Motor Organizations REPLY TO THE RAILWAYS
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AMEMORANDUM has been sent to the Minister of Transport by the Conference of Motor Olin reply to that recently submitted by Organizations, in railway companies. The conference represents every section of user, as well as chassis makers, bodybuilders and agents.
It submits that both rail and road transport are essential features of the economic life of the nation, and repudiates in the strongest terms the statements and conclusions made to the Minister of Transport, by the railways, respecting road competition. •
la effect, the railways demand that higher taxation of a special character and further regulation shall be imposed upon another British transport industry, for the purpose of restricting its activity, increasing its charges to the public and restraining its development.
It points out that the railway companies ascribe their losses of revenue to the competition of motor road transport and the inadequate taxation of motor vehicles, in addition to bad trade. The Conference, however, submits that : (1) The decline in railway traffics set in long before mechanical road transport became important.
(2) It can be traced primarily to the inherent inability to meet the public's demands for wider traffic facilities.
(3) The need for more flexible, ,adaptable and economical transport has been met by small units, buses, goods vehicles and private rnators. a development which could never have been met by the railways.
(4) It is impossible for the railways to provide transport in the newly built areas and urban extensions often far from railway stations.
(5) The real cause of decline is the industrial and trade depression, especially in coal, iron, cotton, etc.
(6) Whilst railway traffics (Passenger and goods) show, -with two exceptions, a decline every year from 1913 (excluding the war period), it is significant that railway gross receipts have increased substantially.
(7) At a period of phenomenally la* prices, the cost of railway transport remains at a very high level. (8) The decline in net revenue has been mainly brought about by the increase in railway expenditure. (9) Road transport pays in special taxation £59,000.000 per annum, which practically meets the total road costs.
An Unfair Comparison.
By comparing the years 1923 and 1930 the railways show a loss of £10,000,000 in passenger receipts, which they aseribe to road competition, but 1923 was the peak of the Post-war traffic years and thus affords the railways a favourable basis of comparison. Adopting 1913 as the basis and taking two intermediate years, 1923 and 1927, the general development in passenger traffic is more clearly seen :
As indicated by this table, the growth of other forms of traffic was brought about by the public need for greater facilities in urban and suburban districts.
The real cause of the passenger-traffic decline, despite the growth of other traffic, is traceable to industrial changes and depression which commenced after 1923. The variation was most pronounced in areas where industrial depression was more marked.
Taking the four groups of railways the receipts for passenger traffic for the years 1923 and 1930 were :—
In goods traffic, for which the railways allege a loss of £6,000,000, in net receipts, the case is parallel, and it is more equitable to take the year 1929 for the purpose of The traffic in cool, coke and other minerals, very little of which has been transferred to the road, represents a much greater decrease than traffic in classes of merchandise vrhiai might be conveyed by road. An important factor to which the railways make no reference is the vast new rail traffic created by the development of the motor industry. For example, nearly 9,000,000 tons of road-making material were conveyed by rail in. 1929. An important point is that goods-traffic receipts increased by 66 per cent. in 1929, compared with 1913, although a smaller quantity was conveyed. ' Had the railways adjusted their expenditure in closer relation to their increased receipts, their financial condition today would be much better than it is. Thus, whilst receipts have increased by 54 per cent., expenditure has increased by 96 per cent, and the proportion of expenditure to receipts has risen from 63 per cent in 1913 to 80 per cent in 1930.
The Increased Cost of Roads.
The increased cost of the roads since 1900 is £48,000,000 per annum, but this is not wholly due to motor traffic, it includes the general movement in wages and prices. Therefore, the annual road costs which can be partly attributed to motor traffic are exceeded, to the extent of £11,000,000 per annum, by the proceeds of motor taxation. Thus the revenue from the motor industry is practically sufficient to pay the total road costs. To suggest that road traffic should pay interest upon all the capital expenditure incurred on roads, estimated at £1,600,000,000, is a travesty of the position. It ignores the purposes for which the roads are made, such as access to property, provision of light and air, facilities for gas, water and electricity distribution, means for sewerage, routes for telegraphs and telephones, etc. Also it ignores tile purpose for which the railways were constructed. They are private rights of way, built because it was thought the conditions as to speed and load would be so profitable that the cost of the private right of way would be justified. Road transport is limited as to speed an4 load, etc., so that the railways have an advantage which it is their business to exploit.
The railways call attention to the heavy burdens imposed by the complex structure of legal regulation, but instead of asking for relief from such burdens they propose that corresponding inflictions should be thrown upon road transport. Thus the railway policy is destructive-, and not constructive, and cannot be reconciled with that interest for the public as a whole, which they profess.
The Conference submits that the national interests demand less State regulation rather than more.
The railways make one practical and equitable suggestion. —that they should be relieved of their old-standing obligation to maintain the road surfaces on the bridges which carry the roads over the railways, with their approaches. If the railways will withdraw their obstruction to the widening and strengthening of such bridges to make them conform to the improved road system, without trying to exact a price for easements and facilities, this suggestion would be welcomed by road-transport interests.
It is clear that the railways are not so much concerned -with the interests of the taxpayer and ratepayer as with the desire to force traffic away from the roads. It is in the highest degree undesirable in the public good that the development of •either rail or road should be restricted artificially.