Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Pretty Pictures
WE have a Minister of Transport with plenty of drive, and on the whole Mr. Harold Watkinson is very much the right man in the right job. But he must rid himself of the idea that criticism of his efforts is something not far short of blasphemy. Hellas recently said that he will not be diverted from his road programme "by propaganda or criticism, however well intended." This is the language of a dictator, although a little later Mr. Watkinson excused the time lag between the planning and construction of a new major road by stressing the need to protect the rights of individuals.
The Minister is not as inflexible as he paints himself. He has given fair consideration to numerous ideas put forward in the Press or by interested parties. What seems to make him touchy is the proposal that runs completely counter to his own plan, or suggests that he is not doing enough. On such a proposal he pours scorn and sarcasm. The Government's aim, he has said, is to show progress by deeds and not by words. "Perhaps the roads of reality can never glitter quite so brightly as the pretty pictures of the planners and publicists, but at least motorists can use them."
This is no argument at all. Only the Government have the resources and the power to build roads, and only the Government, therefore, can show results. Any scheme that the Government do not accept must remain no more than a pretty picture. This is no reflection on its value. The British Road Federation in particular have pressed, in season and out of season, for an improved road system. That pressure has played an important part in stimulating the production of the present expanded road programme, which the B.R.F. regard as not nearly sufficient. In an imperfect world, vision and reality seldom coincide.
One Miracle
In one field of transport at least, the miracle appears to have happened. The British Transport Commission are more fortunate than road users. Their plan for bringing the railways up to date has the approval of the Government, and there is no serious issue between what is reality and what is a pretty picture. The Commission have found one way of turning this fact to their advantage. They have no desire to spend more money on themselves than the Government are prepared to allow; they are suggesting that, by comparison, the amount now being spent on the roads is excessive, and that any increase would be extravagant.
The B.T.C. report for 1956 shows how the trick is done. The railway modernization plan involves expenditure of £1,200m. over 15 years, an average of £80m. a year. Perhaps half as much again is being spent each year on roads. But, say the Commission, this does not tell the story properly. The railway figure includes expenditure on rolling stock and other items, as well as railway track. If commercial road vehicles, equipment and buildings are taken into account, the road figure exceeds £300m., and with the cost of private cars and motor-cycles it goes above £500m.
A proper comparison, the report suggests, shows "how much heavier the investment in road transport has been than the investment in rail transport." With this argument, and with the help of a couple of graphs, the Commission possibly hope to dispose of the popular impression that the Government pamper the railways and neglect the roads. The argument is chosen cleverly. Whether or not the popular impression is justified, it takes its colour from such figures as are available. The Commission appear to have made a point if they can show that they are getting less money to spend than their competitors.
The argument begins to leak as soon as it leaves harbour. If the Commission thought anything of it, .except as a debating point, they would follow it up with a request that they receive at least as much as road transport. This obviously is not their intention. They are well satisfied with the concessions they have already had, and their memorandum to this effect was published last October as an appendix to a Government White Paper wishing them well, and accepting the memorandum with no more than the inevitable vague reservation that the Government "must not be taken as subscribing to all the views expressed."
Absurd Conclusion
If the Commission need nothing more, their argument by comparison should lead to the suggestion that road transport is receiving too much. The report no more than hints at this obviously absurd conclusion, and in so doing becomes entangled in a different kind of comparison, between what is spent on roads and capital expenditure by road users. Because one is not keeping pace with the other, the Commission note, possibly with concealed satisfaction, that the congestion on the roads is growing. The report finds a "fundamental paradox" in the spectacle of roads with too much traffic and railways with too little.
An impartial observer in these circumstances might reasonably conclude that more should be spent on the roads where the facilities are needed, and less on the railways where the facilities are more than adequate. At this stage, the argument brings us back to the popular impression. Better roads would mean greater efficiency and economy, and these objects are less likely to be achieved while money and resources are devoted to propping up the older form of transport.
The reply of the Commission, as far as one can judge it, would be that better roads would not have the desirable effects that most people imagine. They would merely stimulate further increases in the number of vehicles. The extra cars would depress revenue from both road and rail passenger services, and the extra goods vehicles on C licence would take more traffic than ever from the railways and from hauliers. The increase in total carrying capacity during 1956, due almost entirely to the C-licence increase, for the first time in several years was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in traffic. According to the B.T.C. report this must have meant "a poorer utilization of vehicles on the average."
Here is the reverse of a pretty picture. MOre and more plainly, the Commission are seen to favour restrictions on the C-licence holder. Trade and industry have another solution. They are the best judges of the satisfactory use of their vehicles. A temporary falling-off in traffic should be met by methods that include the improvement, and not the reduction. of transport facilities