'How the B.T.C. could have been made solvent in 1962'
Page 74
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NECESSARILY brief reports in the Press of some remarks made by Lord Stonham a short time ago do not indicate clearly whether his anger at what he calls the "phoney figures" in the Beeching Report is the result of careful research by one who is, after all, a past master in the art of statistics, or mere petulance at discovering another expert in the same line of business. Whatever his motive, he seems to have found no difficulty in reasserting his supremacy. The same reports go on to give Lord Stonham's estimate that the 3-ton lorry enjoys a subsidy of flO a week, and that for a 10-ton lorry the figure is £100 a week.
In this simple way, the chairman of the National Council on Inland Transport shows us how the British Transport Commission could have been made solvent even in 1962, its last and most difficult year. The Commission had a substantial fleet of road vehicles under its control. British Road Services alone, with 16,000 mostly heavy vehicles and a total capacity of 214,000 tons at its disposal, cannot have received a subsidy on Lord Stonham's reckoning of much less than £2 m. a week, or £.100 m. a year. The railways themselves have about the same number of vehicles, although with a smaller capacity. If it is permissible to include buses and coaches, the grand total of the subsidy should not fall far short of the entire railway deficit of £150 m. All that is necessary is for B.R.S. and the rest to pay back what they have unjustly received.
Congratulations should be given to Lord Stonham for making the effort. Unfortunately, there seems little chance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Transport, economists, accountants, or any other responsible person, will take the slightest notice of what he says. The B.R.S. lobby is far too powerful and, thanks to the sinister tripartite agreements now being negotiated in strict secrecy behind locked doors in Marylebone, the even more powerful pressure group represented by the Road Haulage Association will also be thrown into the wrong side of the balance. Before it is too late, perhaps the superfluous verbiage and statistics could be stripped away to reveal the real point at issue.
UNFAIR COMPETITION?
If there was one form of transport with a virtual monopoly, or an unquestioned superiority over all the rest, the argument about costs and subsidies would scarcely arise. The railways were not heard to complain last century because the stage coach was not paying its fair share of highway costs. The dispute became serious only with the renaissance of road transport over the last 50 years. The railways saw a serious rival encroaching on their preserves, and their reaction was the natural one that the competition was unfair. This was the theme of the square deal" campaign just before the war.
In theory, it seems right that each form of transport should start on equal terms. Competition between them would then enable the customer to make the choice which most nearly suited his requirements. This policy should ensure the highest-possible level of efficiency, whereas artificial restrictions or an unfair advantage to one side or
548
another would mean that the public were being forced or tricked into accepting the second best.
A pamphlet written by Mrs. Sylvia Trench for Political and Economic Planning (see page 7) sets out clearly and concisely the difficulties that are being encountered in the efforts now being made to carry out such a policy as part of the development of the Common Market. Much the same problems arise in Britain. There is a single private railway system, owning its track, Whereas the number of road users is legion and the highway is the common property of the public as a whole. How is it possible to see that these two contrasting forms of transport start on terms of equality?
The ultimate solution must be financial. That is to say, some way must be found of making road users pay the proper price for the services which they would otherwise receive free but which the railways have to provide themselves. Almost certainly it will never be possible to apportion the exact cost to each individual user. It is difficult enough to work out the cost for each form of transport as a whole. But at least there ought to be reasonable agreement on the list of items for which the calculations should be made.
TRACK COSTS The main item is the infrastructure. The railways had to build their own permanent way, and have to maintain it. The initial cost has now either been written off or taken over by the Treasury, but the railways are still expected to pay for maintenance and signalling, and would have to find the money for any new tracks, even if they were able to escape paying interest. In equity, therefore, somehow or other the cost of new road construction, maintenance and so on ought to come from the users, bearing in mind that the streets and highways are public property and that many people derive benefit from them without using a vehicle.
What else should be taken into account? Perhaps it would be fair to admit that there may be circumstances in which a specific service ought to be provided, by road or by rail, which could not be expected to pay. As this could happen whether or not there were more than one form of transport, the correct procedure would appear to be acceptance of the obligation by the community and the payment of a subsidy. In spite of what is sometimes said, the number of cases where this is necessary should not be great.
In a purely financial consideration, no other items need be considered. All other costs incurred by each form of transport must inevitably be their responsibility and would no doubt be reflected in the rates charged. Regrettably, therefore, the enormous subsidies with which Lord Stonham teases the imagination do not exist and cannot therefore be conjured out of thin air to meet railway losses. He admits that road users pay far more than the amount of money spent on the roads. If this amount was substantially increased, there would be a considerable drop in the congestion and accident rate, the cost of which Lord Stonham suggests should be paid twice over, once when it is incurred and later on as some kind of penalty for incurring it.