A SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT STRATEGY FOR LONDON: BASELINE

POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Joanna Williams
University of Luton

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Sustainable Systems

Sustainability is a concept being aired in the current environmentally and socially

aware climate. It is a concept relevant within all areas of society, not least transport.
Sustainability is both an idea in its infancy and one which is perceived in a variety of
ways. A sustainable system is one in which physical and social environments are
protected to maintain or improve the quality of life for present and future generations.
The Brundtland Report (1987) suggests that a sustainable system must preserve the
physical environment’s ability to provide basic “life support’’ services, such as clean
air, fresh water, fertile land, diverse and stable ecological systems and climate
regulation. A sustainable system is one which accepts that the environment places
absolute limits on some kinds of human behaviour and that the human race lives
within its environmental means.

The key requirements for a sustainable system include the following:

* A reduction in energy and resource consumption
* Minimisation of waste production and emissions
* The protection of the diversity and variety of life
* Equity within present society

1.2 Criteria for Sustainable Transport Systems

The criteria for sustainable transport systems were outlined in the “Draft Guide:
Advice on Strategic Planning Guidance for London” ( 1993), produced by the London
Planning Advisory Committee. The criteria included:
* The need to reduce emissions from all modes of transport
* The need to protect species and natural habitats
* The need to provide an environmentally friendly transport system which is
accessible to all people
In order to fulfil these criteria, the movement of both freight and people must be
reduced Also modal shift towards less environmentally damaging modes must be
encouraged. This requires planning of development and amenities to minimise travel
requirements: increasing the availability and attractiveness of the public transport
system and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists; ensuring that these alternatives are
affordable and accessible. The solutions regarding the creation of sustainable
transport systems, networks and strategies have been well documented in a variety of
literature, for example Deelstra’s Oppurlunities and Initiuiivesfiw Sustainable Tr@c
and h n s p o r t in (khan Regions in Iiurope ( I 992), Ecotec’s Reducing I<missrons
7’hroughI’lunning ( I 993). Glaister’s ’li.Cmspori Options fi,r Imxion (1991) and Hatt’s
Mriving 7iiward~Sustuinuhle Mobility (IY93). Indeed they have been implemented to
varying degrees in many urban environments. Thus the author shall not discuss the
more general issues here Instead this paper aims to briefly evaluate the situation in a
prestigious World City, London.

This Paper will provide an overview of sustainable transport policy and

implementation within London, based on a study completed immediately after the
release of the revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, 1994 (PPG13).
The study, A Su.srainahle Transport Slrategy for Metropolitan 1,ondon (1994)
researched baseline policy and implementation at this time within a representative
sample of London Boroughs. The methodology, results and conclusions of the
research will be presented and the implications of these for monitoring future
transport strategies discussed,

2.0 THE SITUATION IN LONDON: AN OVERVIEW

At present many governmental, academic and environmental organisations (including

London Boroughs, Department of Transport, Department of Environment, Integrated
Regional Oftice, London Planning Advisory Committee, Transport 2000 and London
research Centre) are involved in the creation of policies and their implementation to
achieve a sustainable transport strategy in the metropolis. Most perceive that the very
viability of London as a World City is dependant on the creation of a sustainable
transport strategy, to be implemented at a strategic level. However, the actors
involved in transport policy and implementation are aware of the difficulties of
implementing such a strategy within the metropolis. The transport system has
developed in the metropolis in an unplanned way It has been heavily influenced by
geological conditions, the polycentric nature of the city, the unplanned growth points
dictated by economic viability rather than a strong land use planning system, the
stability of the urban structure and high travel demand.

It is these influences which tend to ensure the rigidity of the existing system and
create problems in the implementation of a more sustainable transport strategy. In
addition, further complications including inadequate investment in sustainable
transport systems, lack of integration at a strategic level of transport networks and
land use planning. public opinion and expense of infrastructure; which prevent the
implementation of a sustainable transport strategy in London.
The major problems preventing the creation of a sustainable transport strateby in
London can be summarised as being:
* The lack of central government investment in an ageing public transport
network
* The lack of strategic vision and co-ordination within the transport system
* The relatively stable urban fabric which reduces the effect of land use
planning policies as a tool to implement sustainable transport

* Central Government’s economic philosophy, which overrides the need for a

sustainable transport system

* The lack of strategic co-ordination between land-use and transport

policiesiinitiatives by a democratically elected and locally representative
London-wide body

* Ownership of transport infrastructure

* Public opinion

In outer London the transport system is particularly unsustainable due to a variety of

reasons. These include:
* Lack of sustainable transport networks/systems operating especially between
and within suburban boroughs
* Dispersed and low density form of development

* Dispersed land-use activities

* Lack of traffidparking restraint policies and initiatives
* Lack of major public transport terminals in outer London

To solve these problems would prove an enormous task. To provide the necessary
transport infrastructure would prove exceedingly expensive. Alternatively, to alter the
land use pattern thus reducing the need to travel would be a slow and difficult task.
Perhaps the greatest challenge of all would be to encourage the awareness of people
and freight using sustainable modes.

However, the problems created by an unsustainable transport strategy are growing.

Within London a peculiar deomgraphic phenomenon is occurring which has
implications for the transport network. The population is declining significantly, but
the number of trips within the city are increasing rapidly. The demand placed on
roads is increasing at a rate which cannot be sustained. Congestion is becoming a
major problem with traffic speeds dropping, emissions and energy consumption rising
rapidly.
The economic losses for operators and employers are increasing as congestion
becomes more of a problem. Thus threatening the physical, social and economic
future of the metropolis.

3.0 A BASELINE STUDY OF POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION: POST

PLANNING POLICY GIIIDANCE NOTE 13 1994 (PPG13)

3.1 Research Overview

In order to measure the successful implementation of the vast amount of sustainable

transport policy which is being produced at national and local levels, a baseline for
policy and implementation must be established. This paper provides that baseline, as
researched immediately aRer the release of PPG13 in 1994.

The research was based on a representative sample of the 33 London Boroughs. In

all, 13 boroughs were included in the survey, chosen according to geographical
locations and political control of the local authority at that time, (see figure I).

The main areas of research included:

* An assessment of the sustainability of each borough’s transport policies and
implementation

* An assessment of the prioritisation of the London Planning Advisory

Committees proposals and objectives for creating a sustainable transport system
(found in London Planning Advisoty Committee: 1994 Advice on Strategic
Planning Guidance for London)
* An assessment of each borough’s response to the creation of a London-wide
transport and land-use planning body.

3.2 Methodology and Results

A questionnaire survey was carried out in the 13 boroughs, (see figure 1 ) to assess the
areas of research outlined above. Where information was insufficient, additional data
was obtained through the borough’s Transport Policy Programmes. Initially, an
inventory of ‘green’ initiatives within each borough was carried out, in order to
ascertain the existing framework for sustainable policy implementation. The results
are illustrated in figure 2.

An assessment of the sustainability of borough transport policy and implementation

for both movement of people and freight was then completed. In order to conduct
this assessment criteria to measure the sustainability of each boroughs transport
strateby were required Eventually a system was opted for, which adapted criteria
outlined by the London Planning Advisory Committee for the creation of a
sustainable transport strategy, (see section I.2) . These criteria were chosen as they
were compiled especially for the London area after consultation with the boroughs.
Thus they were specific to the area of study.
Using these criteria, the sustainability of each boroughs transport strateby ( a
combination of policies and initiatives), was assessed. The assessment fell into 6
categories desibmed to examine the proactive and restrictive transport strategies
operated in each borough. These were:
* Initiatives and policies designed to encourage modal-shift

* Initiatives and policies designed to co-ordinate transport strategies and

development of land.
* Initiatives and policies specifically designed to restrict private car use

* Initiatives and policies to ensure accessibility to all people.

* Initiatives and policies designed to use transport to facilitate growth and
development.
* Initiatives and policies designed to increase security and safety in the transport
sector.

A weighting system was constructed whereby those policies and initiatives which
fulfilled a greater number of criteria, scored a greater number of points. Weighting
was decided using the initiaI criteria outlined earlier. Broadly speaking the criteria
were sub-divided into 2 types: criteria for environmental protection and criteria for
accessibility. If a policy or initiative fulfilled only one criteria, either accessibility or
environmental criteria, then it scored less than those incorporating both. The London
Planning Advisory Committee criteria were more heavily biased towards
environmental protection, rather than accessibility, which was reflected in the point
weighting (see appendix 1).

For each borough the following study areas were assessed using the scoring system
described above.
* Traffic management initiatives (see figure 3)
* Modal shift initiatives (see figure 4)
* Transport accessibility and development initiatives (see figure 5 )
* Finance for initiatives (see figure 5)
* Borough policy (see figure 6 )
A total sustainability score was then calculated for each borough in the sample (see
figure 7) The boroughs were then ranked according to their sustainability score.
Further analysis was carried out relating the effect of the location of the borough and
political control on baseline policy and implementation (see figure 8).This study
provided an inventory of baseline transport policy and implementation, restrictive and
proactive transport strategies during 1994. Offering an evaluation of the
sustainability of transport strategies in London Boroughs before the implementation
ofPPG13.

A second study was carried out to assess the priontisation of the London Planning
Advisory Committee (LPAC) proposals and objectives for creating a sustainable
transport strategy. The key objectives and proposals as suggested by LPAC in Advice
on Strategic Planning Guidance for London (1994) were as follows:

Objectives:

* Increase accessibility between activities ( 1)

* Transport for development and regeneration (2)
* Environmental considerations and reduction in travel (3)
* Efficient use of scarce resources (4)

* Safety and security (5)

Proposals
* Co-ordinate land use and transport planning ( 1 )
* Restrain car use (2)

* Improve traffic management (3)

* Improve cycling and walking facilities (4)

* Improve assisting measures for the mobility handicapped ( 5 )
* Enhance transport efficiency and modal diversity ( 6 )
* Enhance international transport networks (7)
 Each borough was asked to prioritise the objectives and proposals listed, the aim of
the research being to assess the level of agreement and co-ordination relating to
sustainable transport priorities and objectives between boroughs (see figure 9). The
variables of political control and geographical location were incorporated into the
study To enhance the findings of this study, further research was carried out to assess
the response of local authorities to the creation of a London-wide strategic land-use
and transport planning body (see figure 10). Such a body would ultimately unify
borough transport priorities and co-ordinate a sustainable transport strategy London-
wide.

3.3 Evaluation

It is,apparent that sustainability of borough transport strategy varies both with location
and political control , Political control appears to affect the borough policies and
expenditure relating to transport strategy. General trends indicate that those under
conservative control score a lower sustainability value. Those scoring higher for
sustainable transport are inner London, Labour-controlled boroughs (e.g. Camden,
Lewisham, and Southwark). The least sustainable transport strategies are operated in
outer London, Conservative-controlled boroughs (Bromley, Ealing and Bamet). The
most sustainable transport initiatives exist in inner London, Labour-controlled
boroughs, but the most sustainable transport policies are found in Outer London, non-
conservative controlled authorities including Sutton, Kingston and Havering.
Exceptions to these trends included Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston
and Havering. Wandsworth has the second most sustainable transport strategy in the
survey, an inner London, conservative-controlled borough. Kensington and Chelsea
has the least sustainable transport strategy of those boroughs surveyed, yet it is an
inner London borough.

The explanation for these anomalies can be discussed further. Wandsworth is a

flagship borough for the Conservative administration. It is a capital rich borough and
thus its expenditure is correspondingly high. Therefore it has the resources to spend
on the implementation and policing of various sustainable transport initiatives
including: the provision of cycle ways and strict parking controls. The borough is
also mainly residential, well connected with retail and commercial centres by an
efficient rail and bus network. These factors allow a more sustainable transport
strategy to operate. The growth of commercial, retail and industrial development has
been concentrated in areas serviced by the few major transport corridors found in the
borough. Therefore, the impact of freight and passenger traffic has been restricted to
these corridors. The strict enforcement of traffic management initiatives within the
boroughs also allow for the free-flow of traffic within these corridors.

In contrast Kensington and Chelsea has suffered from diversity of land use within the
borough and the fact that the area acts as a retail magnet. This causes problems with
heavy traffic flow in the areas of high retail concentration as a result of both
deliveries and shoppers. The provision of public transport services is excellent within
the areas of high retail concentration, but there are areas which are not adequately
serviced in the borough, leading to social isolation or increasing car use.
Social polarisation within the borough is extreme and thus accessibility issues arise.
Finally at this early stage Kensington and Chelsea had not truly considered the
implications of the revised version of PPG13, certainly not incorporated sustainable
policies into their Transport Policies Programme. However it is quite possible that in
the succeeding years this situation has been rectified and sustainable transport
policies have been incorporated into the more up-to-date version of the Transport
Policy Programme. However. Kensington and Chelsea still has major problems in
implementing such policies due to polarisation of the boroughs population and the
dispersed nature and lack of inter-connectivity between land use and transport
systems

Generally, Inner London boroughs implement more sustainable transport initiatives

than Outer London boroughs, (with a few exceptions- Kensington and Chelsea,
Kingston and Newham, see figures 7 and 8). But transport policies are equally
sustainable in Inner and Outer London boroughs. Overall, Inner London boroughs
transport strategies (both initiatives and policies combined) are more sustainable -
why? The comparatively high sustainability of Inner London boroughs transport
initiatives, can easily be explained. Firstly, most Inner London boroughs are well
served by the public transport system and hence have a high propensity for modal-
shift (see figure 4). Inner London boroughs also have more stringent traffic
management measures, which reduces car use and encourages modal-shift, (see figure
3). Boroughs in Inner London also have better access to major transport terminals
and nationallinternational networks ( see figure 5 ) . Within Inner London the need to
travel is reduced by the shorter distances between activities, resulting from high
density development and mixed-uses. Finally, Inner London boroughs are inclined to
spend a &Teater proportion of their budget on encouraging modal-shift, traffic
management and improving transport access for the mobility handicapped ( see figure
5).

Outer London boroughs transport policies are equally as sustainable as Inner London
boroughs transport policies ( see figure 8). Outer London boroughs consider that
transport efficiency, modal-diversity, environmental considerations and reduction in
travel are the main objectives in creating a sustainable transport strateby (see fig 9a).
All these are sustainable objectives, but because Outer London boroughs
have poor public transport links and land-use activities which are more dispersed,
(and further from major transport terminals), a great deal of expenditure would be
required to improve the transport network, to the level subscribed to in Inner London.
Changes in land-use pattern to increase densities in the suburbs, encourage focal
points and mixed-use development would also be required, in order to emulate the
lnner London. Thus, tt is likely that suburban boroughs will tend to have less
sustainable transport strategies. Without a great deal of expenditure and a change in
land-use pattern, this will not alter.
There were various findings relating to the boroughs response to LPAC’s objectives
and proposals for creating sustainable transport strategies ( listed in 3.2). The findings
indicated a wide variation in borough policy priorities, but consistency in priority for
inner London boroughs and similarly for outer London boroughs. Boroughs of all
types appear to view LPAC’s proposal to enhance international transport networks as
being of least importance, generally finding that transport efficiency and modal
diversity is highest ranked, ( although this varies with political control). The highest
ranked LPAC objective within the London boroughs also varies with location and
political control. The most important objectives according to inner London Labour-
controlled authorities and outer London non-conservative controlled authorities is the
promotion of development and regeneration through transport initiatives. The least
important objective for this group being the efficient use of scarce resources in
transport initiatives. The most important objective for outer London conservative-
controlled authorities and inner London conservative-controlled authorities is to
reduce travel and increase environmental consideration initiatives. The least
important objective being the need to increase accessibility of the transport system.
Consensus of opinion in these matters is lacking, especially within non-conservative
controlled boroughs in Outer London, which indicates the need for a London-wide,
strategic land use and transport planning body to co-ordinate strategy and opinion.

Finally it appears from the third assessment, that the majority of boroughs questioned
believe a London-wide transport and land-use planning body is needed to co-ordinate
and manage a sustainable transport strategy successfully, (see figure 10 ). The results
showed that 46% of those asked were in favour of a London-wide body of this sort,
23% were against, 15.5% abstained and the remaining 15.5% felt that the London
Planning Advisory Committee already fulfilled the role satisfactorily. Certainly the
lack of consensus between boroughs in prioritising LPAC’s objectives and proposals
for a sustainable transport strategy, suggest the need for some degree of co-ordination.
Also poor co-ordination of traffic management schemes London-wide point to a need
for overall co-ordination.

From this,’ respondents to the baseline study suggested various innovations to the
transport strategy in London.

Financing sustainable transport strategies was seen as a major obstacle to

implementation. Observers suggested the following as possible solutions:
* The hypothecation of taxes from congestion pricing and fuel tax invested in
the public transport system
* The reassessment of London’s transport budget to place greater emphasis on
public transport (as suggested by Transport 2000)
* Funding received through planning obligations placed on any new
development
Respondents also suggested that the integration of land use and transport strategies
was the key to a sustainable transport system, as outlined in the revised PPG13 and
London Transport Policies and Programmes 1995-6: Draft Guidance to Local
Authorities, London, HMSO, (1994). In order to achieve this development needs to be
concentrated in existing transport comdors and thus an assessment of all transport
corridors in London for possible development opportunities is required. Respondents
to the survey also outlined schemes to encourage modal shift in both passenger and
freight transport. These included:

* The creation of an orbital light-rail network linking the SWOPTIONS scheme

with other suburban rail/ tram routes.

* Re-use of canals and River Thames for freight and passenger transport

* Introduction of trolley-buses in the West End and the City

Finally the respondents highlighted the need for a co-ordinating body to implement
policies London-wide. It was suggested that this could be achieved through:
* The creation of a strategic London-wide body controlling transport and
development decisions on a London-wide basis, answerable ideally to a
democratically elected regional authority or a Minister for London.
* Such a body should be elected, but in order to allow continuity of policy
elections should take the following format-

- elected by proportional representation

- 25% of the members elected once every 2 years, on an 8 year election cycle.
- or a QUANGO of which half the representatives were elected by the
Secretary of State and half by proportional representation (on an 8-10 year
basis).

* The strategic body would co-ordinate land use and transport strategies,
promote modal shift and co-ordinate traffic restraint policies.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions from this research suggested the following:

* To provide an outline of baseline characteristics for freight and passenger
transport, policies and implementation as it existed in a sample of London
boroughs in 1994. post PPG13
* To assess the sustainability of freight and passenger transport policies and
their implementation in 1994, using the criteria for sustainable transport
systems outlined by the London Planning Advisory Committee (see 1.2).

* To assess the sample boroughs prioritisation of the objectives and proposals

for sustainable transport strategies outlined by the London Planning Advisory
Committee (see 3.2)
* To ascertain the sample boroughs support for these objectives and proposals,
and co-ordination of transport strategies between boroughs
* To ascertain support in the sample boroughs for support for a London-wide
strategic land use and transport planning body, to administer sustainable
transport policy.

In conducting this research the author provides an outline of the situation regarding
sustainable transport policy and implementation at the introduction of the relevant
guidance 1994, including: the revised version ofPPG13 (1994); the Department of
Transport, Draft Guidance to Local Authorities on London’s Transport Policies and
Programmes for 1995-96 (1994); London Planning Advisory Committee, Strategic
Planning Guidance for London (1994).

Using this research the shortfalls in freight and passenger transport policy and
implementation during this period have been highlighted. By utilising this baseline
information, improvements in policy and implementation which have resulted from
the guidance in 1994 can be monitored, using the LPAC criteria listed in I .2. Also the
incorporation of LPAC’s proposals and objectives in borough transport strategies can
be monitored, as can the co-ordination of borough transport strategies on a London-
wide basis.

It would be useful to conduct a series of similar surveys at intervals in order to

ascertain the impact of the new policy guidance on transport policy and
implementation. Certainly after each Unitary Development Plan update a similar
survey should be conducted to monitor the incorporation of policy guidance into the
plan and it’s success at a local level. Changes in political control within the local
authorities has also been shown to affect policy and financing of various transport
strategies and thus monitoring change resulting from political shifts would be
essential. Further to this the establishment of new administrative structures, for
example a London-wide strategic land use planning and transport body, is also likely
to affect policy and implementation, which must also be monitored.

The author has mentioned here the instrumental role of governmental institutions in
the creation of policy and implementation. However, it must not be overlooked that
transport operators play a major part in provision, certainly for passenger transport.
Therefore, the impact of any change in policy or practice generated by the operator
must be monitored too. For example, the possibility of future deregulation of the bus
network and the certain privatisation of some parts of the rail network, will have
implications for both passenger and freight transport. This is also certain to impact on
the sustainability of the transport system in operation and thus should be monitored.
Obviously, major changes in operation are ultimately controlled by Central
Government through policy and legislation.

Finally, the framework outlined here can be used to monitor the impact of new
transport technologies introduced within the London area. It would be extremely
interesting to assess whether new technologies introduced can actually enable the
existing transport system to operate in a more sustainable manner, measured against
the LPAC criteria (see I .2). Secondly to ascertain whether the new technology
actually enables LPAC’s proposals and objectives, listed in 3.2 , to be fulfilled on a
London-wide basis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Deelstra, T, 1992. Oppurtunities und Initiatives for Sustumuhle Trufic and Transport
in ilrhun Kegions in 1:urope.

Departments of Environment and Transport, 1994, Plunnig Policy (hidunce:

7iun.sporl :i’tYi13 (revised version), HMSO, London.

Department of Transport (London Policy Division), 1994, 1,ondun Trunsport Policies

und f’rrigrummes 1995-6: Ilrufr (;uidunce to l,ocul Authorrties, HMSO, London.

Ecotec and Research Consulting, 1993, Reducing Emissions Through Plunning,

HMSO. London.

Glaister, S et a1 ,199 1, Trunsport Options jiv /,ondon. Greater London Group,

London.

Hatt, M et al , 1993, A hnsportution Study .fiw Plymouth ; Moving 7owurd.s

Sustuinuhle Mobility.

Local Government Management Board, 1993, 1,ocul Agendu 21: A Frumework for
Imcul .Su.stuinuhility, LGMB, Luton.

Local Government Management Board, 1993, The I<( ‘ Ys I~$hEnvironmentul Action

f’rogrumme - A Guide to I,ocul Authorities, LGMB, London.

London Planning Advisory Committee, 1994, IY9-l Advice on Strutegic I’lunnig

(;uiduncefor /.ondon, LPAC, London.

Williams, J, 1994 A Sustuinuhle Trunsport Strulely5ir Metropolrtun 1,ondun. UCL ,

London ( Mphil thesis).

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, The Hrundtlund

Kcyorl: Our ( ’ommonI.’ulure, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Other Sources:

Unitary development plans and Transport Policy and Progammes from the following
boroughs:

Barnet, Bromley, Camden, Ealing, Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston,

Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Sutton, Wandsworth, The Corporation of London.
APPENDIX 1:

SIJMMARY OF POINT WEIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORT POLICIES AND INITIATIVES.

Initiatives or policies to encourage modal shift score for both environmental

scores for both environmental and accessibility criteria: scores 6 points.

Initiatives or policies designed to co-ordinate transport development and land

use score for both environmental and social criteria, (although possibly not
as appropriate in London as encouraging modal shift, which is more
realistic) : scores 5 points.

Initiatives or policies designed to'restrict car use score for environmental

criteria only: scores 4 points.

Initiatives or policies designed to ensure accessibility to all people score for

accessibility criteria only scores 3 points.

Initiatives or policies designed to use transport which is accessible to all

people, to facilitate growth and development score for accessibility criteria
only (fulfilling the LPAC criteria to provide a transport system are equally
distributed between all people): scores 2 points.

Initiatives or policies designed to increase security and safety of transport

(thus improving access to all groups in society) score for accessibility criteria
only: scores 1 point.
FIGURE 1 :Location and Politics of Boroughs in Survey. (Source: J. Williarns
1994).
 BOROUGHS. 1994. . . - ,I ._
- .. . .- --
I I I

--
Green Initiatives in the London Boroughs. (Source: J. Williams
r
I- I

raffrc Managementhitiatives to Promote Sustainable Transport

oughs. (Source:.X Williams 1994). t
 7 :Sustainability of Borough Transport Policy and Initiatives : A
y.
J. Williams 1994).
LL TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITYSCORES FOR TRANSPORT WITHIN LONDON, 1994
I - 7.- 7 - -

I I

8 :Overall Trends in Sustainability Scores :A Summary. (Source: J.

1994).
-
Transport System in London. (Source: J. Williams 1994).
 FIGURE I0 : Need for a London-Wide Integrated Landuse and Transport
Planning- Bodv.
(Source: J. Williams 1994).

Bodv Exists

Abstained Ye
15% 47%

23%