Samizdata

As a regular commuter in London – I travel from the western end of Central London to the eastern end covering 10 miles each way – I have suffered most evils of modern transportation known to man. This is despite the fact that I ride a motorbike, which should save me from most traffic jams and delays. In fact, I have observed the traffic getting worse over the last two years and even got stuck in ‘motorbike jams’ that occur during major gridlocks. Public transport is horrendous in its own special way, the London Underground (affectionately known as the Tube) is apocalyptically over-crowded (those who travel by it will understand the description – it’s a disaster waiting to happen) and the quaint red buses are pitifully inadequate in capacity and frequency and surprise, surprise, get stuck in the same traffic jams as cars, vans, lorries and trucks. As a biker I especially detest the last three categories.

I have often wondered how much worse the situation needs to get before this major source of frustration of living in London is addressed. Some Libertarian Alliance gurus, namely Brian Micklethwait in his pamphlet on road pricing and Tim Evans in his posting to this blog, think that charging for road use is the way forward, with the market fine-tuning the traffic flows. I can’t wait for their proposals to be taken up and bring the desired results as travelling in London has become unbearable (yesterday, instead of 30 minutes it took me 1.5 hours to get home).

Therefore, I read with interest an article The war against the car in the last week’s issue of The Economist (alas, subscription needed to view the article) commenting on Ken Livingstone’s, London’s mayor, plan to combat congestion. As of February next year, a ring of 200 cameras linked to computers programmed to recognize licence plates will start scanning 40,000 number plates an hour. The 250,000 motorists who drive into 21 square kilometres (8 square miles) of the city centre between 7am and 6.30pm every day will have to pay £5 a day for the privilege. Those who fail to do so will face an automatic £80 penalty unless they fall into one of the several exempt categories, such as taxi drivers or nurses on duty.

So far, so good. Mr Livingstone seems to be on the ‘free market’ track trying to play the supply and demand game. The article also confirmed my observation that over the past two years, congestion has been getting noticeably worse with average traffic speed dropping from ten miles an hour to nine – slower than at any time since the car took over from the horse and carriage. What really got my attention was that the mayor’s critics say this is not a coincidence. They maintain that Mr Livingstone is deliberately making things worse before his scheme is introduced so that it will appear to work miracles. For example, the combination of new bus lanes, longer red traffic lights and more pedestrian crossings mean more delays for drivers. I can confirm all of these have appeared on my regular routes.

The timing of traffic lights is being subtly changed all over London. A few seconds’ difference can affect traffic for several miles. “Double-cycling” – traffic lights which allow pedestrians twice as much time as cars at busy crossings can have a painful impact – there are places in Central London where forty seconds out of every minute are devoted to pedestrians, leaving twelve seconds for one stream of traffic and eight for another. And of course, road works can always be relied upon to do the trick. You can hear the arteries slamming shut, as drivers’ adrenalin levels rise steadily during London’s rush hours.

The details of how exactly Mr Livingstone can make the London traffic more hellish is important because it is half-way to proving that he is doing so. Yes, the same old story – the mayor is up for re-election in two years’ time and has staked his political future on congestion-charging. Mr Livingstone needs the scheme to be seen to work. Suddenly, his objectives are no longer aligned with mine and those of thousands of frustrated drivers. The saviour turns into the devil, deceiving us in the very act of making the situation ‘better’.

What matters is that those who drive cars in the centre of London during the day are a tiny minority compared with the millions who walk or use public transport – and as any good politician, he can count his votes.

Paul Marks takes a radical view of Britain’s transport system

No one has yet explained to me why the railways could not have been sold as a single unit.

If it had been more efficient to brake up British Rail into regional companies then the new owners would have done just that. Just as if it had been more efficient for the rail to be owned by one company, and have the trains run by other companies this is what would have evolved via the choices of people buying and selling shares (“market forces” are, of course, simply the choices of people engaged in trading). There was certainly no need for the government to engage in complicated schemes – just sell the thing and stand back.

People often talk for the need for subsidies for the railways to compete with the roads (and, to a lesser extent, the airlines) – but whilst I am pleased to accept the fact that the railways and roads do compete for custom (which rather undermines the idea that the railways must be compulsorily broken up to ensure “competition”) I think the whole idea that the railways must fall apart without subsidies is false.

Firstly the roads should not be provided “free” (i.e. free at the point of use) by the state. The problem is not that the government builds motorways late – the problem is that it builds them at all. If people want motorways let them build them and charge people to use them (such things as “road tax” should, of course, be abolished). If people really want to build free motorways let them do so – but I doubt charitable people will put up enough money for this idea.

As for the railways – subsidies should be abolished, but so should regulations. The railways have been attacked by regulations as far back as the 19th century (there were such things as profit controls even then), but in 1906 the government basically declared war on the private railways. Putting trade unions above the law of contract (i.e. outside civil interaction) hit British industry badly – but the railways companies were a specific target of the 1906 Act (the Act was, after all, a direct reaction to the “Taff Vale Judgement” in which the courts declared that a railways company had the right to sue a trade union for organised contract breaking). The “Liberal” government of the day also launched a tidal wave of regulations at the railway companies in the period 1906 to 1914. And then (during the First World War) the railways were taken over by the government, maintenance neglected and the system undermined. We should be very wary of making claims such as the idea that the British railway system was the best in the world in 1919 – such claims are not only rather easy for statists to refute, but (more importantly) undermine the libertarian case that regulations and state control have undermined the railways.

Why the history lesson? Simple – after the returning of the railways to a sort of private ownership history repeated itself. First history repeated itself as farce – in that the government of Mr Major did not intend to harm private railway companies with regulations (but did anyway). And then history repeated itself in a straightforward way with the Labour government’s transport boss (Mr Prescott) setting out to undermine the railway companies as much as he could. A policy continued by his supposedly arch “New Labour” successor as transport boss.

Without the regulations the railways might well be able to compete quite well with the roads without any subsidies at all – even if the roads remained free.

And (of course) a railway system without regulations would be a much safer railway system – as it would be clear who was in charge and who was responsible.

Paul Marks