K. C. TURNER

12th November 1965, Page 182

12th November 1965

Page 182

Page 182, 12th November 1965 — K. C. TURNER

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Keywords : Road Transport, Transport In The United Kingdom, Travel, Sustainable Transport, Transportation Planning, Public Transport, Motoring Taxation In The United Kingdom, Traffic Congestion, Road Traffic Safety, Truck, Salter Report

examines the post-Geddes era

TiE whole concept of the flexibility of transport requires that a system shall ttjave some surplus capacity. If, on the other hand, there is duplication unmatched by a reasonable standard of utilization, or a chronic excess of capacity, then correctly it is the role of Government to gear its investment policies accordingly."

So commented Mr. K. C. Turner on the Joie of Government in freight transport when presenting a paper to the Institute of Transport in London on Monday entitled. Transport Policy in the post-Geddes Era ". In so doing he emphasized that he was speaking as an individual and not in his capacity as president of the Traders Road Transport Association or the International Road Transport Union.

Examining the Geddes Committee's Report, Mr. Turner maintained that this had stimulated thought and discussion. Nowhere was this truer than in the Committee's ruthless analysis of the meaningless term "co-ordination ''. The word had no meaning in its own right. Rather should the need to co-ordinate transport by Government action be coniidered in relation to five specific aims. These were the promotion of safety; and of efficiency; increased use of rail facilities: the reduction of harmful effects on amenity, environment and congestion.

Mr. Turner contended that the amount of traffic congestion was not likely to be affected greatly by any conceivable licensing on lorry traffic, nor indeed by the abolition of licensing. Similar arguments seemed to apply to using licensing to improve amenity and environment.

Prevents Efficient Use Regarding the revolutionary proposal of the Geddes Committee to abolish all restrictions on the capacity of the road haulage industry and on the work a lorry may do, Mr. Turner considered it was not an unfair summary of the Committee's view that the restriction of what a lorry may carry prevented the most efficient and flexible use of transport. On the other hand the committee did not see any positive benefits conferred by quantitative licensing to outweigh the basic disadvantage.

It could be questioned whether in fact an inflow of new hauliers would not spread the existing traffic more widely, hence leading to less, rather than more, efficient utilization of vehicles. In Mr. Turner's view this was probably a valid point in the short term and so to be included in the conceivable transitional disadvantages that the abolition of licensing would bring. Rut this would disappear as the industry settled itito the new pattern.

The main argument against abolition seemed to him to be the i.cal fear that unrestricted competition—both from new entrants into professional road haulage

c40 and from firms operating transport on own account, so leading to a rates war which would have a disastrous effect on the quality of service given to transport users—would affect the stability of the whole industry, good and had alike.

In Mr. Turner's opinion the problem Was one of degree rather than principle. NO one would suggest that the present licensing system had eliminated uneconomic rate-cutting, and he doubted whether any system could achieve this end. The abolition of licensing, therefore, would not produce a new situation: it would simply extend one, which already existed. The question was: By how much?"

Undoubtedly the total abolition. of licences would produce a very difficult transitional period, but all major changes shared this common feature. The Geddes proposals must be judged by their longterm, and not their short-term, effect.

As to the position of transport on own account if the Geddes Report were adopted, Mr. Turner said that he would not expect large numbers of C licensees to operate for hire or reward in a way which would have an adverse effect on professional transport.

The C-licence operator had a first duty to meet his own firm's needs. The nature and standard of service which originally dictated the decision to use his own transport rather than hire, generally would be inccinsistent with _putting hi S vehicles at the disposal of third parties. He could not emphasize too strongly that the question of cost was often secondary to that of service, so that the prospect of reducing transport costs would not be attractive if it was accompanied by a sacrifice in the standard of service.

Moreover, a large proportion of C-licensed vehicles were already loaded both ways and the empty running figures of Aand C-licensed transport were not appreciably different. This factor" substantially limited the practical scope for carriage for others.

Possible Benefits There were, however, occasions where C-licence (*rotors could and would carry for others without abstracting traffic from the professional haulier. Many companies delivering to shops had examined the practicability of joint distribution arrangements but, up till now. had found that the licensing system raised almost ,impassable barriers to the common use of vehicles. So they continued each to do their own deliveries in their own vehicles.

Other companies, being members of large industrial groups, but not qualifying for the 90 per cent financial interest which entitled them to a group C licence, were now prevented from securing integrated use of their vehicles Within the group except by going through all the procedure necessary to secure .a B licence. These were two examples of

benefits of the Geddes proposals. '

Whilst he did not suggest that there would be no industry where it was nossible to satisfactorily dovetail outward running . on own account with return loads for others for hire, he thought-the scope for that sort of operation' would be limited by the needs of the firm itself.

Mr. Turner said he welcomed the unequivocal terms in which. the Geddes Committee had rejected Most of the uninformed and prejudiced criticism which had been made of the C-licensed vehicles such as charges, of 'empirebuilding, ignorance of true costs and efficient operation. He hoped no more would be heard of this sort of criticism in serious transport discussion.

Major Reservation

A major reservation he had regarding the Geddes recommendations arose directly from the question of standards of operation. If it were accepted that there was no. inherent virtue in a limitation of the number of hauliers and vehicles and that the objective was to secure a high standard of service with competition. but not uneconomic ratecutting, and with proper regard to legal requirements. Mr. Turner asked why the Committee had rejected a system based upon quality rather than quantity.

It could be shown that any conceivable transfer of traffic from road to rail—at most 6 per cent . of the total volume moving by road and probably a good deal smaller than that—would have a quite negligible effect on traffic congestion, amenity, environment and road safety. Equally it could be shown that, given a fair basis of competition between road and rail, traffic which now went by road could only go by rail with a loss of efficiency, as otherwise the movement would have been by rail in the first place.

From such an analysis of possible reasons why Government should seek to influence traffic from road to rail it became clear that the benefits to be conferred were either illusory or quite marginal. Adversely, the major, drawback was that traffic would not be carried by the most efficient means, and it seerned clear to Mr. Turner that Government should not intervene.

K. C. TURNER

Page 182

Tags