THE RURAL , TRANSPORT QUESTION AGAIN.
Page 15
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Will the Government Repair and Equip the Country Roads or, Instead, Waste Money on the Useless Agrail System ?
VERY LITTLE has been heard just lately of the proposal to establish light railways throughout the country for the purpose of linking up the rural districts, but it must not be supposed that the matter has been dropped by the Government Departments concerned, and we hear of some progress having been made, at any rate, in one part of the country with a light railway scheme.
The agricultural industry is still in the dark as to what attitude the Government intends to take in regard to this question of transport.. There seems to be a kind oi feeling that something will be done, although, personally., I fail to recognize the indication unless it is that the Government. intend to find somebody foolish enough to undertake to force upon the community their disused agrails.
In his speech to .agriculturists at the Caxton Hall on October 21, Mr.. Lloyd George referred very briefly to the subject of rural transport, and in no way did he indicate anything in the nature of a national policy. The Prime Ministeri regarded the development of transport facilities as essential to a revival in agricultural prosperity. Too often, he said, transport in the past, railway and otherwise, has had a bias against the industry.
Agriculture Needs Transport Facilities.
If there is to be a bias at all, it ought to be in favour of agriculture. There should be increased facilities, where necessary, in the railways, 'rioter services and lorry services, to open up agricultural districts, and to bring the farmers' produce to the market, and to get the necessary material for carrying oil their business.
" I hope," said Mr. Lloyd George, "it will be possible so to arrange the rates, at any rate, as not to handicap the farmer in the business which is so essential, and which is just as essential to towns as it is to the rural areas."
There is nothing much in these words except a reiteration of the position as it is—although I am not quite sure of the bias against agriculture to which he refers. We know that increased transport facilities are absolutely necessary for the proper development of agriculture, and, with all deference to those writers who, in the past, have so 'often charged the motoring Press with attempting to hinder the Agrail scheme of the Ministry of Reconstruction, I fully agree that, where necessary, railways should be opened up. But the opening up of railways in unserved districts does not touch the fringe of the rural transport problem. However well served a district may be with railways, the produce still has to be conveyed to the railway stations, and no amount of agrail could effectively and economically overcome this difficulty, which can only be dealt with by the use of horses and wagons or commercial motors, and I leave the reader to decide which means will be employed. . Lieut.-Col. A. G. Weigalli -M.P., writing on the subject in a fanning contemporary, and speaking of Lincolnshire as an example, says that it has a railway systesn that runs around rather than through many districts in which are enterprising farmers who, cultivating their soil diligently and skilfully, find themselves continually up against the problem of transporting their produce long distances to the nearest railway station. From time to time, light railways have been suggested as a means of amelioration, such as, for instance, one that was to run by the side of the long direct Roman road from Lincoln to Mpg, a, distance of perhaps 22 miles, for which, I believe, rails were actually laid on a portion of the way and remained derelict until fairly recent years. As for schemes that have never gone beyond the plan stage, their number has been almost beyond count. The gallant Colonel, however, evidently does not despair of the light railway, for he goes on to speak of this matter of transport, as being one of the primary agricultural reforms that are needed. Of necessity it will be expensive; because all forms of labour are expensive; but he thinks the end will justify the means. Oneof the means for increasing the feed supply and, thereby, bring cheaper food for which the country is crying out, is to increase the facilities of the farmer for the disposal of what he prepares for the people's meal table. Another way of cheapening food is to lessen the cost of carrying the produce from the soil to the larder, and that can be done by accelerating transport and reducing the present serious bill which mounts up' for the purpose and, of course,adds to the ultimate cost of the produce, and has eventually to be paid by the consumer. If Col. Weigall's argument is that light railways should be subsidized by the State, it is difficult to see where the cheapening of food would come in, as the loaf costs ashilling to the public even though ad. of the shilling might be paid in the form of taxation.
And, while the Government Departments and public bodies generally are arguing and disputing over the subject, the transport difficulty is being solved by private enterprise. Large farmers are buying their own motor 'dirties and steam wagons, and the old country carrying businesses are being transformed into motor transport services, in addition to the motorbus services for passenger traffic that are being established all over the country.
The Bad State of the Country Roads,
U there is one thing that stands in the way of the development of rural motor traffic more than another, it is the bad state of the country roads, and, as Sir Erie Geddes told the 'motor industry, one of the first steps to be taken in rural reconstruction will be the repair—nay, the making, of country roads, taking off dangerous corners, and widening them where necessary. Of course, this road-making business will be a costly affair, but it will hs.,4e to be done in any case ; and it will not be so ,eostly under motor traffic as it would be if vast sums of publie money or private capital were used for constructing roadside railways. It is very nusch to be" hoped that the Government will definitely drop the idea of trench rails and agrails and concentrate its attentioli upon the construction of good reads, because, in spite of anything that we might say or do, read transport is the thing of the immediate future. Look at the present position. In spite of the enormously increased road traffic railway traffic has increased to about double what it was in 1914, and the total amount of railway line, sidings, and goods accommodation has not been extended to deal with it. This is no fault, of the companies, know. But the fact remains that you put, anarticle on the railway, not knowing when it will be delivered. SO congested are some of the railWays that it takes goods trains, in some instances, half a day to do a matter of a dozen miles. The producer needs to get out of reach of the virtual railway monopoly, and the laying down of light railways only places him more at the mercy of the railway companies. Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if a. length of light railway were laid somewhat in competition with a big railway, with the light railway dependent upon the main railway. One could easily foreshadow the big railway making the light concern almost uselem or, at least, causing a good deal of annoyance to the promoters and the would-be users.
The retort will come at once from some quarters, "You motor people do everything you can to cry down anything that is likely to interfere with your own industry. You aim at pushing your own business regardless of another system that might be better." This has actually been said, and I can quote Mr. E. W. Richardson as saying, in a recent issue of the valuable little paper Farming, "Another hindrance to the carrying out of the proposals was the storm of protests which arose, on the publication of the
Agrail ' scheme by the Ministry of Reconstruction, from both the motoring and the daily Press when efforts were made to show how much more suitable are motor lorries and box cars for agricultural purposes than light railways."
The answer, of course, is that the motoring Press, much less the industry, has nothing to fear from light railways, exaept that, if undertaken by the Government, it would involve an enormous public expendi
ture which would burden us all. The lighl railway could not take the place or fulfil the function of the motor lorry. Most of the matter on the subject appearing in the motoring papers was written by people who know much more about the transport needs of the country-side than many of the ladies and gentlemen who interested themselves so keenly in the light railway proposals. They know that motor transport is the better article and, as such, needs no advertising. But we do net wish to sec the country saddled with the burden of maintaining a huge white elephant. It had been hoped that Mr. Lloyd George would have had something more definite to say on the subject in his talk to the farmers' representatives. One can quite agree with what he did say, but he did not say enough. We want definite answers, to two main questions which we will address to the Ministry of Transport : (1) Is the Government, or is it not, going to promote a, system of light railways, and (2) is the Government going to undertake the repair and equipment of the country roads? It would also be interesting to know what Mr. Lloyd George meant when he said that he hoped it would be possible to arrange the rates of transit so as not to handicap the farmer in his business. LM.M.