AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

JANUS ‘.. . hauliers must find it WRITES difficult to visualize what

14th February 1964, Page 106
14th February 1964
Page 106
Page 106, 14th February 1964 — JANUS ‘.. . hauliers must find it WRITES difficult to visualize what
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

action they ought to take'

WHILE pleading for a more precise indication of the Labour Party's plans for road transport, hauliers may well have preferred not having the brutally definite pronouncement from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Ernest Marples, that the Government had accepted the proposal for a rail tunnel under the Channel. Whether good or bad from their point of view, a Labour Party statement would enable road operators to air their views — which .would be respected even if ultimately they were ignored— and to make sensible preparations for what could perhaps not be avoided.

The statement on the Channel tunnel, coming at the end of investigations and discussions which have left the impression that there is no practical alternative, appears to make protests automatically look either selfish or eccentric. Mr. George Strauss, on behalf of the Opposition, welcomed the Government's decision as a step forward "after many years of postponement and delay ", so that there is no expectation that the project will become a party political issue. At the same time, hauliers must find it difficult to visualize what action they ought to take to safeguard or promote their interests.

The remarks by Mr. Marples have put a term to controversy rather than provided a firmer basis for it. Only in exceptional circumstances, which are not likely to arise, would the Government go back on their decision. On the other hand, the initial protest from the Road Haulage Association may have done some good. It established that there was another side to the question, and suggested, if nothing else, that the decision had been taken somewhat hastily and without waiting for all the facts to be given proper consideration.

Such an opinion echoes the memorandum submitted to the Minister just over a year ago, not only by the R.H.A. but also by the British. Road Federation, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the three motoring associations. Their request for a White Paper was presumably met by the publication last September of the report by the Anglo-French working group. The memorandum went further in asking for an assessment of public opinion and a debate in Parliament before the Government entered into any commitment. It is at least possible to argue that these conditions have not been fulfilled.

LITTLE TO BE GAINED

There is little to be gained from pressing them indefinitely, beyond an occasional reminder. Continued strenuous objections to a tunnel, especially if they are made virtually in isolation, would merely earn for hauliers the reputation of monomania. On the other hand, the knowledge that there was a grievance in the background would strengthen whatever demands were made for safeguards. There are many things for which road operators could reasonably ask.

They will certainly insist that the administration and control of the tunnel should not be in the hands of a vested interest. This point the Government seem willing E.32 to concede without being asked. Road users will also wish to be consulted on the structure of the organization to be set up. They might even expect to have representation on it. The dimensions of the tunnel and the design of the transporter rail trucks will set limits to the size of road vehicles that can be ferried under the Channel. Without the advice of operators the limits might well be unrealistic.

SOME SHARE IN CONTROL?

Operators will also demand some share in the control of the operation of the tunnel. They will want the tolls to be fair and not to discriminate against any section of users. They would be justified in seeking priority for trains carrying industrial and commercial vehicles rather than private cars. They will need reassurances that the railways will not have the opporturaty to give special treatment to vehicles which for one reason or another they may favour. An additional strong reason for completely impartial control is the risk that industrial disputes on either the British or the French railways could effectively block the tunnel to all users.

The uneasy feeling must remain that commitment to a tunnel or to any fixed link tends to make Britain more dependent on the goodwill of the French. It is notorious that vehicles which cross to the Continent with goods traffic have more trouble in France than in any other country. The military hazard which has helped to prevent the construction of a link for more than a century may no longer exist, but there are other commercial and political problems on which satisfactory assurances could reasonably be sought.

POSITIVE ACTION

Here may be the cue for positive action which operators can take during the six to 10 years likely to elapse before the tunnel is ready for use. The existing varied services to the Continent should not be allowed to run down. Experiments should continue with such developments as roll-on-roll-off vessels and specialized air freight services. New methods of propulsion should be investigated, and old and new ports should be encouraged in proposals to provide new facilities. It goes without saying also that operators on both sides of the Channel, and inside and outside the Common Market, will continue to build up business connections with each other.

One disadvantage of a Channel link is that it will attract still more trade and industry from other parts of the country to the South, thus running counter to the Government's policy of stimulating prosperity elsewhere. There is already a strong demand for new access roads converging on the entry to the tunnel. While appreciating that the demand is not unreasonable, road operators should make -sure that it is not met at the expense of proper communications linking the centres of population with ports and docks, especially those which are chiefly served by road. Too great a concentration of the flowof exports and imports must be resisted.


comments powered by Disqus