Urban Transport

A Century of Progress?

Kevin Hey, John Sheldrake

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138394216
• eBook ISBN: 9780429685538
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Global Development Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1997, this volume enters the debate on urban transport, dealing with a range of issues from questions of ownership and network planning to such matters as investment, usage and technological change.

1
Introduction

The problems of urban transport, rather like the poor, seem always to be with us. Whereas nineteenth century cities suffered from the congestion and pollution caused by horsedrawn traffic, today’s equivalents face the threat of grid-lock as increasing numbers of motor vehicles compete for the confined road space of city centres. There has of course been progress. The transport infrastructures of urban areas have become increasingly comprehensive and sophisticated. Similarly, the numbers of people and volumes of freight moving to, through and within towns and cities have steadily increased. Nevertheless there is a sense of malaise if not crisis. Chronic traffic congestion and the associated problems of atmospheric and noise pollution have a dire impact on the quality of urban existence. Travel within cities is most often considered a chore rather than a pleasure while traffic constitutes a constant threat to cyclists and pedestrians alike.

Although the worst problems of urban transport are most often experienced at the heart of major conurbation’s, small towns also suffer from the impact of traffic problems, not least the growing numbers of private cars and freight vehicles on their roads. Accommodating private cars has become a major difficulty as available space is now inadequate for the number of vehicles requiring to be parked. The result of this is frustration, loss of amenity and, perhaps, relative commercial decline. Numerous piecemeal measure have attempted to ameliorate the problem, ranging from park and ride schemes to the construction of multi-storey car parks. In some cases the remedy has been worse than the malady.

It is now generally agreed that the present difficulties in urban transport spring fundamentally from the popularity of the motor car. Whatever the personal and social costs of motoring there is no evidence that the era of the automobile is ending. The modest revival in cycling may be an early indication of a return to simpler forms of local transport or merely a passing fad. In any case no one is seriously claiming that the vast majority of people are about to get out of their car and on their bike. Instead, a consensus is forming around the notion of multi-modal, high quality urban transport ranging from cars through heavy rail and light rail system to buses and bicycles. There is now, as the Government recently put it, ‘a widespread desire to improve accessibility while, at the same time, minimizing environmental impact’.¹

The chapters contained in this volume are offered as a contribution to the current debate on urban transport. The bulk of them began their life as papers delivered to a colloquium held at University College, Salford in 1995. The range of issues dealt with is wide, ranging from questions of ownership and network planning to such matters as investment, usage and technological change. In Chapter 2 Sheldrake provides an illuminating examination of the origins and early development of the London Passenger Transport Board (LPTB). The expansion of London, both in terms of geographical area and population, the rapid rise in commuting and motor traffic coupled with unrestricted competition of road passenger transport created a dynamic yet chaotic scene ripe for some form of public transport regulation and coordination. The two main providers of public transport in London - the London County Council (LCC) and the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL), which included the London General Omnibus Company (LGOC) - were major competitors but became unlikely partners as they found common cause in campaigning for traffic regulation and coordination. As often occurs a few key individuals were crucial to the outcome of developments - in the case of the LPTB it was Lord Ashfield of the UERL and Herbert Morrison as Leader of the Labour group on the LCC and later as Minister of Transport in the Labour Government of 1929-31. In spite of their differing approaches both these figures were sufficiently pragmatic for progress to be made. When initial proposals for a scheme of co-ordination were thwarted it was Morrison who embraced the concept of a public corporation to own and operate London’s public transport. The support which Ashfield gave to the proposal proved crucial. Although the idea met considerable political opposition it was in tune with the times surviving the fall of the Labour Government in 1930 and was implemented by the incoming National Coalition Government largely as originally conceived by Morrison. The conclusions which Sheldrake draws from all these events is that the LPTB was a pragmatic response to the political situation and transport problems of London although for Morrison it represented the harbinger of state nationalization. The LPTB quickly gained an enviable reputation as it secured the benefits of economies of scale, standarization and centralization. Nevertheless, the absence of democratic control and lack of competition was disturbing to many and these issues were to remain a continuing source of concern throughout the existence of the LPTB.

The regulation and co-ordination of public transport in the provincial conurbations was very different from that initially adopted in London. As Hey points out in Chapter 3 the formation of the LPTB gave fresh impetus to early efforts to voluntarily establish transport bodies in these areas. None of them came to fruition and, as in London, only direct action from central government secured a structure for public transport co-ordination at conurbation level. The close connection between local government and public road passenger transport eventually led to a situation in which developments for public transport came to be shaped as much by the concerns of local government as those of transport. Two radical individuals in the Labour Governments of 1964-70 played a central role in events leading to the reorganization of local government and public transport. Richard Crossman, Minister of Health and Local Government seized the opportunity in an era of change to establish a Royal Commission to determine the most suitable structure for local government outside London. In the meantime Barbara Castle as Minister of Transport was impatient for change particularly in the main urban areas. She set about establishing passenger transport areas, but confined these to the main conurbations where the transport problems were particularly acute. The areas were to cover an entire urban region but initially they were delineated using a combination of commuting patterns and the boundaries of the local government Special Review Areas (SRAs) established in 1958 under a earlier attempt to examine the structure of local government. Subsequently the transport areas were fully integrated into the reorganized structure of local government in 1974 and their boundaries were made to conform with the conurbation level metropolitan authorities. The end result is that the current definition of transport areas are more a reflection of local government considerations than those of transport, with all the inevitable political struggles which accompany the search for an effective and convenient form of local government. The chapter provides an instructive account of these struggles and argues that if the transport problems in the conurbations are to be effectively tackled there is a need for transport areas which correspond with the catchment area of the problem. Alas areas covering a conurbation and hinterland which make sense in terms of dealing with public transport hardly make for units of local government which would find ready and popular acceptance. The conclusion which Hey draws is that the time has come to re-examine the link between transport areas and the existing metropolitan authorities together with considering the most suitable institutional framework to tackle the worsening transport conditions in our major conurbations.

In contrast to the first two chapters which investigate issues in Britain, Shaw in Chapter 4 examines the connection between municipality and civic pride in the Canadian city of Toronto. His study of Toronto’s public transport system over the past century illustrates the acceptance of municipal ownership and the justifications for active involvement of local government in mass transit. The unification, modernization and expansion of the transit network is reviewed in the context of the City Beautiful movement. Whilst the movement attracted considerable support it was also subject to scornful attack but despite this the ideal of a comprehensively planned city with attractive and well run services remained a persistent theme. Shaw chronicles public transport development in Toronto at the turn of the century. Whilst many of the features mirrored British experience subsequent developments mark a distinct divergence with public transport in Toronto increasingly perceived as a means of not only maintaining the vitality of the city region but also in establishing Toronto as a ‘world city’. Public financial support was granted to the public transport system only in return for fulfilling a number of economic, social and environmental goals. Whilst proposals for an ambitious urban road programme were seen as the quintessential feature of a modern city they only served to expose the fact that the interests of those living in the older city tended to be different from those in the newer suburban areas. The outcome of the debate which emanated from these tensions made a significant contribution to the emergence of a greater political commitment to support public transport. The 25 year consensus amongst the mainstream political parties supporting a fully regulated and integrated municipal service stands in sharp contrast to the situation in Britain. A notable feature of this period is the way in which ‘community politics’ has contributed towards recognizing and promoting social equity as a key goal of the public transport system. Three major groups have been at the forefront of these developments - disabled people, women and ethno-racial minorities. After many years of discussion and consultation the voluntary organizations which have campaigned for a more accessible and safer public transport system as a means of improving city life are now accepted as an integral element when public transport developments and improvements are considered. The contribution of the three major groups are examined in turn with particular emphasis upon exploring the ways in which this has contributed to the objective of securing civic pride in a socially and culturally diverse city. In conclusion Shaw notes that, whilst there is some similarity between the current rhetoric of the contribution which public transport can make to this objective with that used by the City Beautiful movement of a century ago, the emphasis is now upon diversity rather than conformity.

In Chapter 5 Higginson examines the policies for investing in city transport over the last 100 years. The key investment periods are identified in terms of the mode of focus and the principle source of investment. One of the most notable features is the continual addition of new transport infrastructure which has occurred alongside the retention of existing facilities. For passenger services these additional facilities have produced an overlay of alternative modes which in urban areas have contributed to the existence of increasingly complex travel patterns over far greater distances than was previously the case. By contrast a different situation has emerged for freight movement which is now primarily inwards from outside urban areas. The contribution of each mode to urban transport is examined in turn. The local networks provided by the railway companies within the largest urban centres were funded by private capital but fare rates and charges were subject to government regulation. When the railways were brought into public ownership the issue of financial assistance became a clouded one. The distinction between capital and revenue support was not always clear and it is only in comparatively recent times that such differences were clarified. After the establishment of the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) in the major cities public finance enabled a number of former and, in certain cases, new city centre rail links to be developed. More recently private finance has made a significant contribution to some schemes and with the advent of rail privatization the role of private sector capital is of increasing importance.

By contrast, underground railway development was confined to three cities - London, Liverpool and Glasgow. In all cases initial investment was made by private companies but thereafter developments in each city were different. In London international finance played some part, with public funds used later as part of the initiative to relieve unemployment. Public funding became the source of finance for development of the underground network once the system was brought under the auspices of the LPTB. Whilst the network remains in public ownership, albeit now as a separate company, private sector funding has once again started to play a role in both capital and operational projects. In provincial cities there were different approaches for funding underground railway development. In Liverpool the lines passed into state ownership with the creation of the British Railways Board (BRB) and survived to become part of an improved rail system linking formerly separate suburban railways across the city centre. Public funding for the project came from a number of sources. A different outcome occurred in Glasgow when the underground system passed into municipal ownership and was subsequently transferred to the local PTE under whose control it was comprehensively reconstructed.

The bus industry developed in a different fashion from the railways with a mixture of private and public sector finance. For a long period it maintained overall profitability. The regulatory regime which applied for most of the century permitted the maintenance of an extensive network under which loss making services were supported by profitable ones. With the majority of private companies brought into public ownership the industry became predominantly a public sector activity. As overall profitability declined external financial support became necessary for both capital and revenue purposes. Whilst capital finance was allocated for specified items revenue support was given on a more general basis. Since privatization and deregulation of the industry a decade ago the use of blanket subsidies has been replaced by support restricted to routes or services which cannot be provided on a commercial basis.

The funding of roads is increasingly a source of debate. They have traditionally been funded from central and local government. Once road users are in possession of a road fund licence they have unlimited access to the highway network. The issue of charging for actual road use remains a difficult area. There are a few proposals for privately funded highways whilst the idea of tolling certain roads has also received consideration. Urban road pricing seems as far away as ever despite the case for making road users meet a greater share of the costs they impose but there is little political enthusiasm for such a radical change to charging policy. Higginson concludes that a number of concerns have remained common features during the last 100 years. There is still considerable debate about whether transport is a public good or a commercial business whilst issues of traffic congestion, although different, remain largely unresolved.

The theme of transport development is maintained in Chapter 6 in which McConville discusses the factors influencing the moves towards deregulation and greater market flexibility during the last two decades. The transport sector is fortunate in possessing substantial economic assets mainly in the form of infrastructure which were expensive to develop but have extremely long lives. Historically this raised concerns about the nature of market development with state involvement invariably focused upon control and ownership. By contrast, the mobile units of transport have different characteristics and consequently state attention has been based upon safety and social considerations. The basic economic principles of transport serve as a reminder that time and cost of travel are viewed as the central determinants of transport efficiency. In these terms the motor car is seen by many as a efficient form of transport.

The personal mobility bestowed by the motor car is one of the main ingredients of modern life and it has had profound effects upon work, shopping, leisure and educational activities. The changes in travel patterns which have accompanied the rise in car use has led to a re-emergence of the urban transport problem which is perceived in terms of congestion, parking, loss of social welfare, wasteful use of resources and environmental deterioration. The response of government to this has been through a combination of infrastructure development and providing the organizational structure for the transport sector. To a large extent this approach has been influenced by the perception of researchers, sectional and industrial pressure groups which until recently advocated an engineering response through creating an infrastructure to accommodate the expanding traffic. Whilst this solution was accepted by governments of all shades there were substantial differences in political and economic philosophy between the two main parties. To a large extent these differences centred upon alternative views regarding ownership and competition which was distinguishable through the language used and changes to the organizational framework over the years.

Enthusiasm for this approach began to wane as the financial consequences of the oil crisis and the fracturing of the postwar political consensus impacted upon the transport scene. The engineering solution was increasingly brought into doubt as realization dawned that transport management systems could offer a greater contribution to mobility. This diluted engineering solution emerged in a period of increasing concern for the environment, the scarcity of fossil fuels and major constraints upon public expenditure. This latter element proved the most crucial since it necessitated a reappraisal of the priorities accorded to transport as against other competing claims upon public expenditure, along with a stringent re-examination of the social and economic objectives which were deemed to accrue from such expenditure.

During the last two decades the move towards privatization and deregulation have been undertaken partly on the basis of an ideology which views private ownership and the supremacy of the market as central to efficient public sector finances. Economic growth and consumerism were paraded as the central purpose of life. Yet the trends of deregulation and privatization created a dichotomy in policy making as tension emerged between the competitive solution and increasing public concern with social and economic welfare, particularly in the context of the environment. During this period a number of influences have seen the state, in whatever form, retreat from the role of transport provider to undertake a strengthened one of supervisor and regulator in order to act as guardian of those who consume it.

The discussions in Chapters 5 and 6 provide a firm foundation for the contribution from Tyson who explores metropolitan transport policy in the twentieth century and points to likely developments in the next. Despite the rapid growth of motorized transport it is only in the last quarter century that it has been easy to identify a definable transport policy for urban areas. Prior to this period transport was generally profitable and whilst there was a growing transport problem the response of successive governments was to adopt the engineering solution. In short there was only occasional need for central government to make policy decisions on transport. The laissez-faire attitude of the nineteenth century extended to transport policy in the prewar era. It was only after World War One that significant government intervention occurred with the restructuring of the railways and then regulation to control competition in the road freight and passenger transport industries. This period was characterized by concerns about regulating the level of competition but subject to this protection operators were left to survive in a commercial environment. After World War Two the policy debate shifted to matters of ownership and the structure of the industry with the railways and considerable sections of road passenger and freight transport brought into public ownership.

A radical review of transport policy in urban areas was clearly necessary and this finally occurred as part of a more general review of policy by the Labour Government in the 1960s. This resulted in recognition that the main urban areas were different and special Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) were required for the largest conurbations. It was acknowledged that public transport conferred wider benefits such as assisting in reducing traffic congestion and it should not necessarily have to be provided on a commercial basis. The transport authorities were given extensive powers to subsidize public transport as well as co-ordinating bus and rail services. There were other significant developments during this period. Extensive transportation studies were conducted using sophisticated analytical techniques to predict levels of car and public transport use. These resulted in the emergence of a list of infrastructure developments thought necessary to provide for transport demand. The reorganization of local government some years later allowed, for the first time, decisions on matters of transportation and public transport to be considered by one body. Policies for public transport were developed through capital and revenue support with emphasis upon the concept of integrated transport systems as central to attempts to arrest car use. As Tyson rightly observes there was no single policy formula as each area adopted a different combination of investment and subsidy using various modes. Whilst these policies had some success the high costs of subsidy became a matter of increasing concern. Eventually central government intervened to control them and it was a clear indication that policy was starting to turn away from the model of a publicly financed and integrated transport system. The shift of policy towards deregulation and privatization was to occur sooner rather than later and at a time of further reform to the structure of local government in the conurbations. By 1986 responsibility for matters of transportation wa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures and tables
• Chapter abbreviations
• The contributors
• Acknowledgement
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The monopolization of London’s transport
• 3 The origins and development of the passenger transport areas
• 4 Municipality and civic pride in Canada: Toronto 1895-1995
• 5 Investing in transport - who pays?
• 6 Influences in transport development
• 7 Metropolitan transport policy in the 20th and 21 st centuries
• 8 Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index