Anarchy 44/Transport: the scope for citizen action - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:32, 30 December 2018

2018-12-30T01:32:29Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:09, 30 December 2018

2018-12-30T01:09:18Z

imported>Ivanhoe at 05:43, 28 December 2018

2018-12-28T05:43:12Z

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 44 (Vol 4 No 10) October 1964
Transport: the scope for citizen action | author = Joe Garnett | section = | previous = [..."

2018-12-28T03:26:26Z

Created page with "{{header | title = [[../|ANARCHY 44 (Vol 4 No 10) October 1964]] Transport: the scope for citizen action | author = Joe Garnett | section = | previous = [..."

New page

{{header
| title = [[../|ANARCHY 44 (Vol 4 No 10) October 1964]] Transport: the scope for citizen action
| author = Joe Garnett
| section =
| previous = [[../Too many cars|Too many cars]]
| next = [[../The morality of anarchism|The morality of anarchism]]
| notes =
}}

<div style="max-width:500px; margin:auto;">{{p|304}}

'''Transport: the scope''' '''for citizen action'''

'''[[Author:Joe Garnett|JOE GARNETT]]'''

<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|One of the objections raised to the point of view}} of anarchists and other decentralists is that they ignore the complexities of planning for the social needs of densely-populated urban societies like our own. Yet what stands out from a consideration of the transport muddle is that there is ''no'' plan: there are instead a variety of official bodies, unco-ordinated, working in isolation and often in secrecy, producing muddle, confusion and waste on en enormous scale.

{{tab}}Ministries, nationalised industries, local authorities large and small are working away with long-term and short-term plans, and putting schemes into operation at enormous costs which turn out to have been obsolete before they left the drawing board. To rub the point home, let us itemise just half-a-dozen current examples from the press:

{{tab}}1.&emsp;When {{w|British European Airways|British_European_Airways}} makes a loss on its services, the government decides that the services are to be kept going and the empty seats filled by ''reducing'' the fares. When {{w|British Railways|British_Rail}} makes a loss on its services, trains with empty seats are discontinued, and fares on those remaining are ''increased''.

{{tab}}2.&emsp;Among the stations closed on September 6th this year was {{w|Castlethorpe|Castlethorpe_railway_station}}, {{w|Bucks|Buckinghamshire}}, on the main {{w|Euston|Euston_railway_station}}-{{w|Crewe|Crewe_railway_station}} line, where villagers sat down in front of the last train in protest. More than £40,000 had recently been spent on modernising their station.

{{tab}}3.&emsp;At {{w|Stranraer|Stranraer}} in the west of {{w|Scotland|Scotland}}, where the government is subsidising new industrial enterprise, British Railways recently put into service a new {{popup|3,500 ton|approx. 3,556 metric tonnes}} {{w|ship|TSS_Caledonain_Princess}}, specially designed for the Stranraer-{{w|Larne}} ferry. But in Dr. {{w|Beeching|Richard_Beeching}}{{s}} {{w|plan|Beeching_cuts}}, Stranraer will not only lose all its special express boat trains from {{w|London}}, {{w|Newcastle|Newcastle_upon_Tyne}} and {{w|Glasgow|Glasgow}}, but it will actually become almost 60 miles distant from the nearest passenger-carrying station.

{{tab}}4.&emsp;The London Traffic Management Unit of the {{w|Ministry of Transport|Department_for_Transport}} is attempting to alleviate traffic problems in London by introducing large-scale {{w|one-way traffic|One-way_traffic}} systems. Simultaneously the {{w|London County Council|London_County_Council}} is trying to do the same thing by large-scale {{w|roundabouts|Roundabout}}, like those in the {{w|Red Lion Square|Red_Lion_Square}} and {{w|St. Giles Circus|St_Giles_Circus}} areas. The two methods contradict and cancel out each other.

{{tab}}5.&emsp;{{w|Battersea Council|Metropolitan_Borough_of_Battersea}} has had to abandon a major part of its housing programme, because of proposals for a six-lane motorway which no-one had told the Council about and of which it had never heard until planning permission for one of its housing schemes was refused.

{{p|305}}{{tab}}6.&emsp;Doctor Beeching is proposing to close the railway between {{w|Newcastle|Newcastle_railway_station}} and {{w|Washington|Washington_railway_station_(England)}} in {{w|County Durham|County_Durham}} at the very moment when a {{w|New Town|New_towns_in_the_United_Kingdom}} is to be built there.

{{tab}}What is the remedy for absurdities of this kind? The {{w|Labour Party|Labour_Party_(UK)}} (which can hardly blame {{qq|the jungle of private enterprise}} since it is public bodies which are involved in each of these instances) proposes yet another government department to co-ordinate the activities of all these bodies, and produce what we so conspicuously lack: a plan for transport. In terms of practical politics and procedure, the trouble with this kind of {{qq|overlord}} body is that in practice it is never given the power it seeks{{dash|and is never strong enough to overrule sectional interests}}this is the experience of {{qq|democratic}} countries like Britain and the USA as much as that of {{qq|dictatorships}} like {{w|Nazi Germany|Nazi_Germany}} and {{w|Stalin|Joseph_Stalin}}{{s}} {{w|Russia|History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927–1953)}}.

{{p|s1}}'''A citizen{{s|r}} plan'''

{{tab}}Our own approach

{{p|s2}}'''Citizens against Beeching'''

{{tab}}One citizen{{s|r}} initiative

{{p|s3}}'''And for Buchanan'''

{{tab}}Similar citizen{{s|r}} groups

{{p|s4}}'''A social situation'''

{{tab}}An example of this
</div>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Transport : the scope for citizen action}}
[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Transport]]
[[Category:Articles]]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 {{tab}}Sim&shy;ilar citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} groups have been formed to {{qq|im&shy;ple&shy;ment}} the Buchanan Re&shy;port{{dash}}in the sense of ap&shy;ply&shy;ing Buchanan{{s}} ap&shy;proach to local prob&shy;lems. This is an up&shy;hill task, as this letter from Mr. Robert Timms demon&shy;strates:
@@ Line 62: / Line 66: @@
-{{tab}}An example of this
+{{tab}}An example of this comes from an&shy;other field of trans&shy;port, the {{w|canal|Canal}} system. In sharp con&shy;trast with other coun&shy;tries where large-<wbr>scale con&shy;struc&shy;tion of canals is being under&shy;taken today, canal-<wbr>build&shy;ing in this coun&shy;try, apart from the {{w|Man&shy;chester Ship Canal|Manchester_Ship_Canal}}, ceased in 1850. Canals are by far the cheap&shy;est, safest and quiet&shy;est means of regular heavy freight traf&shy;fic. (Even our neg&shy;lec&shy;ted canals in this coun&shy;try carry over 4,000,000 tons of coal, 2,500,000 tons of petro&shy;leum pro&shy;ducts and more than 3,000,000 tons of gen&shy;eral merchan&shy;dise annu&shy;ally. Mr. {{w|Marples|Ernest_Marples}}, need&shy;less to say, would like to fill them up and forget about them. But other people, not&shy;ably the re&shy;doubt&shy;able {{w|Robert Aickman|Robert_Aickman}}, of the {{w|In&shy;land Water&shy;ways Asso&shy;ci&shy;a&shy;tion|Inland_Waterways_Association}}, think dif&shy;fer&shy;ently, and the ex&shy;ample we have in mind is the {{w|Strat&shy;ford Canal|Stratford-upon-Avon_Canal}} re&shy;stored to use thanks to a {{w|Mid&shy;lands|The_Midlands}} archi&shy;tect {{l|{{popup|David Hutch&shy;ings|(1927‒2005)}}|https://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/local-news/waterways-pioneer-hutchings-dies-aged-3997997}}.
 </div>

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
-{{tab}}Our own ap&shy;proach
+{{tab}}Our own ap&shy;proach would be quite dif&shy;fer&shy;ent. We want a citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} plan for trans&shy;port: an al&shy;tern&shy;at&shy;ive to of&shy;fi&shy;cial pro&shy;pos&shy;als, to serve as a focus for in&shy;formed pres&shy;sure and agit&shy;a&shy;tion. We would like to see trans&shy;port work&shy;ers and trans&shy;port users draw up their own na&shy;tional plan, and then en&shy;force it. The in&shy;dis&shy;pens&shy;ible bodies of spe&shy;cial know&shy;ledge al&shy;ready ex&shy;ist in the form of the trans&shy;port work&shy;er{{s|r}} unions and trans&shy;port users as&shy;so&shy;ci&shy;a&shy;tions. Now, when every&shy;body has some inter&shy;est in the sub&shy;ject either be&shy;cause of their own actual trans&shy;port prob&shy;lems or be&shy;cause of the im&shy;pact of the {{w|Beech&shy;ing Re&shy;port|Beeching_cuts}} and the {{w|Buchanan Report|Traffic_in_Towns}} (which has made every&shy;one aware of the link be&shy;tween {{w|town-<wbr>plan&shy;ning|Urban_planning}} and {{w|trans&shy;port plan&shy;ning|Transportation_planning}}) is the time for trans&shy;port users and trans&shy;port work&shy;ers to pre&shy;pare their own local and na&shy;tional plans.
@@ Line 44: / Line 50: @@
-{{tab}}One citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} ini&shy;tiat&shy;ive
+{{tab}}One citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} ini&shy;tiat&shy;ive set off by the Beech&shy;ing Re&shy;port is em&shy;bod&shy;ied in the pamph&shy;let ''{{l|Hamp&shy;stead and the Broad Street Line|http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/76dffc3e-d70f-4122-867e-d14db886a30d}},'' pub&shy;lished by the Save the Broad Street Line Com&shy;mit&shy;tee, 62 Upper Park Road, London NW3. (3s. by post). Dr. Beech&shy;ing pro&shy;posed to close the {{w|Broad Street|Broad_Street_railway_station_(England)}} to {{w|Rich&shy;mond|Richmond_station_(London)}} Line to pas&shy;sen&shy;gers, even though it car&shy;ries 18,000 of them a day, on the grounds that the ser&shy;vice loses money. A pub&shy;lic meet&shy;ing was held to pro&shy;test about the pro&shy;posed closure, and it set up a com&shy;mit&shy;tee which has pro&shy;duced a re&shy;port that not only de&shy;mo&shy;lishes Dr. Beech&shy;ing{{s}} cal&shy;cul&shy;a&shy;tions, but in&shy;vest&shy;igates in de&shy;tail who ac&shy;tually uses the line and what the cost of al&shy;tern&shy;at&shy;ive means of trans&shy;port would be. The so&shy;cial cost ana&shy;lysis set out in this re&shy;port in&shy;dic&shy;ates that the actual cost to the com&shy;mun&shy;ity as a whole of clos&shy;ing the line would be &pound;578,000 a year, as op&shy;posed to the claim by Dr. Beech&shy;ing that Brit&shy;ish Rail&shy;ways lose &pound;69,000 a year on run&shy;ning the pas&shy;sen&shy;ger ser&shy;vice. The de&shy;tail and im&shy;pec&shy;cable stat&shy;ist&shy;ical ana&shy;lysis which this group of citi&shy;zens has as&shy;sem&shy;bled will cer&shy;tainly make it con&shy;sider&shy;ably more dif&shy;fic&shy;ult to close the line.
@@ Line 50: / Line 56: @@
-{{tab}}Sim&shy;ilar citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} groups
+{{tab}}Sim&shy;ilar citi&shy;zen{{s|r}} groups have been formed to {{qq|im&shy;ple&shy;ment}} the Buchanan Re&shy;port{{dash}}in the sense of ap&shy;ply&shy;ing Buchanan{{s}} ap&shy;proach to local prob&shy;lems. This is an up&shy;hill task, as this letter from Mr. Robert Timms demon&shy;strates:
@@ Line 60: / Line 66: @@
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Transport : the scope for citizen action}}
 [[Category:Government]]
 [[Category:Transport]]
 [[Category:Articles]]

Anarchy 44/Transport: the scope for citizen action - Revision history

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:32, 30 December 2018

imported>Ivanhoe at 01:09, 30 December 2018

imported>Ivanhoe at 05:43, 28 December 2018

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 44 (Vol 4 No 10) October 1964Transport: the scope for citizen action | author = Joe Garnett | section = | previous = [..."

imported>Ivanhoe: Created page with "{{header | title = ANARCHY 44 (Vol 4 No 10) October 1964
Transport: the scope for citizen action | author = Joe Garnett | section = | previous = [..."