AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Roads are 'economic investments'

15th July 1966, Page 30
15th July 1966
Page 30
Page 30, 15th July 1966 — Roads are 'economic investments'
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?

THE concluding session of the BRF symposium on road administration and finance last week was notable for a number of forthright declarations of the views of prominent personalities. Sir Reginald Wilson, who according to chairman, Alec Dune, had persuaded Mr. Stanley Raymond to attend, surprised many people when he said that he agreed with Mr. Raymond on the question of track costs. The public utility concept was relevant to the question of a roads board, in Sir Reginald's view. If the board was a monopoly it would have to be publicly controlled and it would necessarily aim to maximize service to users and not profits.

Some assistance from road revenues to rail track costs (it was not clear how much Sir Reginald had in mind) was justifiable but assistance should stop short at the track. "Lord forbid that we should subsidize the railways' operating deficits", he said and went on to argue that a quite ordinary form of public utility accounting would be appropriate to a roads or track board, with a quasi managerial organization. This would never be independent, he thought; possibly it would be a section of the Ministry. It was important to separate out the costs of roads, otherwise there was no clarity and no management and the whole business would drift on as it had done for years.

Mr. W. G. Harris, director general of highways of the Ministry of Transport, said his views did not necessarily represent the Ministry's policy but were probably not very different from it. He felt the conference had revealed a good measure of disagreement on the question of a road pricing system and the establishment of a roads board. He was not satisfied that such a board was economically justifiable or politically practicable. It was very hard to separate finance from administration.

But he agreed that whatever authority was responsible for the roads programme it should act in a common sense way without wasteful procedures or red tape. At the same time regard must be had to financial and social factors. Roads must be regarded primarily as economic investments and he felt that their organization should be within the political structure of government.

He revealed that the Ministry was undertaking a thorough review of the statutory and administrative procedures that preceded new road building. Procedures for planned new roads were being put on the critical path system, but naturally this was taking time. The Ministry had accepted virtually all of the NEDC report on road building, which had urged the concentration of staff and resources and the streamlining of administration. The resources of the Ministry and city and county councils would be jointly mobilized, and he felt this would be more effective than a roads board and would not involve legislation.

Mr. .1. A. Lofthouse, chairman of the NEDC report on road construction, discussed the realities behind the phrase "public accountability-. The factors which made an able civil servant come to a different conclusion from an employee of private industry were fear of questions in Parliament and an unwillingness to take marginal technical risks. "In private enterprise," he said, "if you don't take some risks someone else will. The cost of being 100 per cent is very high."


comments powered by Disqus