The Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
This Act, under which owners of commercial motors are likely to find the means to secure much-needed improvements of both roads and bridges, is now law. It is on the Statute Book as "9 Edward VII, Chapter 47," and its short title is that above. The major portion of the text of the Bill, as it was introduced by Mr. Lloyd-George at the end of August, was printed in our issue of the 2nd September, and it is of material interest to us to review some of the changes in the wording of important sections, certain additions of new clauses or sub-sections, and other departures from original provisions, which have been made during the passage of the measure through both Houses of Parliament. Before proceeding to this brief series of extracts and incidental comment, we should like to reaffirm our considered opinion of the 15th July last, and to which we then gave expression as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself that the proceeds of any motor taxation should be devoted to road improvement, that it is highly inexpedient for owners and the industry at large to seek to escape from an admittedlymoderate contribution which will give all interested a claim to share in the intended betterment of highway conditions. We have heard nothing to shake us in that view, or to cause us to depart from the attitude which we so definitely adopted more than five months ago : the only exception, which we have made from the start, is by reason of our belief that the case of the London motorbus companies is a hard and somewhat-unfair one. We do not, however, wish to labour any of these points, for they are sufficiently explained in our leading article of the 23rd September last., which was so freely quoted. It is true, as we pointed out on the occasion of his speech at the company's last annual general meeting, that the Chairman of the Great Eastern London Motor Omnibus Co., Ltd., expressed his semi-preparedness to accept the taxation of London motorbuses, provided the Metropolitan Borough Councils oLtained the proceeds, but the balance of opinion is the other way.
With the " hurly-burly" of the General Election at hand, it is improbable that any progress will be made for some months, but that should not prevent the submission of complaints or suggestions. We are prepared to receive particulars of speciAc instances where delays or detours have now to be made by drivers in the employ of supporters of this journal, and to hold such inforrnatinn with a view to its immediate submission to the officers of the Road Board. either directly or through the Commercial Motor Users' Association, at the very earliest opportunity. The writer would also point out that, as a member of the Central Committee for Road Statistics, which %%as the outcome of the Road Conference of last April. in London.
Junder the auspices of the County (ouiicils As,wcia Lion, he has not been allowing matters of this nature to be put into the background. It, is to the future that we have to look, with the simple intention of removing such disabilities and drawbacks as are still imposed upon heavy motors.
The broad and sweeping difference, between the Bill as brought in and the Act, is found in the substitution of "road " for " motor " traffic : the genuine and wholehearted protest of the Motor Press, against a drafting which allowed the public to construe the intention and terms of the Bill to include the provision of motor-speedways, caused that far-reaching variation. We see, in consequence, the abandonment of intended powers which read as under :- " The Road Board may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, make regulations as to the user of roads constructed by them, and, except to such extent and upon such terms and conditions as to payment and otherwise as may be prescribed by the regulations, such a road shall not be available for any traffic other than motor traffic.
" No person shall be entitled to make any road or path communicating with any such road without the consent of, and except upon such terms and conditions as may be imposed by, the Road Board.
"If the line of a road to be constructed by the Road Board crosses any existing highway, the Road Board may carry the highway over the road or the road over the highway by means of a bridge of such height and width and with such ascent or descent as is prescribed by sections 49 to 52 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and those sections shall apply accordingly as if the road were the railway and the Road Board were the railway company, and the bridge with the immediate approaches and all other necessary work connected therewith shall be constructed and executed and at all times thereafter maintained at the expense of the Road Board." "The Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903 (except section 9 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, which limits the rate of speed of motorcars), shall apply to motorcars on a road constructed by the Road Board in like manner as they apply to motorcars on a public highway."
" For the purposes of this Part of this Act ' motor traffic ' means traffic of motorcars as defined by the Motor Car Act, 1903."
We find, instead, the following safeguards :-
" Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that every such road shall be maintainable by and at the cost of the Road Board, and, for the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of or dealing with any such road, the Board shall have the samo powers (except t'he power of levying a rate) and be subject to the same duties as a county council have and are subject to as respects main roads, and may further exercise any powers vested in a county council for the purposes of the maintenance and repair of bridges, and the Road Board shall have the same powers as a county council for the preventing and removing of obstructions:
" Provided that " Communications between a road or path and a road constructed by the Road Board shall be made in manner to be approved by the Road Board."
In place of a threatened—or possible—conceutration upon the construction of all-motor highways, any system of which, as we pointed out on the 2nd September, must have taken many years to arrive at a state of interconnection, we are to have priority for the improvement of existing highways and bridges. The construction of nes roads by the Road Board is net to be its first and paramount duty, although the power to do so is conferred by the Act for the purpose of "facilitating road traffic.' The Board may, if it thinks such a course desirable, coiltribute towards the cost of maintenance of any new roads. Section 8 (5) of Part IT of the Act reads :
" For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression • improvement of roads ' includes the widening of any road, the cutting off the corners of any road where land is required to be purchased for that purpose, the levelling of roads, the treatment. of a road for mitigating the nuisance of dust, and the doing of any other work in respect. of roads beyond ordinary repairs essential to placing a road in a proper state of repair ; and the expression ' roads ' includes bridges, viaducts, and subways."
It is of interest, to note that, where a new road is fends advanced or granted from the B nail-improvement Fund—by a county council, that road, when celletrtacted, shall be a main road, i e., the maintenance will not fall upon the Fund ; similarly, in any case other than that of a county council, the Fund will not bear maintenance, because all new roads, which may be constructed by other existing highway authorities out of advances from the Fund, are to be " repairable by the inhabitants at, large." In London, the maintenance of any such road " shall devolve upon the local authority responsible for the maintenance of streets and roads in a hose district the same is situate;" here, however, it appears that the London County Council can begin road-making if it can secure grants, because Section 15 specifically states that "the expression highway authority' include, as respects the administrative county of London, the London County Connell." We fear to picture to what this might, in certain eventualities, lead. The hest point in regard to maintenance is this: the Road Board's Fund will only have to hear this charge for new roads which are constructed hy it, unless it chooses to make exceptions.
The acquisition of land will, probably, be one of the most-remunerative branches of the Road Board's work; the Lords rejected this sub-section, but the Commons reinserted it, and the Upper House assented. It reads :
" Where the Treasury have approved a proposal by the Road Board to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, the, Board may acquire land for the purpose, and may, In addition, acquire land on either side of the proposed road within 220 yds. from the middle of the proposed road."
Any such land, after compulsory or other perchase, may be developed or sold by the Board, and two new points have to be noted hereanent. There has been added, since the Bill was introduced on the 213-th Aufoist
" Any receipts derived from any such land, so far as they are applied for the purposes of the construction of new roads, shall not be treated as part of the expenditure of the Road Board on new roads for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting the amount of expenditure of the Road Board on new roads." " Nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of land on either side of a. new road to be constructed by the Road Board where the land forms part of a common, open space, or allotment."
There has been deleted :— " Provided that the power of acquiring land on either side of the proposed road shall not apply as respects land situate in London or a borough or urban district."
We are not, of course, concerned with all the numerous re-drafting alterations, but we observe that the words "in respect of ' have replaced the word " towards "—as regards advances to highway authorities for expenditure upen new roads, or upon the improvement of existing roads. Full regulations are laid down for the keeping of proper accounts, and for the making of an annual report te the Treasury. It is, we think, a matter for regret that so much control is given to the Treasury, and so little to the Local Government Board : the latter-named Department knows infinitely more about local authorities and roads, yet it appears to be recognized merely in a consultative capacity. Thus, in Section 10 (1), we find the solo reference to it
" Before the Treasury approve of the construction of a new road by the Road Board, they shall consult with the Local Government, Board and shall satisfy themselves that notice of the intention to construct the road has been sent by the Road Board to every highway authority in the area of which any part of the proposed road will be situate and shall consider any objections to the proposed road which they may receive from any such authority.'' Part I of the Act, which deals with development, includes " The general improvement of rural transport." Section 4 (5) proceeds Before making any recommendation for an advance for the purpose of the improvement of rural transport, the Commissioners shall consult with the Road Board.'
Should any supporters of this journal contemplate the lodging of an application under this part of the Act, or turn longing eyes towards a fraction of the L500,000 per annum which is, from the 1st April next, for not less than four years, to be—subject, again, to veto by the Treasury —paid out by the Development Commissioners (not the Road Board) for the purpose of promoting the economic development of the United Kingdom, we must point, out that no trader is eligible. A public authority, an institution, a university, a school, a college, or an association of persons or a company not trading for profit, may he helped, either by way of grant or loan. There are, nO doubt, many cases where good cause can be shown for the grant i)f money to buy a motorvan or motorbus. " User " of the Road.
We have been considering, for some weeks past, the request of " Motor-Wagon Carrier " for a statement of the extent to which heavy motorcars may safely use the highways of this country without risk of claims in respect of alleged extraordinary-traffic damage. We have pointed out, on several recent dates, of which we may quote the 28th October and the 11th November, that proprietors of heavy motorcars owe certain duties to the community, and nobody will challenge that fact. It would obviously be inequitable, that a 12-ton steam lorry with its loaded trailer should pass over miles of weak and unbottomed by-road, in the area of some rural district council, including, perhaps, several weak bridges, and its owner be able to plead, when civil liability was suggested, that he had the right, because he paid 1.1 on registration and his driver paid 5s. per annum, to smash up valuable property of the State, of local authorities, or of individuals, with impunity. That is an extreme case, but it is a logical outcome of the line of argument which we have in mind. The other extreme— that of the slow-coach surveyor and out-of-date local council—is provided in the few, the very few, cases where claims are made in respect of main roads, which certainly ought to be up to the standards which are represented by any traffic permissible under the Heavy Motor Car Order of 1904. In this connection, it is a satisfactory feature that there are probably fewer than '20 claims now in course of prosecution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the records in the Courts show the likelihood of success by any highway authority, except in a case where gross and wrongful use of a secondary highway or by-road can be proved up to the hilt, to he diminishing year by year. The soundness of the case for the owner of heavy vehicles or tractors is materially increased by the action and practice of progressive county councils, whose road committees move with the times, whilst the weakness of the case for dilatory authorities is directly made greater by the fact that such traffic ceased to be illegal in the year 1896, and was put upon a well-considered basis in the year 1904. It has to be remembered, none the less, that the Acts of Parliament affecting self-propelled vehicles and tractors are prohibitory, i.e., the use of these vehicles and tractors is prevented by statute, unless such vehicles are constructed and used in accordance with particular Acts and Regulations. We are obliged to repeat our previous warning, that it is not a full answer to a claim for civil damages, to plead that the machine is legally constructed, although it is a necessary point in any good defence. We should say the best safeguard for haulage contractors is to avoid notoriouslyweak roads, unless they get an indemnity from the person "by or in consequence of whose order" they are engaged on particular jobs; an alternative is to fit indiarubber i ires, as these lessen crushing and impart effects. A helpful factor is about to be introduced by the working of the new Road Act, with which we have dealt, because every authority will have to show that it has made proper efforts, according to the new facilities offered, to improve bad stretches of road, to renovate insecure and unstable bridges, and to replace other inferior portions of the highways under its control. The situation to-day, with trade vehicles increasing at the rate of close upon 6,000 per annum, tends all in favour of the purchaser, and we should say that the prospect of successful action for alleeed extraordinary-traffic damage, whether as to excessive frequency of user or excessive weight, will become so remote, in the course of the next few years, that this old trouble of the earlier road-locomotive men will be virtually forgotten, and effectually remedied. We may point out, as a single instance, how ninny winter difficulties will disappear when low-lying sections of highways are no longer in a floating state, due to their being waterlogged, after' the expenditure of grants from the roadimprovement fund, which will probably not require to run to more than a few hundred pounds per undrained section. Those who have undertaken road-contracting work in the winter know how serious are the effects of these loose stretches, both upon the working shifts and the roads themselves; yet, during the time that repairs to these have been chargeable to the local authority, instead of, as is now possible, to a central fund, the necessary construction of trenches at the sides of the roadway has been regarded as beyond the limitations of the county purse. Again, having regard to the wonderful success of roadtarring, and the permanent excellence of water-proofed roads, in summer and winter alike, one can foresee the (interment of real benefits in exchange for moderate outlay, provided the best experience be turned to account. It is, of course, this matter of intelligent application and disbursement that will count: money must not be spent without regard to the best practice, and the too-common methods of mediocrity must be uprooted.
In conclusion, to the owner, we again say: you are not entitled to use the roads of the country indiscriminately, and you deserve to suffer, both in respect of fines and actions-at-law for damages, if you deliberately, in order surreptitiously to put more money into your own pocket, exceed the axle-weights which you pretend to observe, and thereby bring the whole of your brother-carriers into disrepute with the authorities. To the fair and honest carrier, who does not pretend one thing and' do another, and who carefully searches out in advance, as far as he is able, the circumstances attendant upon any invitation to submit rates, we would strongly urge the inclusion, in the terms of the correspondence, or in the text of any contract if one be made, a saving clause under which the development of unforeseen highway or traffic difficulties will entitle him to determine the bargain at short notice.