3. Abercrombie
Ab bi
1944
0 London Plan 1944 : Radical top‐down reordering
0 R ti t h ti i d t i li ti and sprawl
Reaction to chaotic industrialisation d l
0 Belief in the power of central planning by enlightened
professionals
professionals
0 Four acres of open space per 1000 inhabitants
0 Denser housing + denser traffic frees land for leisure,
g ,
light, greenery
0 Green Belt halts urban encroachment on the
countryside
id
0 New Towns beyond used for population growth
6. GLC
1965
0 Set up by the Conservatives to replace the Labour
dominated inner London LCC with a pan‐London body
d i t di L d LCC ith L d b d
0 No responsibility for public transport until LT added
in 1970
in 1970
0 Transportation department dominated by road
engineers
0 Thinking influenced by mid‐20th century US ideas
0 Conservatives + Labour both committed to a planned
Conservatives + Labour both committed to a planned,
car‐centred future
7. Ringways
Ri
1965 ‐ 1973
• Appeared suspiciously fully‐formed as a scheme as soon
as the GLC took over in 1965
• Descended from Abercrombie but more a technocratic
solution than a human utopia
l ti th h t i
• Based entirely on US ideology of a freeway‐dependent
future
• Early use of computers in predicting traffic flow
• Assumption that motor traffic growth synonymous with
economic growth
• With modern eyes, glaring faults in methodology,
particularly failing to understand induced traffic
particularly failing to understand induced traffic
8. Central Planning
C t l Pl i
1944‐1979
0 Raze and rebuild
0 Not along Abercrombie lines, with notable exceptions such
l Ab b l h bl h
as Barbican
0 Redevelopment on original street pattern while traffic
Redevelopment on original street pattern while traffic
grew led to highly unsatisfactory bodges such as gyratories
0 Streets created by people for people replaced by roads
yp p p p p y
created by engineers for cars
0 Pedestrians segregated from cars ‘for their safety’
0 Wholesale removal of people from London to New Towns
reduced population by a million
9. Depopulation
D l ti
1939‐1981
0 War – large areas destroyed
0 Development slum clearance offices replacing
Development – slum clearance, offices replacing
housing, new roads
0 Policy – New Towns outside the Green Belt
Policy New Towns outside the Green Belt
11. Fightback
Fi htb k
1970‐1981
0 GLC’s Greater London Development Plan (1969) plus
Westway (1970) changed the mood
(1970) changed the mood
0 Anti‐roads movement – started in suburbs and spread
0 1973 sank the notion of cheap motoring as a panacea
1973 sank the notion of cheap motoring as a panacea
for urban transport
0 Gentrification increased road costs and provided an
articulate opposition
0 Environmental awareness grew as a reaction to
‘Thunderbirds’ style technocracy
Thunderbirds style technocracy
0 Bottom‐up versus top‐down view of the future
12. First Ken Era
Fi t K E
1973‐1986
0 1970– ‘Homes Before Roads’ stood directly for election but failed to
gain a seat
gain a seat
0 1973– HBR changed Labour policy to oppose Ringways
0 Ken Livingstone, an anti‐roads campaigner, elected to GLC
0 Remaining Ringway schemes in the city scrapped
0 No longer possible for new road schemes to proceed unopposed:
13. First Ken Era
Fi t K E
1973‐1986
0 1981 ‐ Livingstone becomes GLC
leader
0 Pro‐public transport policies ‐
heavily slashed fares
0 Pro‐cycling policies – 1% of the
budget, bicycle planning unit and
cyclist consultation committee
y
0 National backdrop at this stage is
a deeply pro‐road DfT under
Nicholas Ridley
Nicholas Ridley
14. First Ken Era
Fi t K E
1973‐1986
0 Dave Wetzel in charge of transport
0 Thameslink and DLR have origins in GLC plans
h l k d h G C l
0 Political battles with central government as well as the
economic situation at the time
economic situation at the time
0 Key legacy: Capitalcard gives one ticket that worked on rail,
tube and bus
0 Abolition of GLC marked a victory for the pro‐road/anti‐PT
thinkers in Whitehall and elsewhere
0 Studies restarted into urban road building across the
capital
16. Conservatives Change Course
C ti Ch C
1990‐1997
0 Cecil Parkinson withdrew from all London road building studies in
May 1990
May 1990
0 M11 Link Road, Newbury and Twyford Down
0 Halting of motorway through Oxleas Wood marked a turning point
0 Lack of leadership in London post‐GLC meant progress was still
hesitant
0 Crossrail stalled by recession, inquiry delays and politics
stalled by recession, inquiry delays and politics
0 DLR is expanded from a quick fix into the start of a proper system
0 Jubilee Line extension to Stratford under Steve Norris
0 Croydon Tramlink is the sole London example of the tram revival
that began in Manchester in 1992
17. Chapter 3 ‐ Mayoralty
0 1999 ‐ GLA Act set up Mayoralty and GLA after referendum
passes
0 Executive Mayor of London has powers over both planning
and transport
0 Mayoral Strategies produced to guide London’s
development
0 About half budget goes on transport
About half budget goes on transport
0 TfL implements policies across the public sector transport
services
0 TfL income from fares and central grant
0 Fares on bus/tube are set by the Mayor each year.
19. Transport
T t
2000‐2008
0 First Mayoral Transport Strategy published July 2001
0 Cl i d t
Claimed transport system ‘starved of the investment
t t ‘ t d f th i t t
necessary’
0 Sought to tackle both road ‘gridlock’ and ‘serious
Sought to tackle both road gridlock and serious
problems of unreliability’ on the Tube
0 Overhaul of public transport management under a
single Commissioner
0 Aim of 50% increase in rail, 40% increase in bus
capacity
0 Dave Wetzel back as Deputy Chairman of TfL
20. MTS #1 Priorities
MTS #1 P i iti
2000‐2008
0 Ten key transport priorities:
0 1. Reducing traffic congestion
0 2. Overcoming backlog of investment
0 3. Radically improving the bus system
0 4. Better integration with National Rail – ‘turn up and
go’ services
0 5. Increasing capacity through major big‐ticket
projects (e.g. Crossrail, Overground, Thames Gateway
j t ( C il O d Th G t
Bridge)
21. MTS #1 Priorities
MTS #1 P i iti
2000‐2008
0 6. Improving journey time for car users, particularly in
outer London, whilst providing alternatives
t L d hil t idi lt ti
0 7. Support local transport initiatives including
walking/cycling and road safety improvements
walking/cycling and road safety improvements
0 8. Making distribution of goods around London more
reliable and greener
reliable and greener
0 9. Improving accessibility (e.g. low floor/wheelchair
access on buses)
access on buses)
0 10. Improving integration including simpler ticketing
22. Oyster
O t
2000‐2003
0 Integrated smart card ticketing
0 Pay as you go and Travelcards integrated on a single
card
0T k
Take up encouraged by discounting Oyster fares and
d b di i O f d
raising cash fares
0 Ease of se b itself makes p blic transport more
Ease of use by itself makes public transport more
attractive
0 Capping of PAYG fares ensures you never had to
Capping of PAYG fares ensures you never had to
decide in advance if a Travelcard would be cheaper
23. Congestion Charge
C ti Ch
2003‐2007
0 Introduced in the teeth of widespread opposition
0 Marked effect on traffic in the centre – reduced by 26% by
Marked effect on traffic in the centre reduced by 26% by
2006
0 Allowed London to grow while reducing traffic, breaking
the long‐held view that there is a link
0 Allowed large increase in bus use due to cross subsidy
from CC income
from CC income
0 Allowed roadspace to be reallocated to pedestrians:
0 ‘…the movingmotorvehicle capacity of the network has
been adjusted in favour of the peoplemoving capacity of the
network’
24. London Overground
L d O d
2007
0 Long‐cherished plan to integrate the North London
Line into the overall London transport network
Li i t th ll L d t t t k
0 Effectively ‘renationalised’ the Silverlink Metro
network
0 Complete replacement of trains with ‘urban’ style high
capacity units
capacity units
0 Integration into tube fare structures and Oyster
0 Rebuilt East London Line extended to meet NLL at
Rebuilt East London Line extended to meet NLL at
Highbury & Islington
25. Smarter Travel Sutton
S t T l S tt
2006‐2009
0 Joint venture between Sutton borough and TfL
0 Area of high car ownership and use
Area of high car ownership and use
0 Cost only £5m over three years
0 Reduce car trips 5%+ by promoting alternatives rather
educe ca t ps 5% by p o ot g a te at ves at e
than directly discouraging use
0 All schools to have a Travel Plan
0 15,000 employees to be covered by Travel Plans
15 000 l b db T l Pl
0 75% increase in cycling by 2010
0 16% increase in bus use by 2010
16% increase in bus use by 2010
0 Car modal share reduced by 6%
26. Planning
Pl i
2000‐2008
0 Strong emphasis on density, as a reaction to US‐style
sprawl
p
0 Large amount of speculative private flat building, often
architecturally indifferent
0 Replacement of outdated 50s‐60s‐70s buildings with more
Replacement of outdated 50s‐60s‐70s buildings with more
sustainable buildings
0 Signature tall buildings such as Shard, Heron Tower
0 Policy of nodal development near transport interchanges;
P li f d ld l t t ti t h
London Bridge, Dalston, Aldgate, Stratford, Shepherd’s
Bush, Shoreditch High St.
0 Attempt to divorce densification from congestion –make
Att t t di d ifi ti f ti k
developments work without increasing car use
27. Urban Realm
U b R l
2000‐2008
0 Plans for Trafalgar Square implemented despite
protests from motorists & cab drivers
protests from motorists & cab drivers
0 Reallocated space on the north side directly from
p p
vehicles to people
0 Similar plans for Parliament Square to remove
gyratory and reintegrate the central island into the
city
i
0 Architecture and Urbanism Unit at City Hall
0 Mayor’s 100 Great Spaces scheme started with Gillett
Mayor s 100 Great Spaces scheme started with Gillett
Square, Hackney, in 2006
28. Verdict: Plus
V di t Pl
2000‐2008
0 Introduction of the Congestion Charge in 2003
allowed growth to decouple from congestion
allowed growth to decouple from congestion
0 Cash raised directly fed into expanded bus services
0 As a result of modal shift away from cars roadspace
As a result of modal shift away from cars, roadspace
was reallocated towards pedestrians
0 Crossrail funding agreement a model of public/private
partnership without the PPP/PFI drawbacks
0 Gyratory removal becomes policy – Shoreditch the
first in 2001
first in 2001
0 Large scale road schemes scrapped on North Circular
29. Verdict: Plus
V di t Pl
2000‐2008
0 Oyster reduced the nuisance cost of taking public
transport
t t
0 Urban realm improvements in London enabled
through reducing car use
through reducing car use
0 London Overground a major success
0 C cling p o er the eight ears
Cycling up over the eight years
0 Road deaths continued to decline
0SSmarter Travel Sutton showed how a small local
t T l S tt h dh ll l l
scheme can make a big difference
30. Verdict: Minus
V di t Mi
2000‐2008
0 Still echoes of big project thinking rather than grass roots
e.g. Thames Gateway Bridge, Bounds Green widening
e g Thames Gateway Bridge Bounds Green widening
0 Concentration on buses as a quick solution to capacity
p ob e s ead g to bus co gest o
problems leading to bus congestion in areas (Oxford St.)
a eas (O o d St )
0 Failed to get any tram schemes underway due to persistent
opposition from the right
0 Tube upgrade less successful due to lunacy of central
government imposed PPP
0 Much of the new building is not great quality
M h f th b ildi i t t lit
0 Policies dependent on high growth and public funding
32. The Boris Era
Th B i E
2008 ‐ ?
• Difference in emphasis
• More on co‐operation with the Boroughs than
More on co operation with the Boroughs than
dictation
• Promise to hold a consultation over the Congestion
g
Charge Western Extension
• Silly populism about buses
• Had to build team from scratch
• Reality forced a policy of continuity rather than
revolution e.g. retaining Peter Hendy as
revolution e g retaining Peter Hendy as
Commissioner
33. Oyster on National Rail
O t N ti l R il
2010
0 Oyster extended January 2010 to most lines in
London
0 Oyster Travelcards already valid across NR
0 Oyster PAYG already valid on lines where LU inter‐
Oyster PAYG already valid on lines where LU inter
availability was in place
0 Oyster Extension Permits add uncertainty and
complexity for Travelcard users
0 Farescale differences imposed by TOCs mean it’s hard
to work out cheapest routes
to work out cheapest routes
0 Good job only half finished
35. Cycle Hire Plus
C l Hi Pl
2010
0 Large investment in cycling brings benefits of high
profile backing
fil b ki
0 Raises the image of cycling in London
0VVery cheap – f
h free under 30 minutes, low yearly cost
d 30 i l l
0 Fairly comprehensive in Zone 1
0 Excellent alternative to bus/tube for short journeys in
zone 1 where there may not be a direct existing route
36. Cycle Hire Minus
C l Hi Mi
2010
0 Expensive ‐ original intention to be set up at no cost to
the taxpayer quietly forgotten
th t i tl f tt
0 Takes money from small scale outer London cycling
improvements
0 Takes money from general environment budget (little
known or advertised) )
0 Concentrates investment and publicity in areas with
high cycling rates already
0 Severe early problems with reliability of the technology
37. Cycle Hire Minus
C l Hi Mi
2010
0 Operators yet to get to grips with tidal flows, original
intention to avoid the post‐rail crowd forgotten
intention to avoid the post rail crowd forgotten
0 Despite Boris public statements, no realistic prospect of
e cou ag g oda s t away o d v g
encouraging modal shift away from driving
0 Costs very opaque due to ‘commercial confidentiality’ –
hard to judge value for money
0 Zone 1 only, when firm evidence exists that best alternative
to cars in outer London is often cycling
0 Used mostly by a fairly small demographic (rich, male,
U d tl b f i l ll d hi ( i h l
young)
41. Superhighways Minus
0 Concentrated on moving people on radial routes into town
0 Extremely costly ‐ £140m+ for ten routes serving a small
Extremely costly £140m+ for ten routes serving a small
area of the city
0 No clear evidence of joined up thinking with policies on
development, cycle parking, security, modal transfer, cycle
development cycle parking security modal transfer cycle
hire
0 Very variable in quality, from high quality segregated paths
built as part of the A13 upgrade, to tiny blue squares on a
built as part of the A13 upgrade to tiny blue squares on a
pavement
0 Conflicts between motorists and cyclists not really
addressed
0 Evidence that TfL’s road people aren’t entirely committed
to the principle
42. Smoothing Traffic Flow
S thi T ffi Fl
2008 ‐ ?
0 Originally a PR buzzword with little meat on the
bones
0 Working group set up
0 Few concrete policy implications thus far other than
Few concrete policy implications thus far other than
traffic signal retiming/removal
0 Temptation for the motoring/road engineer lobby
within TfL to use this policy as a cover for regressive
actions
0 Leading figures seem to come from road lobby and
Leading figures seem to come from road lobby and
Tory borough councils (LBHF/RBKC)
43. Traffic Signals
0 Age old Conservative fear that socialists are fiddling with
traffic lights
traffic lights
0 Links into libertarian hatred of technocracy/nanny state
0 Colin Buchanan report conclusion: the denser the traffic
the more sense signals make
0 My conclusion therefore ‘if you want to remove traffic
lights, first reduce traffic
lights first reduce traffic’
0 TfL published list of signals they think can be removed.
Many subsequently removed from list
0 Pedestrian groups not entirely opposed – zebras highly
efficient and good for pedestrians
44. Shared Space
0 Seen as a panacea for
how to meet both
motoring and
i d
environmental needs
0 Examples given often
seem irrelevant or
seem irrelevant or
inapplicable to
London ‐ Drachten is
tiny
0 Best used in small
areas with slow traffic
0 Often confused with
pedestrianisation
0 Keenest borough is
Kensington & Chelsea
45. Verdict: Plus
0 No great shift back to pre‐1973 or late 80s car culture
thinking
0 Gyratory removal schemes going ahead (e.g. Aldgate, Stoke
Newington)
0 Cycle enthusiasm genuine and PR benefit can’t be
underestimated
0 Commitment to Crossrail and tube upgrade
Commitment to Crossrail and tube upgrade
0 Open data policies allowing whole new ways of visualising
London from the bottom up
0 Small scale urban realm policies mostly sensible, such as
tree planting and removal of guardrail
46. Verdict: Minus
0 Lack of understanding of scale – cycle hire is fun for the
users, but not a city‐wide revolution
users but not a city wide revolution
0 Hatred of buses – bendy jihad and New Bus For London
bot d ve by outs de t e bus v ewpo t
both driven by ‘outside the bus’ viewpoint
0 Lack of interest in hands‐on management (#getagripboris)
0 Small talent pool – losing good staff without replacement,
p gg p
plus political advisors weak on transport
0 Forced to juggle economic reality against supporters’
obsessions – e.g. WEZ
b i WEZ
47. The Future
0 Continuing squeeze on public sector finance leaves nothing over
after Crossrail/tube
after Crossrail/tube
0 Despite Boris efforts, private money not available without strings
or in large enough quantities
0 Therefore cost/benefit dictates small local schemes such as
Therefore cost/benefit dictates small local schemes such as
Smarter Travel Sutton should be blueprint
0 Encouraging outer London cycling a priority
0 Mayor could usefully help spread best practice across the city
0 Most Mayoral priorities only work with further reductions in car
use
0 Fuel costs rising will encourage efficient or electric cars which
add congestion but are exempt from congestion charging
48. Credits
0 London Population maps:
http://spatialanalysis.co.uk/2011/02/16/mapping‐londons‐population‐
change‐2011‐2030/
change 2011 2030/
0 London plan map from:http://www.lewism.org/2009/06/14/county‐of‐
london‐plan‐1945/
0 Photos – many from my collection, but also @darryl1974, @Helzbels,
@swadbus and sections from pictures on the Internet, hopefully under Fair
Use…
0 Ringway outline from CBRD: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/histories/ringways/
0 London Plan images from Fin Fahey s Flickr
London Plan images from Fin Fahey’s Flickr
accounthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/albedo/sets/72157601925818054/
with/1350685543/
0 Roads protester from ALARM UK
http://www.roadblock.org.uk/alarmuk/roadblock.html
http://www roadblock org uk/alarmuk/roadblock html