1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Voice of America
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
COMMENTARY
by JANUS
STATEMENTS published in Britain about the transport situation in the U.S.A. mostly stress the differences between the two countries. It is pointed out that the problems in America are on a much greater scale than in this country and so much more amenable to solutions in the grand manner, simply because there is more space to spare. The distances involved are to said to make comparisons misleading, and the Americans have the great advantage of producing themselves the fuel they need. In spite of these much publicized variations, operators persist in finding that the resemblances are more significant.
Constantly appearing in American magazines devoted to the affairs of road operators is this kind of comment: "The railroads, swallowing their own propaganda on the economies achieved through mass-producing transportation, have followed the dubious idea of hauling traffic at less than cost and hoping to make a profit on the increased volume." With a slight alteration in wording, this echoes almost exactly complaints that have often been made by British hauliers.
The road and rail problem is basically the same in both countries, although there are a large number of American railroads and only one British Railways. The financial pattern is clear and depressing. One major railroad went bankrupt in 1961, a dozen more need regular injections of Government guaranteed loans, and 32 are losing money. The president of the Association of American Railroads has recently called upon Congress for action "to ensure the continued life of this vital industry." Presumably, such action would be the counterpart of the financial provisions in the British Government's Transport Bill now going through Parliament.
IN the meantime, American road transport gives every statistical sign of making progress. The volume of tonnage
• carried is rising. Information for the early part of 1962 already shows an increase of about 5 per cent. on the results for the corresponding period of the previous year. On this basis, the truckers ought to feel entirely satisfied, just as one would imagine to be the case with British hauliers, whose business on the whole is going up rather than down. In America, the same as in Britain, however, there is no disposition on the part of operators to,deceive themselves into thinking that they are well protected and safe from danger.
Their difficulties turn out to be very much like those facing British hauliers. One or two have been brought into the open recently because action to deal with them is being recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission. As its very name implies, this is a body that has no exact counterpart in Britain. Included among its functions are control of the licensing of hauliers and control of charges for interstate movements, whether by rail, road, ?rater or pipeline.
In its latest annual report, the Commission draws attention to certain loopholes in the legislation governing the carriage of goods traffic by road. Various exemptions laid down by law, says the report, "by. fostering the growth of private and exempt carriage and the spread of illegal forhire operations, have contributed in no small way to the decline of the nation's regulated common carrier system." Common carriers, who include short-distance as well as long-distance operators. correspond roughly (but only c16 roughly) to British hauliers who carry general traffic on A licence.
One exemption allows what are called agricultural co-operatives and shipper associations to run transport organizations without having to provt need to the Commission. According to the report, a substantial volume of important traffic is being taken by these organizations from authorized carriers. The Commission is unable to take effective action to check this practice "because of the necessity for overcoming in each case a presumption of eligibility."
ANOTHER exemption applies to specific commodities rather than to the type of undertaking carrying them. Again the effect is, or so the Commission says, to take business from genuine professional carriers, including the railways. Private carriers, it is alleged, are taking advantage of the law by carrying manufactured goods and other high-grade traffic as back loads, often at rates barely sufficient leo cover the costs of the return trip.The exemption is a "breeding ground" for schemes devised to get round the law.:
In order to " squeeze out a small profit," even at cut rates, the carrier of an exempt commodity attempts to evade the regulations by such "subterfuges as ' buy-andsell ' or equipment-lease-driver-service ' arrangements," states the Commission.
The Commission wishes to limit the exemption to the provision of direct assistance to farmers, ranchers and fishermen in the transport of their products to local markets. Little justification is seen for the exemption of the subsequent movements of the commodities. " If the exemptions were thus confined," states the report, "there would be little opportunity to engage in practices which are whittling away at our national transportation system by depriving authorized carriers of much needed revenues."
To British ears the terms used may sound strange, but they describe a situation with which operators in this country are not unfamiliar. The railways that were once supreme have declined in importance and now need to be propped up if they are to survive. Legislation designed in the first place for their protection has also proved valuable in establishing an acceptable pattern for the road transport industry, with a broad division between hauliers and traders carrying their own goods.
It has not been found possible, however, to keep the system simple. Exceptions and provisos that seemed clearly defined when they were first made have proved to be full of holes. Restrictions on the operation of vehicles have inevitably fostered a new class of law-breaker, who goes beyond the terms of his licence, or runs vehicles without a licence at all. At times, even the distinction between haulier and trader becomes blurred. In Britain it has already had to be rescued once by the Court of Appeal, but there are constant experiments with other methods by which the trader can have his cake and eat it too.
For all the imperfections of the legislation, operators, neither in Britain nor in America, would be without it. The problems it solves are evidently considered more important than the problems it brings. The railways on both sides of the Atlantic are also of the same opinion that, serious as their plight is, it would be much worse in the absence of any control over their competitors.