topic Priorities for the road builders
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Janus
SATISFACTION with the road programme is no greater now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Pressure continues for more and better roads. The one significant change is the growing tendency for the interests concerned to hold different opinions on priorities.
Motorways attract the most attention, or at any rate the most publicity. Whenever a sizeable new stretch is complete, the Minister for Transport Industries or another ' member of the Government will attend an impressive opening ceremony, perhaps cut a piece of tape stretched across the route and make a speech generously distributing praise to everybody except the previous administration who may have been responsible for launching the project.
AT the end of April last, there were 690.6 miles of motorway in use, 266.4 miles under construction, 243.1 miles in the firm programme, and 323.7 miles in what is described as the "preparation pool". The total of 1523.8 miles is impressive only as long as comparison is not made with the mileages in other countries where the motorway network is much greater.
Nobody would deny that many more motorways have still to be built in the UK. Even the inter-urban roads plan published by the last Government last May shows that the present mileage has to be at least doubled. The new Government will have to issue its own plan before long and can hardly offer less than its predecessor. The natural impulse will be to go one better.
Unfortunately, although ambition may swell, the allocation of money does not keep pace with it. There are more and more projects which are generally thought to be desirable and even urgently necessary, but there is less and less likelihood that they will all be tackled within the next year or two or even within this decade. As a consequence, the supporters of each project or group of projects are concentrating their persuasion on the points where they think early action should be taken.
New considerations arise. Growing disenchantment with the concept of the Channel tunnel is partly due to the realization that it will require the construction of an expensive system of approach roads and that the money and resources will have to be diverted from other areas where they are badly needed.
SIMILAR heart-searchings have followed the decision to base the third London airport at Foulness. The route eastwards from London will have to be improved and perhaps a new road built. Road users in every other part of the country will complain that this is being done at their expense and that, had it not been for Foulness, they would long ago have had available what they consider a vital link.
Commercial vehicle operators and drivers are not enthusiastic about the motorway as such. Their vehicles will often still be found using the old routes, especially where these have been modernized and bypass awkward points. The higher speed which is the main benefit from motorways is of no significance if running schedules do not allow for it. When a new road is contemplated, operators would just as soon have it built as a dual carriageway trunk road, especially if this meant that money would be saved for other purposes.
Partly this attitude reflects the resentment of operators at the criticism directed towards them. The motorway, they suggest, is a race track for the motorist who may even think that the lorry should not be there. He can hardly have the same opinion about an ordinary road and his own speed would be partly governed by the existence on that road of roundabouts and crossings.
R JOHN PEYTON, the Transport Minister, has said that he might relax the rules on vehicle weights once there is a somewhat more comprehensive network of good roads—a network, he adds, which will provide good access to the ports. There are already routes of some kind to the ports. If it is easier and quicker to widen and strengthen these routes than to build motorways, operators would not hesitate in naming their own preference, especially with the prospect of a bonus at the completion.
The reasoning is unsound. Motorways have advantages which balance their extra cost and even the extra time they may take in the building. They have a better accident record than other roads. They should mean more economic running and longer life for a vehicle. They remove the possibility of noise and other inconvenience to the general public and to that extent take the hostile pressure off the heavy lorry.
0 NE doubt remains. Mr Peyton has said that the heavier lorries will be restricted to the roads which can accommodate them. The operator may not find much advantage if he is allowed merely
to run his vehicles up and down the rn roads.
While at one extreme the Governm, supported probably by most road userE in favour of motorways which are the ir expensive type of road, at the other enc the scale the Marshall Committee Highways Maintenance has recommen that highway authorities should not required to maintain all roads in a stat( for all traffic. The average motorist n approve of this suggestion, but it brought strong protests from agriculti and road transport interests.
LOCAL authorities already h power to restrict heavy traffic specified roads. The Marsl report suggests that the power should used more often. The assumpi is that the ban would be aim& Farmers and road operators, the other hand, maintain that it she apply only to through traffic and should prevent heavy vehicles from using ml roads to reach their destination.
Agriculture has been geared to the us( road transport. Fertilizers, lime, seed, ca food and other items are delivered ; stored in bulk. The produce is collectec the same way. Farm equipment increasingly becoming mechanized ; more sophisticated. Milk and other prodt are now pumped into tankers. On more more occasions the heavy lorry is ca upon for agricultural work. .
HAULIERS are fortunate that in 1 particular controversy they making common cause with powerful farmers' lobby. It is apprecia that they cannot economically run sn vehicles merely for farm collection I delivery. There is also strong opposition the further suggestion from the Marsl Committee that highway authorities mi insist on payment, and in advance as w for the cost of road works undertaken the benefit of a certain category of user.
Farmers and operators are on str( ground here. They have pointed out t road users pay substantial sums to Government apart from their contribut to the local rates. Enough money ought be returned to keep rural roads up to standard required for vehicles which in ordinary way would be expected to them. Certainly the roads should not allowed to deterioriate beyond their pres state.
NOT a small problem, if the Mars] report were put into effect, would that of enforcement. Operators their customers have a natural inclinatior provide or use the vehicle which is m suitable for the traffic. In choosing a roi they pay attention to obstacles such & weak bridge or a low overhead bridge. 'will make the task much more difficul they must also work out whether the re includes one or more stretches maintai only to the Marshall sub-standard. -. temptation to take a chance will considerable.