1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Campaign to win
Page 36
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PRESSURE GROUPS come in all shapes and sizes in modern industrialised countries. Some, like the British Road Federation, have a clear objective — the improvement of our road network in the national interest. Others, as Robert Phillipson, director of the Federation insists, are not "for" anything. All too often they exist to prevent things happening which ought to happen. The BRF has no reason to doubt the articulate protest of the anti-roads lobby.
The BRF was founded in 1932 "to campaign for a sound transport policy which recognises the economic and social importance of the motor vehicle and allows the widest choice of freedom." It is a trade association representing road users in industry and commerce, motoring and public transport. Through its members BRF reckons to speak for some 350,000 individual companies and some seven million motorists.
Twenty years after the opening of the Preston by-pass of the M6, Britain now has 1550 miles of motorway and 1 500 miles of new all-purpose dual carriageways. BM F believes the nation needs a 4 500mile strategic network of trunk roads and motorways, linked to an effective network of rural secondary roads. It wants to see a new basic network of high standard roads in London and other major cities.
Governments come and go and Transport Ministers come and go even more frequently. There is much politics behind the road builders and MPs tend to press for the bits that will
please their constituents While listening too closely, on occasion, to what Robert Phillipson calls -perceived public opinion.He has little doubt that the clamour of the anti-road lobby is almost always wholly unrepresentative of public opinion, but he does not dispute the effectiveness of the protesters and their attractiveness to the mass media.
Of the Aire Valley route, much in the news a few years
back, Robert Phillipson reminded me that William Rodgers, the previous Transport Minister, called a meeting of the local authority representatives and said, in as many words, "I'm not starting this circus off again without your support. We have the choice of doing nothing, doing odd bits of bypasses or proceeding with the road as originally planned.
Put so bluntly, one gathers that the meeting came out solidly in favour of the original scheme. To which the then Minister replied: "If you'd said so at the time, the road could have been built by now.
The Federation, one of the most effective pressure groups that I know of, is supported by the ETA, RHA, NFC, NBC, the motoring organisations and the industries whichcontribute to, or have an interest in, road building. Of these it is understandable that the petroleum companies, who operate large vehicle fleets — would wish to see BRF campaigns prosper.
In fact, I was a bit surprised to learn that finance from this source is no more than 10 to 15 per cent. The motor industry supports the movement as does the road building industry, even the makers of white lines! Its a nice thought to note that the Company of Veteran Motorists marches side by side with the giant multi-national oil companies in wishing success to BRE.
Although local government is
not precluded from joining BI — local and county survey( certainly attend some BRF cc ferences — the Federation h never sought to recruit lo( authorities because every de sion on road building is a poh cal decision. "If I was in Io government I would not jc BRF; equally, I would not jc Transport 2000, as some loc authorities have done," sa Robert Phillipson.
Robert joined BRF 18 yeE ago. He is a barrister, and he h the gift of incisive, well-turn phrases which cover the groui so thoroughly that it is diffic to find any weak spot in Iverbal armour. But barristers E trained to be capable of seei the other man's point of vie even to express an opposil sentiment more powerfully th the man holding it.
That Robert Phillipson who concedes that the oppc tion to roads is sincere dc not make a habit of this is no feel, because he is paid by t BRF, or because 18 years long time to "plug" a spec case. Rather it is because genuinely believes in the cz for better roads on every cou economic, amenity, safety you name it.
He did not dissent whet suggest that BRF would lucky to achieve its desired rc network by the time he retiri ) pursued the reason for the w progress.
A key factor is that the ponents are what Robert ms "professional amateurs
o are prepared to work all urs to achieve their ends. seen the same dedication hose opposing airports.
Most of the professional sup-ters of road building whose nmercial interests are served better roads, urge governnts to devote resources to the d network in the course of ir jobs: they do not have the -e in their bellyof oppons who are self-sacrificing in ir dedicated opposition to ds in general or, at least, ticular stretches of road. Set tinst the clamour of the iosition, all the professional ipaigns of BRF are relatively lective.
lobert Phillipson sees no spect of a De Gaulle-type tician in this country who Id cut the cackle and build essary roads regardless of osition. To be fair to Robert, )ubt if he would welcome h a development. In prac, the mass of people who ild benefit from roads (in Idards of living) tend to be e uninterested unless they personally affected in their ility, as they have every right e. "We would raise hell oures if a road proposal affected interests or way of life"' said BRF director, iut he is a stout defender of Transport Ministry people ionsible for road building design. "They are not in3itive idiots. Or road Iscaping is something to /el at; people come from all the world to see what has I done here " erhaps one answer to those oppose road building is r compensation. But that, in present climate of fiscal , would surely mean ively fewer road improvets? The BRF is stressing to 3overnment that there is no titute for better roads in the of market economy, with ion of choice for con)rs, and freedom as regard that is conceivable for ldefinite future.
'ithin the limits of its annual me, around £275,000 a BRF mounts some excelcampaigns masterminded :en Cannell, the deputy tor. Well produced reports road needs of specific are followed up by local
conferences of representative transport and industrial interests, with valuable local publicity. And, additionally, the conference proceedings are summarised so that the Transport Ministry has full knowledge of what is needed and the public reaction of those with a special interest in improved mobility. The senior economist of BRF, Shaun Leslie, is one of those concerned with the annual production of the admirable Basic Road Statistics, much used by lecturers and journalists.
BRF, of course, would not want to devote all its energies in preaching to the converted. A mini-pamphlet called Fact — Road transport in Britain is well suited to mass distribution. It would be right that schools and colleges where amenity issues are well aired should see the strength of road-building arguments.
The 24 staff members, full and part-time, of BRF include regional group secretaries for London, South West, Manchester (including the North West and Yorkshire), Midlands and Scotland. The regional secretaries are in close touch with local needs and constraints to trade and exports arising from still inadequate roads.
The London group secretary, Andrew Warren, ensures that Press and politicians are reminded frequently that in some respects London is a forgotton city, road-wise. In this Robert Philipson is in warm support.
"Who in his senses would invest money in London's docklands without some decent roads to encourage them? And what a ghastly price is paid by Earl's Court Road residents by the stalled West Cross route. If we had the resources, we could explain to local population what is at stake."
The question of resources may not be crucial but it is worth discussing. Compared with its opposite number in the United States, BRF is under-financed. But I gather that its budget compares reasonably with European pressure groups for roads. If road building is as urgently necessary as BRF believes, would a doubled or trebled budget make a whit of difference to the snails gallop of new road construction?
If it contributed more public understanding, it might speed up the process of political decision-making. Equally, it might inspire quadrupled opposition, such is the perversity of affairs today.
Robert Phillipson would like more companies to associate themselves with the work of BRF, by which is meant, as I understand it, companies not involved in road building professionally. Although the views of industry are effectively put forward by bodies such as the FTA, and the RHA speaks for those who carry most of the nation's goods, individual firms can contribute special experience and points of view. And the process is mutually educative.
One thing the BRF is not is a mass organisation with individual membership. It was not designed that way and it is unlikely to develop into a mass movement.
As to the subscription policy of BRF, the detailed figures are deliberately kept secret. There is much difficulty in devising acceptable bench-marks to determine subs because circumstances vary greatly. Based on number of employees, it would pose problems as against firms with high capital investment and relatively few workers. It can be said that companies joining would need to think about LI 00-plus. Robert Phillipson would doubtless be happy to give some typical subscription for comparable companies or industries.
BRF is not too concerned about the consequences of hypothetical fuel famines in some future year as a major factor in shaping government investment in roads. Nor are they minded to consider the "small is beautiful" concept which could transform not only the scale of modern industry but also its distribution patterns. Transport is a service industry that does what is required of it. Because, throughout history, speed of communication has been a major factor in improved living standards, BRF — if I have got the right message — believes in the market economy, freedom of choice for consumers, the razzmatazz of the affluent society.
Up to a point, I find the .argument persuasive, but the instability of so many countries today is likely to hinder the international division of labour which, arguably, promotes Western affluence. The BRF may be right in taking comfort from the automatic public pressure for roads as car use develops, certainly young people cannot be denied the mobility of their parents' generation. But the opinionformers in the sixth forms and universities will have to decide in a few years time the shape of the British economy.
They may say: "Stop the world, I want to get offand opt for a semi-peasant economy. Or they may side with the BR F and virtually all transport people in wanting high taxes to meet road costs — or toll roads, which come to the same thing — for mobility, rebuilding the fabric of society around the internal combustion engine.
To help resolve the burning debate, I think BRF should provide one side of more public debates with the John Tymes of the amenity brigade. Both cannot win the argument, but in Robert Phillipson, BRF would have to go far afield to find such a convinced advocate for roads.