AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Case Against Local Tolls.

14th May 1914, Page 1
14th May 1914
Page 1
Page 2
Page 1, 14th May 1914 — The Case Against Local Tolls.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Every supporter of this journal will agree that no effort should be spared to present the ease against local tolls on heavy motor traffic. A Committee of the House of Commons has, as we report elsewhere in this issue (page 252), approved a clause in the Middlesex County Council Bill, under which a local toll of -ad. per mile run can hereafter be levied on motorbus traffic which uses the proposed new western approach highway near London. This highway, we may recall, is to be constructed as to three-fourths of its cost out of grants from the Road Board. The income of the Road Board is solely derived tromp the proceeds of motor taxation, so that the proposal of the Middlesex County Council, now strengthened by the approval of a Committee of the House of Commons, is in effect to make certain motor-owners pay twice.

The above proposal, for the moment, does not go beyond motorbuses. The County Surveyor has put fantastic figures before the Committee of the House of Commons, and figures which cannot properly be held to have reference to roads which are constructed with a view to motorbus traffic. They will no doubt be criticised by competent road engineers, if the House of Commons, on the third reading of the Bill, does not reject this obnoxious clause for the Roads Improvement Association will in that! event continue its opposition befcre the Committee of the House of Lords to which the Bill will in due course be referred.

We have to look to the future, and the imminent precedent is in every sense a dangerous one. The situation is no less urgent than was the one which arose when the Bradford Corporation, sonic 16 months ago, proposed to levy heavy local taxes upon both petrol-driven and steam-driven wagons. On that occasion, as many readers of this journal will remember, representative local interests, which were assured of the financial support of both the Commercial Motor Users Association and the Roads Improvement Association, persuaded the Bradford City Council to omit the clauses which we have in mind. Middlesex has got a step farther, in that it persisted with the clause despite hints of disapproval which we understand it received from the Road Board, and in that it has now secured incidental approval for the new impost which we have mentioned earlier.

The point for every motorist is this : once a precedent of this kind is established, when may not his turn come? If the motorbus be subjected to local taxes to-day, why not the motor van and the motor lorry next year, then the motorcar, and thereafter even the parcelcar and motorcycle? The writer, several months ago, brought the proposed clause of the Middlesex County Conneil before the Committees of the Royal Automobile Club, the Commercial Motor Users Association, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Each of those bodies passed resolutions expressing disapproval of the suggested provisions, and offering to provide. 'witnesses to appear in opposition thereto when necessary. It appears to us that the latter necessity has now seriously arisen. It has been the writer's pleasure, too, beyond this formal procedure in his capacity of hon. treasurer to the Roads Improvement Association, to make an appeal to certain deeply-concerned manufacturing interests, and due acknowledgment will hereafter be given in public with respect to the support which has been accorded. Strangely enough, however, a few of the makers of the heaviest types of steam wagons have turned a deaf ear to this appeal, apparently oblivious to the justice of the claims upon them, and deceived by a mistaken conception of their own safety. We cannot imagine that they will continuo to assert that the matter is one of indifference to them, now that they perceive how far it has gone. The position of those who wish to express themselves as hostile to any proposals for the imposition of local tolls upon heavy motor traffic has been enormously strengthened of late. The Government has announced its intention to provide an annual sum in excess of two millions sterling from national resources, as a direct contribution to the cost of road maintenance throughout the country. When the Middlesex County Council drafted the offending clause this intention was not known. By what possible right can a local authority seek to become its own taxing authority when the Central Government has its own system! The only possible system is that of a central levy, with a controlled distribution by the Road Board according to claims and merits. The sanctioning of the new right to a single local authority to levy its own local tolls upon heavy motor traffic is obviously capable of extension to impossible limits, and is fundamentally unsound in both administrative and economic senses. We are ourselves greatly surprised that the proposal has been allowed to get as far as it has, but we have the utmost confidence that it will not get upon the Statute Book ; yet the greatest mistake of all will be to take that for granted. The prevention of its progress will make a call upon the attention and services of ourselves amongst others, and we shall trust to see that necessary financial help given, without which no effective Parliamentary opposition can be offered by counsel and experts through the usual channels of experienced Parliamentary agents.

The case against local tells has so far been presented by counsel on behalf of the London Omnibus Owners Federation. The Roads Improvement Association has, whilst keeping itself informed of and in touch with the proceedings, held back to render available a second line of defence. This Association has a locus before the Howse of Lords, as well as

before the House of Commons. Its reserved facility for active opposition arises from an application which was made for such recognition. in the summer of the year 1912, following the refusal of a Committee of the House of Lords to hear it in opposition to the L.C.C. trailer-tramcar proposals. We trust that the R.I.A. will be able, if necessary, to present a winning case on broad and general principles. It should not, we think, be called upon to express any opinion concerning the arguments for or against further taxation of heavy motor traffic. Those are outside the present question, which is strictly to show that local taxation is in any event a wrong course.

We seriously assert that the Committee of the House of Commons which has dealt with this matter cannot have fully considered the consequences of its decision. Are we to revert to toll-gates, and to be subjected to an indefinite number of stoppages and to levies at innumerable points in a long journey'? How does the Middlesex County Council propose to deal ith the motorbuses or chars-à-bancs coming to London or neighbourhood from the Midlands or the North of England ? We already have taxation by the State, and there can be no two opinions that such taxation is preferable to any conceivable system of local taxation. The imposition of local taxes on locemotion must be open to all kinds of abuses, and we consider that local authorities are sufficiently protected by their licensing powers under the Town Police Clauses Act, or under the equivalent powers which are vested in, the police for any urban district, or under—in the case ef county councils—certain provisions of the Public Health Acts. There cannot be a double scheme of charges on heavy motors ; they should not pay twice. Finally, the. Government, is pledged to pay 50 per cent. towards the annual cost of upkeep of all main roads, and the new Middlesex road will be so classed. Whatever the cost may be, 50 per cent. of it will still be received from National resources.

Boosting the Battery Vehicle.

Our battery-vehicle friends are apparently unable to accept our invitation to them to supply us with " all in " costs per mile run, for comparison with like costs for petrol-driven and steam-driven vehicles.. A letter from a representative of one of the importing houses appeared in our columns a week ago ; another will be found in this week's issue. The former contained an expression of surprise that we did not regard offers to give demonstrations with certain vehicles as the equivalent of proofs of working costs for them, but we can see no connection. We have undoubtedly received proposals for publicity in our columns in respect of the uses to which recent purchasers of battery vehicles are putting them in this country, and we are including references to such uses in several of our usual series of articles. It is a mistake, however, for anybody to think that an acceptable substitute for ascertained " all in" working oasts can be found in estimates which are based upon observations that are made in a day, a week or a fortnight

We have 'found, with admitted disappointment, both recently and in earlier years, that the " all in " working costs of battery-driven vehicles in the U.S.A. are very high indeed. The best figures which we were able to obtain from America, several years ago, were not far short of being twice as high per mile run as were comparable figures for either petrol-driven or steam-driven vehicles in this country. This remarkable difference was found to exist in relation to practically all loads between 10 cwt. and 5 tons ; in fact, for the whole range of commercial use.

Several years ago, of course, no arrangements were in hand for the supply of current to battery-vehicle owners at low rates, and the charges in this country were as high as they were in America. American labour charges, too, are very high compared with those in Great Britain, in keeping with the higher cost of living on the other side of the Atlantic. . We have never contested the obvious fact that practically everything is more costly in America than in England, with probably the single exception of petrol, in respect of commercial motors and supplies for them, no matter of what type. These differences should be capable of explanation, and of reduction to bases which are comparable with conditions in the United Kingdom. It is for those who invoke the numerical strength of the battery vehicle in America to produce these essential data. It has been pointed out to us by those who are interested in the importation and sale of battery vehicles, that they cannot supply figures which they do not possess. We do not feel inclined to accept that view as final. They may not possess the figures, but they should be able to obtain them. We are entitled to call, as we again do, for proved working costs from countries where battery-driven vehicles are largely used, particularly from America. We have an unpleasant feeling that they are, for some reason or other, being suppressed. Other figures of the kind should be available both from France and Germany. It is obviously to the advantage of battery-driven interests, if these figures are in their favour, to bring them forward. If not, they should still be brought forward, but coupled with explanations as to why they are high.

The Term " Agricultural Locomotive."

An interesting case occupied the attention of the High Court of the King's Bench Division, on the 5th inst., concerning the meaning of the term " Agricultural Locomotive." The respondent in this appeal had been summoned by the L.C.C. in September, 1913, for unlawfully using a locomotive on the highway in a county in which it was not licensed, without payment of the fee required by section 9 (9) of the Locomotive Act of 1898. The locomotive was a traction engine, and it was hauling three trailers, each laden with vegetables, to the Borough Market ; the engine was the property of the respondent, a market gardener named Caleb Lee. The original information had been dismissed by a Metropolitan police inagis. t:rate, who subsequently stated a case on the application of the L.C.C. The point at issue was whether tha conveyance of garden produce to London was employment of the locomotive for an agricultural purpose. We are interested to observe that the Court of King's Bench; consisting of JJ. Avory, Rowlett, and Shearman, took the view that carrying such goods to market is an agricultural purpose. The decision was unanimous, and it was clearly held that the use of the locomotive for purposes oi conveying produce to market for sale was a purpose for which a farm was carried on.

Our only comment on the decision is this : the resuit might have been different had the work of conveyance been undertaken by a motor-haulage contractor's engine, and not by a locomotive and trailers which belonged to the market gardener who produced the vegetables. It is certainly now clearly laid down that when the produce is hauled by the owner of both the produce and the engine, the engine can be defined as an agricultural locomotive with county registration with exemption from -certain fees.


comments powered by Disqus