to ic
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Grace and Favour
by Janus
AT the very end, European Conservation Year went sour on road transport operators. Whatever questionable habits the Europeans may have, there is no question of adopting them in England's green and pleasant land. The heavy goods vehicle weight limit has been fixed at 32 tons and there it will remain, come the four corners of the world in arms against us.
Operators are still wondering how the trick was done. Up to the last moment it was assumed that the Minister for Transport Industries would live up to his new title and grant the concessions that made at least economic and industrial sense. He was thought to be nerving himself for the effort in much the same way as some years ago a succession of Ministers of Transport gathered courage for the decision to raise the lorry speed limit.
Once that step was taken, the preceding fears and misgivings were seen to be groundless. The smack of firm government had again fulfilled its purpose. The general opinion was—and perhaps is—that the same effect would have followed an announcement at the present time that the weight limits also would be raised. The frequently canvassed figure of 44 tons might have been out of the question, but an increase to say 36 or 38 tons would have been accepted as no more than bringing the UK to the Continental level.
NOT enough notice was taken of an opportune groundswell of protest from a large number of bodies professing concern for the environment. The significance was not appreciated of the actual creation—at Cabinet level too—of a department dedicated to the subject and having overlordship of transport, housing and local government. No Ministry had previously been formed with so vague a remit. At the same time, it could hardly, as one of its first measures, accept a proposal to which the self-styled champions of the environment were solidly opposed.
The matter does not end there. Vehicle manufacturers and operators will soon resume their pressure on the Department. It has already been suggested that the recent decision is merely a postponement of the inevitable. Sooner or later the change will have to be made, especially as the likelihood increases of British membership of the Common Market, The amenity organizations may have over-reached themselves. Some of the cards they have been forced to put on the table do not look particularly good. The very success of this particular lobby may mean that more attention than before will be paid to its composition. The impression of a great public wave of protest may turn out an illusion.
Reaction to the Roskill report on the third airport may give an indication of what will happen. For the first day or so the defenders of Wing . and Cublington had matters all their own way. It was only later that reports began to come in of trade union spokesmen raising a cheer for Roskill and reminding the public that the project would bring prosperity to the local community.
Propaganda against the heavy lorry may in due course stir even the silent majority into expressing an opinion. The road transport unions have prudently kept aloof. One has to guess their attitude towards proposals that would be likely to benefit at least some of their members. The drivers themselves like their vehicles and the work they do. There are no objections from this side to weight increases.
Regrettable though it may be, the preservation of historic buildings, of medieval churches and even of picturesque villages is a minority cult. The general public pay token tribute by occasionally flocking to a limited number of well-advertised places, most of which are also the accepted shrines for visitors from overseas. The rest of the national heritage could be swallowed up for all that most people care.
PTHEStansted victory is a dangerous precedent to quote. The protest was the first of its kind to be made. The arrogance of some of the authorities concerned helped to build trei sympathy from the public as a whole. The next protest will not have the advantage of novelty and the defence may be better managed. Mr Peter Walker is already showing considerable tact in his handling of the problem.
More important still, an airport proposal does not merely affect people in the immediate vicinity. The threat of noise, perhaps of intolerable noise, covers a wide area and there is a substantial army immediately available and prepared to join with varying intensity in a campaign against a project which affects them personally. Noise in a road only bothers the people who live there. The inhabitants even of the next street suffer no annoyance. It is not possible effectively to concentrate attention on one area in which a mass uprising, if not spontaneous, can easily be engineered. The evidence has to be collected from a large number of different places.
This was the technique adopted, with it must be admitted considerable success, by the Civic Trust. No fewer than '700 local amenity societies were discovered throughout the country and more than 300 were prepared to give their views and to answer questions put to them by the Trust. The replies were marshalled with other evidence in a report under the title "Heavy Lorries" published opportunely only a few days before Mr John Peyton's announcement.
It may plausibly be argued that the report had some effect on his decision. It was certainly welcomed with enthusiasm by a section of the Press. The supporters of the heavier lorry who are bound soon or later to launch their counter-attack should in the meantime study the document carefully and analyse, not only the reasons for its success, but also its weaknesses.
rbetrays a bias against which its editors may have struggled in vain. Its conclusions are summarized in 30 recommendations and in the nature of things some of them will be revealing. A simple example is the proposal headed "excessive speed;" it urges that "lorry drivers who exceed speed limits" should be prosecuted more frequently and punished more severely. Apparently, speed limit offences by people other than lorry drivers are to be condoned.
Establishment of public lorry parks should be a high priority, says another recommendation., "in areas where the on-street parking of lorries in residential roads causes nuisance to residents". The inference here is that not all residents in residential roads are as sensitive as members of amenity societies. Where there is grace there must also be favour.
More familiar is the plea that before any more "large-scale road investment programmes are initiated," full consideration should be given to the extent to which "the nation's future transport needs" could more economically be met in other ways, for example—as if we needed to be told—"by fuller use of railway facilities". Those people who suffer because they live near a railway will have to continue putting up with it.
What this and other evidence seems to indicate is that on the whole those members of the public who have responded to the Civic Trust request share the natural human wish to have the best of both worlds. They want a prosperous transport system; they are even prepared to accept the need for the heavier lorry, so long as it does not run through their street. The fact that only a comparatively few people are in a position to adopt this Olympian viewpoint is their main weakness. In the Civic Trust report this weakness stands exposed almost to the point of naiveté.