The motorway age (1955–79) - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 85

and indeed that the planning of all of them needed to be integrated within a broader
view of urban transport and environment.
In 1963, with urban renewal still very much in the ascendant, the move towards
integration centred first on bringing together highway and development planning.
The Government's response to Traffic in Towns was to establish a joint urban planning
group to offer advice to local authorities in the application of the report's principles
(MOT and MHLG 1964). Over the subsequent ten years it also funded a series of
'land use/transportation studies' for most major towns and cities in the country. The
methodology followed was extremely important in determining the way problems were
identified, options selected, and possible solutions evaluated. Long after proposals
from the original studies were abandoned, this technical 'transportation planning
process' (the Americanisation is significant) continued to exert a powerful influence
on urban transport policy and practice (Banister 2001). The need for integrated
land use/transportation planning was a major factor in debates at the time about
the re-organisation of local government and of the development planning system.
Local authorities were amalgamated and their boundaries redrawn to reflect better
contemporary settlement patterns, particularly in the conurbations (10.6).
As far as development planning is concerned a much enlarged Greater London
Council (GLC) was charged with preparing a new style strategic plan - the Greater
London Development Plan (or GLDP) - which would act as the policy framework
for more detailed, site-specific plans prepared by individual boroughs. This was the
forerunner of a two-tier system of structure and local plans introduced generally after
1968 and retained in much of the country for the rest of the 20th century. Policies
covering 'the management of traffic' were included within the remit of Structure Plans
for the first time. The new development planning system also contained the statutory
requirement for public consultation in plan preparation - itself a reflection that public
attitudes to development were beginning to alter.
Changes in local government and development planning were coupled with
changes in local transport, particularly public transport in the provincial conurbations.
Even though bus companies in these areas were all publicly owned, they operated
independently. Unlike London there was no overall planning or co-ordination, nor was
there any provision for government-supported subsidies or investment. Under the 1968
Transport Act therefore a Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) was established for
each of seven conurbations (including Strathclyde in Scotland) whose members were
drawn from local councils in the area. The PTA's responsibilities were administered
through Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) to whom were transferred the
municipally owned bus companies in their area. These were then remodelled as single
large undertakings operating as a monopoly over much of each conurbation - i.e. a
similar arrangement as in London.
Unlike London the new bodies could also enter into agreement with British Rail to
specify a fares and service pattern for conventional rail services in their area and to pay
them for the net costs involved (so-called 'section 20' services). Powers to subsidise
bus services - termed 'revenue support' - were also introduced. Funding for both was
through a precept by the PTA on the rates of local councils. As far as investment
was concerned the 1968 Act introduced a new system of 'section 56' grants from
central government for local public transport, mirroring the pattern of grants to local
authorities for classified roads.
Concern at deteriorating urban transport conditions prompted a committee of MPs
to initiate an inquiry into urban transport planning. This proved extremely telling as