Cases For rAn Increase In Rates I MUST thank you
Page 76
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
for the article puhlished in your issue of October 7, in ,your " Planning for Profit series, headed " Costs Up— Output 'Down.:" This helps to clarify the case for an increaSe in' rateswhich you recently forecast I would like,. however, to criticize some of your statements-constructively:1 hope.
You are right to Point out that traffic congestion .and loading and unloading delays are now permanent features, of modern transport conditions and . must now be taken into account in our costings.
Whilst in your tables of operating .Costs you lake the present basic wages for a 44-hour weekit is a fact, however., that over the whole road transport industry an average of 55.4, hours per week. is worked. (This is .the figure produced to-the Wages Council at a recent meeting) 55.4-hour Week
In our costings we have to take cognizance of the figure of 55.4 hours per week not 44 hours, for two main reasons. First, these are the average hours worked owing to the traffic congestion referred to above and also. because we have to start work from our garage in time to arrive at our customer's premises when he starts work, and we have to return to our garage after our customer has finished wOrk. ,Secondly, competition for the right type of driver and Staff is such that we have to guarantee a 55-hour week, otherwise we should not keep our men owing to the fantastically high rates being paid in factories and industry generally,
If a 55-hour week .is taken as the ,basis for calculating the cost of wages., the aetiaal total operating caiit'i. in both 1957 and '1960 will be higher than the figures based on a 44,hour Week that you quote. Not only will the higher wage cost increase the total operating cost in both years but it will give rise to a larger percentage increase between 1957 and 1960. The greatest increase has been in wages, and since these are a greater proportion of total costs than your figures suggest, they will have a correspondingly greater, effect on the, increase in total costs than you have
calculated. •
Higher Figure If this reasoning is correct-, the figure for increased costs will be materially higher than the percentage arrived at in Yonr• article, In addition, account must be taken of oVerheads. These have gone up very considerably.
For One. thing, any increase in drivers' wages is at once reflected in the wages for office; workshop, loading bank and other staff, irrespective of any other agreements. Your article states that it takes something like three people to keep one vehicle on the road.
To these extra costs in wages to staff in general inust be added other items such as increased national insurance, goods-in-transit insurance, vehicle insurance, stationery, printing ,and.a,hosti,,of other minor -items. You must then make an allo*aifee for lost productivity caused by traffic conditions. All'of this builds up to a present increase in costs which is very Much greater than the figure mentioned in your article.
South Benfleet, Essex. R. B. BRITTAIN,
Chairman National Rates and Carriers Liability Committee, Road Haulage Association. IF read carefully, the article entitled Costs Up— Output' Down" in your issue of October 7, should do much in inform all concerned of the real need of the road haulage industry to seek increases in charges:
I must, however, sound a note of warning. The article has been quoted to me already as," justifying a 5 per cent. increase in charges." In fact it justifies, but does not qualify, far more' than that figure. If any of your readers have gained a wrong impression as, with respect, I suggest they may have done, I advise them most strongly to re-read the. article with care and, in the light of it, to examine their own costs (all of them) both present and impending.
London, NW. 1. HAROLD ELLIOTT,
Member, Board of Management, British Road Services.
Turn The Railways Into Roads
'THE letters from Mr. E. H. Allon and Trunker (The Commercial Motor, last week) shoW how very had the road situation is getting. However, there are many. people—particularly the politicians—who seem to think that the traffic problem will be solved by building a feW scattered stretches of rural motorway, and by messing about with our ordinary roads.
The road programme is progressing so slowly that we only have about 100 miles of motorway open to traffic in spite of the fact that we have a vast range of ,road building equipment available, most of which lies idle in dumps.
What a contrast this is to the 1840s when it was quite common for 500-600 miles of railway to be opened' in a year; in 1848 they Opened 1,182 miles. These excellent rights of way, with gradients rarely exceeding I in 100, were built by navvies with only picks, shovels and wheel barrows to help them. • Considering the fact that during 1958 the average railway track only carried 70 passengers and 60 torts of freight per hour, it would seem that the _best solution would be to convert most of the railways into motor-roads. .These would have such a high capacity that there would be plenty of room for all foreseeable growth in the use of motor vehicles.
Harrogate,Yorks. A. I. NeVATKINSON.
Not Another Tax, Please
HOW many readers of The Commercial Motor noticed
a paragraph in last week's issue reporting that, in Canada, the Ontario Department of Transport was considering installing sealed meters in •lorries to record mileage for tax purposes? Apparently they want to devise a mileage-based highway tax over there.
It really is amazing how officialdom, all over the wOrld, is seeking more and more ways of squeezing a little more blood out of road transport. I suppose it is inevitable that the more successful a function becomes—and therefore, also, more popular—the more it is looked upon as a means of producing Government revenue.
How about a per capita tax on Civil Servants, paYable by the Government Departments they work for? That shouldproduce enough revenue to drop all taxes.
Wolverhampton. SOAK ED.