duty to take into consideration are, in addition to the actual costs of land and the construction of the motorways, the cost of the replacement of homes, shops, factories and commercial properties that will have to be torn down in order to meet this need in the 100 square miles of the centre of London. The costs involved here can be far greater than the actual physical construction of the motorway box, and forward planning for dealing with this problem should take this factor into consideration. The task given to the planners in dealing with this urgent traffic problem, ought to be—and must be if we are to use common sense in our line of approach—to take into account all questions of hardship, of traffic flow and of weather conditions.
§ Is it possible to provide a complete answer to this problem? I suggest that once the principle of underground motorways is accepted it could be extended to meet traffic needs far beyond this century. As I understand the motorway box at the moment, it would sterilise some 5,000 acres of land in Central London. Some 2,000 acres of this would probably be from disused railway land and the 1237 remaining 3,000 acres would be land that could otherwise be used for residential or commercial purposes. In other words, enough land would be taken up by this motorway box principle which, if used for other purposes, could rehouse 300,000 people. These are serious figures, and I think that due note should be taken of them. It is probable that any major motorway solution for central London would, as I have indicated, occupy a further 5,000 acres of land and would mean the demolition of some 85,000 homes of one kind or another.
§ To be negative in this line of approach of course means very little. I would not have taken up your Lordships' time with my observations if I had not been very impressed with a Paper given to the International Road Federation's Fifth Conference by an eminent planner, Mr. Matthews, and his firm. They have given considerable thought to this. Arising from the papers issued by the International Federation on these planning problems, a short while ago the all-Party Transport Group of both Houses of Parliament invited this gentleman to give them a Paper. Arising from the Paper that he gave at the meeting, which was attended by very large numbers of Members of Parliament, I became very interested and sought further information.
§ The project put forward by this eminent planning authority was not something he had devised out of his own mind. He had thought of the possible alternative to the motor box, and his firm brought in one or two surveyors, planners, financiers, ventilating engineers, and the whole wide variety of specialists necessary to examine whether such an excavation was feasible or otherwise. Arising from many years study they have come to the conclusion that this below-ground motorway plan is not just an "airy-fairy" idea; it has been worked out in some detail, and they have considered all major requirements. Car parking would be provided in the underground motorways with exits and entrances for both vehicles and vehicle users. This is very important indeed.
§ The scheme I shall enumerate is a very large, 60-foot diameter, underground motorway, and, quite contrary to the first impression that has been created, it is not for the sole use of commuter cars. 1238 That type of vehicle is expected to use the system extensively, and there would be extensive underground parking arrangements with escalators at conveniently sited places for the owners of the cars to surface and attend their shopping or places of business. In addition, these underground motorways would be ideal for heavy goods vehicular traffic crossing from one side of London to the other and for the express bus services that are necessary. Those of us who give any thought to this matter know how desirable those services are, and we have been pressing London Transport to provide these express bus services. They would pick up at one particular point in London and go to the periphery. These underground motorways would be ideal for that particular type of service, and also the long distance bus coaches.
§ Heavy goods vehicles needing to get from one quarter of London to another would be able to use these highways. They would be unrestricted, as it were, free from pedestrians and traffic lights. The tunnels would have space within their perimeter to accommodate fast moving monorails. It would be possible —and this scheme has been studied by experts—to provide a monorail system if necessary, and to provide sufficient space for all the services, cables and other public services, that are required to go underground. Space could be provided for all those services, including Post Office services et cetera.
§ With regard to the cost factor, I think that when my noble friend replies he will be inclined to tell me that, good as this scheme appears to be, the general cost factor is something too great even for the Government to consider at this stage. The cost factor must be considered whether we are considering underground motorways or whether we are considering radial or circumferential roads. I suggest that if we take into consideration all the cost factors that I have enumerated we shall find that the scheme I am bringing to your Lordships' notice may be cheaper than the other scheme, although the estimated cost at the present moment would be something in the region of £1,776 million. This would deal with three underground motorways running north and south, three underground motorways running east and west, and, 1239 as I indicated, adequate parking space. Each of these underground motorways would be able to deal with three lines of traffic. There would be conveniently placed bus stops with escalators coming to the surface. They would take up very little room—indeed they would not take up any room at all in the ten mile area, except those provided for emergency purposes to deal with police, fire or hospital requirements, or something of that description. The savings in dirt, dust, noise, diversion and destruction of homes, must all be taken into due consideration.
§ Having outlined the tunnel motorway system, might I turn to some of the advantages which I think it would be possible to bring about. It requires only comparatively small areas of land at surface level for exit and entrance points, ventilation towers, pedestrian and escalator entrances and exits. The construction of these would be able to proceed without disrupting existing traffic. The displacement of homes, shops and commercial premises would not arise. Environment, buildings of architectural and historic value would not be touched at all. There would be no question of disruption or anything of that description. The hardship and inconvenience of construction would be negligible. The accumulated investment of centuries, of rateable values and heritage would not be touched at all.
§ These are important considerations which must be taken into account in planning for our traffic needs. It is probable that some land at present used as roads at surface level could be returned as open spaces, children's playgrounds, and so on. They would link all forms of transport, major traffic generators, business and retail centres, specialised land uses and motorways from outside into the central area. They could provide the most direct route and alignment, uninfluenced by river, surface rail, existing roads or major building complexes, Royal Parks, and so on. They would not interfere with those in any shape or form.
§ The system could be extended to meet future needs. It would provide the vehicle driver, once he was within the tunnel, with a constant light level and uniform atmospheric conditions. It would 1240 do away with the dangers that all these motorways have, of crossing points and so on from time to time. The motorway route would not divide communities or neighbourhoods—that is a most important point. We all know that the motorways that we build, these important Al roads which are provided for the speeding up of traffic, when they go through our urban areas, our concentrations of human dwellings and shops, separate the two communities completely. They destroy much of the life that is being built in the area, and I suggest this alternative. It would be much easier to administer, because the most advanced technological and scientific methods of traffic control and such-like could be brought into operation. The problem presents itself regarding the construction and ventilation. One would expect that an answer to this could and will be found.
§ This matter has been discussed with the Ministry of Transport by the planners who have chiefly attracted my interest. Correspondence has been taking place between the Ministry and Sir Ronald Russell, the Member for one of the Hendon constituencies. I must confess that I greatly deplore the reply that was sent to Sir Ronald Russell, because it would appear from the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary that the proposals have been rejected chiefly because sufficient detailed exploration has not taken place. I have here a copy of the letter, and it seems fairly obvious that the reply of the Minister has been simply that these matters are considered to be too expensive and impracticable at the present day. Your Lordships will know that this is a typical ministerial reply when a new type of venture is suggested. We have all experienced it from time to time. My twenty years' experience in another place makes me sceptical of this type of "brush-off": that this sort of scheme is too visionary, too revolutionary; that it is getting away from the traditional thing. I know that many Ministries do not care for the look of these things, and the main argument put forward in Stephen Swingler's reply to Sir Ronald Russell seemed to centre on this particular point.
§ The Ministry have also assumed that these underground motorways would be additional to the strategic radial surface 1241 motorways now being planned. This is an entirely false approach. These underground motorways are in substitution for the radial surface motorways, and not additional to them. If the motorway box has to be constructed it will take only a small percentage of London traffic. But the underground network could be connected with it, and would provide a much better method of avoiding the congestion that will inevitably continue to grow as more vehicles come on to our roads, particularly those seeking the radial access. Therefore the underground motorways would be the link-up with the motor box, as distinct from requiring the radial roads. These underground networks are fundamental and form the major part of a strategic road development plan. Their cost will not be additional to, but in substitution for, much that is being planned. Their construction would mean that many of the proposed surface level motorways would not be built, thus saving London, on its own evidence, from considerable disruption and dislocation and the chaos to which I have previously referred.
§ The Minister and her advisers, in considering this estimate of £1,776 million, say that it is far too low. That was their reply "off the cuff". But they have supplied no detail, no specialist examination; no results of discussions with technical people, or with the planners, the financiers, the surveyors and those people who are capable of getting down to the question of costs. They consider that the cost of such a scheme would work out much greater even than the figure I have mentioned. I must confess that I do not know the actual cost that would be involved, but what I am asking my noble friend to convey to the Government is that we must not just accept a ministerial consideration that it would be too costly.
§ After all, this scheme has been put forward by a group of people who are experts in every possible way and have every possible degree of skill. They have considerable experience of tunnel and underground work. The financiers have worked out costings. What I am asking is that my noble friend will take back to the Minister and to the Government the request that the Government should themselves set up a committee of experts, of all trades and vocations, such as would 1242 be necessary for this particular work. I do not envisage a body composed simply of civil servants. My idea is that we should seek to use the skills that we have available in this country and to give such a body of experts an opportunity to work out the scheme in much greater detail.
§ I am probably speaking far too long, my Lords, but there is much that can be said. I must confess that some of the replies of the Minister, such as the difficulty of cleaning, and similar operations, appear to indicate almost a scraping of the barrel in formulating objections to this revolutionary type of approach. I suggest that questions of cleaning, lighting, ventilation, maintenance operations and the like would be dealt with much more easily than the sort of problems which are involved in our surface motorways. I recognise that there are difficulties of construction, and the structural engineers who have been consulted admit that it would be no mean task. But there is considerable experience in the world in regard to underground work. We have had the Blackwall Tunnel, the Tyne Tunnel, and now the proposed Channel Tunnel. The construction of such tunnels was a formidable task, and at one time it was said that it was utterly impossible to do these things. But such projects are now an accomplished fact.
§ Many other nations are giving urgent consideration to putting tunnels underground in order to deal with traffic problems of the future. If we in this country do not find some new avenue of approach to meet the traffic requirements of our densely populated areas and conurbations, can we visualise what the future will be? I speak subject to correction, but I believe that there are some 14 million motor vehicles on the roads today. At the turn of the century we may expect some 33 million vehicles in our small, densely populated island, and if we follow the old surface tradition in regard to traffic one can visualise that strangulation must occur long before that.
§ I end with a plea to the Minister. I consider that there is tremendous potential in this scheme. I am not married to the scheme, but I am asking that the Minister should set up an independent body of experts—constructional engineers, ventilation engineers, planners, 1243 financiers—and request them to conduct a fully detailed survey embracing all the points in relation to future needs. If the noble Lord can give me an assurance upon this matter to-night, it will, I am confident, be in the best interests of the nation. We should await with extreme interest the report which these gentlemen would ultimately make, and I hope that such a report would be published as a public rather than a departmental document.
§ 6.35 p.m.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, on his interesting speech about the study by Mr. Matthews on tunnel motorways in city centres. I would also thank him for putting down his Question, because as a result I read Mr. Matthews's Paper and found it very interesting. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, as I am sure would all noble Lords, that if it was possible to have a system of tunnel motorways the benefits would be very great indeed. I must say the noble Lord made the attractions very vivid to your Lordships.
I am bound to say that although I sympathise with him in the cool reception the noble Lord got from the Ministry of Transport, having served in that Ministry in the past, and therefore having some knowledge of the practical difficulties involved, I found Mr. Matthews not entirely convincing on his costing figures. He said in his paper that not many data were available on the costing of tunnel construction. I think that we must accept that this is a very attractive idea which simply has not been done in practice; that is to say, to build huge tunnels of this size involving a vast, complex system of the character which was envisaged in the Paper. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the cost might be. Mr. Matthews's figure of £1,700 million is, heaven knows! high enough. And let us get the thing in perspective. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Transport allows the G.L.C. £30 million to spend on roads, so that £1,700 million is a rather long way out of sight of that. But it might be several times as much as that. I should expect the cost figures to be very formidable.
1244 On the engineering side, I also would expect that the problems of building these huge 60 ft. diameter tunnels at a great depth would be very formidable. Again, Mr. Matthews does no more than say that he thinks our own contractors would probably be able to do it. I myself would expect the difficulties and expense to be formidable. Furthermore, these tunnels would have to be immensely strong. The strain on a 60 ft. diameter tunnel would be immeasurably greater than that imposed on the relatively small tunnels which we use for Underground railways. I should have thought that very substantial engineering problems were involved in this matter. It would no doubt be necessary to build the greater part of the tunnel systems beneath the whole of the existing tunnel system—that is to say, beneath the Underground railways, even at their deepest level, as well as beneath gas and electricity supply installations, main sewers, and so on. So there are most formidable problems to overcome.
I should be most interested if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could tell us that he will set up a feasibility study to look into this matter. It would be fascinating to see the result. But I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, does not overlook the major problems which are involved. It would be interesting to hear from Lord Winterbottom, assuming such tunnels were ever built, what are the regulations about building tunnels under people's property. Is there some protection if a house with a 60 ft. diameter tunnel beneath it were suddenly to collapse?
May I offer a few thoughts about London traffic in my concluding remarks? I hope that some motorways will be built in London at some time, especially to and from the docks and in regard to essential traffic of that type, but the greater part of London traffic will have to continue to move on the existing street system. Indeed, we should wish it to do so, for we do not want the whole of London torn down. There is quite a good street system, although it is often heavily congested. During the last two or three years the progress in getting better movement in the existing street system has slowed up.
My right honourable friend Mr. Marples came in for a good deal of criticism when Minister of Transport, but 1245 his harshest critic would not deny that he really did something to improve the movement of traffic in Central London. He assembled a team of traffic engineers; he applied sound traffic engineering techniques to controlling the parked car, to one-way street systems, to prohibiting right turns, et cetera—all methods by which better movement can be got out of the existing street systems. The result of surveys has shown an improvement of something like 10 per cent. in the average speed of vehicles in the central area, and something of the same order—10 per cent. or 15 per cent.—less accidents. We have all benefited by it.
What is urgently needed is that the admirable start he made should be extended now throughout the major part of Greater London, so that similar techniques may be applied and we may make better use of the existing street system, so eliminating what is notoriously known as the "glue-pot ring" outside the central area, where traffic is simply brought to a halt by cars parked all over the place and, therefore, narrowed-down arteries of traffic. That brings congestions of every sort, buses are anything from half-an-hour to one hour late on schedule, and everybody suffers.
If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could say a hopeful word here it would he well received by noble Lords in all parts of the House. I am delighted to hear that the newly-elected G.L.C. intend to appoint a Traffic Commissioner. This is a form of management commonly used in American cities; it has no essential virtue but it usually provides an additional impetus to get development of this kind going. There is, I know, already a first-rate officer in the G.L.C., in the person of Mr. Peter Stott, who has great knowledge of these matters. But the fact is that there has been no further development and it is very badly needed.
Without building any motorways, and for relatively small cost, we could see a vast improvement throughout London. We should have to accept more disciplines with it, but the movement of traffic would benefit us very substantially, and I hope the Government will give what encouragement and help they can to the attempt which I imagine the G.L.C. are now going to make to get this improvement. It would give tremendous benefit to every- 1246 body and at relatively little cost. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will say something encouraging about the prospect of building motorways in London, too; however, that is more in the long term. He would give us some pleasure if he could give us something on the short term.
§ 6.44 p.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM)My Lords, I think it is clear to everyone in this House that, as traffic builds up and the roadway system does not expand as fast as the traffic on it, we are facing a very difficult problem indeed. We all of us experience this problem daily, so I do not have to labour it. For this reason I think it highly desirable that the intelligence and imagination of as many people as possible is brought to bear on this problem. I should like to be able to say that this Government, or any other Government, has a solution to the problem. But obviously, we have not. All we can do is struggle with it as best we can. For this reason I think that Mr. Matthews' careful and imaginative study of an alternative to the motorway box is to be welcomed, and I am certain that this House welcomes Lord Popplewell's presentation of the subject to your Lordships. I think this is helpful.
If this matter is presented to your Lordships, it is also, of course, presented to the Department in whose responsibility the transport system of London lies. I think we shall all agree that this is a subject not for polemics but for rational study. We have two alternative ways of solving the same problem, and for this reason I rather regretted my noble friend's slightly acid references to the proposals for the motorway box itself and to the attitude of the Ministry of Transport to a letter on the subject. My noble friend reported that certain consultants had said that the approach to the G.L.C. to the motorway box was one of unhealthy and indecent haste. This is hardly, I would say, true. It rather suggests that the bulldozer is already pushing through the more salubrious suburbs. This is not so. The present state of play is that in 1965 a decision was reached by the G.L.C. to safeguard routes for the 1247 box but that, as the G.L.C and the Government have said on a number of occasions, neither body is committed to any undertaking that this network will be built or to any decision on the precise routes which might be followed. Thought is taking place and the holding operation obviously exists to make certain that if we decide on a motorway box it will run somewhere along the lines indicated in the plans. So I should be grateful if my noble friend—mentally at least—would withdraw the charges of unhealthy and indecent haste.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, I do not think I used those words. This interpretation appears to me to indicate that my noble friend has a very guilty conscience in connection with the matter.
§ LORD WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, my conscience is hidden.
The other point made was that a Member in another place received a "brush-off". My noble friend implied that every time an imaginative idea came out to a Ministry the reaction of that Ministry was to say, "No". I have now had the pleasure of working in two Ministries and I think it true to say that in both of them any feasible idea receives consideration. It is much easier, of course, as my noble friend will agree, to dream up some ideal solution of a problem than to carry it into effect. That is the problem which unfortunate Ministries have to face.
It is also true to say that the gentlemen in the Ministry concerned who considered this matter were not only administrators; they were not only Firsts in Classics or Greats, but also included a large number of professional people, engineers, traffic experts and the rest. Knowing how these replies are drafted, I am sure this reply would have come through the professionals, having been considered by the administrators, and then sent forward to an honourable Member in another place. The proposal would not be turned down out of hand by administrators without professional qualifications.
Having said that, I would add that I do believe that this has been a useful debate; I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Department on whose behalf I am speaking to-day, and I will ask them to consider my noble friend's proposals that a study group should be 1248 set up to consider this idea. I cannot, of course, commit this Ministry, but I can at least ask them to consider my noble friend's proposals.
Similarly, I cannot, "off the cuff," reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who put a series of questions to me. He rather strengthened my own analysis that Mr. Matthews' costs are not only high but perhaps in the sub stratosphere. They are very great indeed. I was doing some very simple arithmetic and it seemed to me that if we take the estimated cost of a motorway box as £550 million, and add to that the cost of all the land that it is proposed to take, as the noble Lord suggested, at £100,000 an acre, the cost of the motorway box comes out at only just over £1,000 million, as opposed to £1,770 million proposed for the tunnel system. So, clearly, the costs of this scheme are very great indeed.
The tunnels proposed would be 60 feet in diameter. The Mersey Tunnel is 40 feet in diameter; and the Tube tunnel 12 feet in diameter. So the proposed tunnels would have a diameter five times that of the Tube tunnel, and about 50 per cent. larger than the Mersey Tunnel. So this is a technical problem which no one in the world has yet attempted to tackle. And while the problems of money are uncertain, the technical problems are equally uncertain. I can therefore understand only too well the inability of the Ministry of Transport to give a really optimistic answer to the honourable Member when he wrote to him.
Turning to the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I can only ask the Department concerned to try to answer them. Tunnelling under property must of course bring problems. It brings problems in the coalfields, and there is legislation covering compensation for damage caused by subsidence through mining in mining areas. I will find out whether there is similar protection available to a householder when a 60-feet tunnel goes under his house and something happens. At the same time, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that we should remember Mr. Marples with gratitude; he speeded up the traffic in Central London to a most surprising degree. In point of fact, I do not find driving through the centre of 1249 London, as compared with driving through the centres of Paris, Naples or even Rome, to be intolerable. I think the traffic goes reasonably fast and reasonably harmoniously. But there is no doubt that if the techniques being developed in the centre of London were extended outwards, this would be of value to us all.
I shall ask the Department concerned to inform the noble Lord if there are any hopes of motorways within the city itself. The M.1 is coming pleasantly close to the centre. I have now started to travel home on the extended M.1 rather than on the A.1, so motorways are penetrating into London. I will try to find out whether they are going to make their appearance anywhere else in this city.