The Report of
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE ROYAL COMMISSION
OUR chief objection to the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Transport is in connection with the recommendation that the use of vehicles having an unladen weight_ of over four tons should be discouraged and be far more heavily taxed. In the other sections of the Report, whilst"it is obvious that everything possible is being put forward to help the railways, the pros and eons of all forms of transport are far more evenly balanced.
We have, therefore, extracted from the Report certain statements which are of particular interest, or have a direct bearing upon road transport.
It is amusing to find that the railway companies are still under a nominal 'statutory obligation, in certain. circumstances, to allow the public to use the railways with properly constructed engines and carriages upon payment of the authorized tolls. One can imagine the confusion which would exist if advantages were taken of this permission,
The Public Prefers Road Transport.
In paragraph 130 it is pointed out that road competition must, of course, continue adversely to affect the railways. The advantages of cheap, comfortable transport are so great that the public, now that it has become accustomed to them, is not likely to give them up—nor is there any reason why it should. Similarly, the conveyance of certain classes of goods direct from door to door is so advantageous that the railways arc bound to lose permanently to the road a certain amount of traffic.
Paragraph 133 refers to the speed of trains and mentions that long journeys preclude the possibility ofs serious road competition. It is in the short and moderate-distance journeys that the railways have lost passenger traffic by failing to make full use of their capacity for speed. Fares are mentioned in paragraph 137, where it is stated that those quoted by road companies are generally much less than those charged on the railways, and to meet this competition the railway companies have introduced a large number of new special fares for day trips, week-end journeys and for excursions for the week or for longer periods. Whilst it may be true that road companies can always afford to charge lower fares than can railways, the Commission is satisfied that, in many instances, the fares hitherto charged by the latter have been excessive.
Next comes the question of seats for passengers, and here. the railways are behind, their road competitors. The mere fact of purchasing a ticket for a journey by motor coach assures the intending passenger of the certainty of a seat.
In referring, in paragraph 141, to the railways' policy of purchasing road-transport undertakings, it is mentioned that it appears likely that, in a few years, the railway companies will become the largest road operators—at any rate, so far as passenger services are concerned—but that any attempt on their part to starve road services for the purpose of putting an end to reasonable competition would be bitterly resented and opposed by the public.
It is recommended in paragraph 145 that the railway companies should be required to inform the appropriate Traffic Area Commissioners of their intention to close any station or branch line, so that the Commissioners will he the better able to arrange for the provision of additional road services if such appeared to be desirable.
Highways Should Be Paid For by All.
An important point is that contained in paragraph 239, where the Commission enunciates the general principle that. in relation to highway expenditure, owners and users of mechanically propelled road vehicles should have no preferential treatment on the one hand, whilst, on the other, they should not, because they happen to employ a particular form of transport, be subjected to anything in the nature of a sumptuary tax.
Continuing this deprecation of a luxury tax, it states in paragraph 244 that in these days of modern civilization the motor is an essential to many—to the doctor, to the commercial traveller and to those whose profession or trade involves constant travelling.
Paragraph 264 concerns the heavy motorcar, and it is recommended that no vehicles of this type should be allowed to exceed an unladen weight of 10 tons, that the maximum laden weights should not be increased, and that the maximum weight on any wheel should not exceed four tons. In the next paragraph it is inention4d that whilst the-Commission recognizes that, in certain circumstances, heavy loads must be carried by road and for this purpose the vehicle with six or eight wheels has advantages over that -with only four, it is recommended that, as a general principle, the use of light vehicles, say, of four tons or less in weight unladen, should be encouraged and those in excess of four tons should be discouraged.
In paragraph 266 it says that the only means for effectively discouraging the use of these heavier vehicles is to increase the licence duty payable.
It is admitted in paragraph 267 that in making these recommendations the Commission is not influenced solely by the question of damage to'the highways, but has prominently in its mind the question of competition between road and rail and the relative suitability of traffic for conveyance by the one or the other.
Tyres are referred to in paragraph 271, -where it is stated that the Commission sees no reason why even steam wagons —probably the heaviest four-wheeled vehicles of the lorry type on the road—should not he equipped with pneumatic tyres.
The Control of Goods Vehicles.
Paragraph 298 concerns the control of goods vehicles. It is stated that no recommendations will be made regarding the regulation of the type of transport operated by traders for hauling their own goods, and in paragraph 340 it continues this subject by pointing out that applications for hauliers' liceeces need be considered from only two aspects and that the Area Traffic Commissioners should have regard only to (a) the fitness of the vehicle, and (b) the wages and conditions of service of persons employed in connection therewith. Identification marks to show that a vehicle is licensed for haulage are called for in paragraph 344.
The question of the future of the tramways occurs in paragraph 368, which states that, notwithstanding the advantages possessed by the tramcar for cheap and expeditious travel in London and other big cities, it possesses certain disadvantages so serious that it is probable had the motorbus been invented at the time when tramcars were first authorized not a single mile of tramway would ever have been laid.
Tratnways in a State of Obsolescence.
Continuing this subject in paragraph 372, it is given as the considered view of the Commission that tramways, if not an obsolete form of transport, are at all events in a state of obsolescence and cause unnecessary congestion and considerable danger to the public. It recommends, therefore:
(a) that DO additional tramways should be constructed, and
(b) that although no definite time limit can be laid down, they should gradually disappear.
In paragraph 381 the motorbus is referred to as having the supreme advantage that it is a self-contained mobile unit. It can be operated on any route, irrespective of distance, can be used to test the traffic potentialities of new routes or can cater for thin or spasmodic traffic as the necessity arises.
The Commission is not prepared to recommend that tramway operators should be relieved of the obligation to maintain the road, which was placed upon them by the Act of 1870. This observation occurs in paragraph 386.
The recommendation for the appointment of a permanent advisory council on transport, consisting of not more than 12 members, occurs in paragraphs 504 to 508, and great importance is attached to this suggestion.