Balance lorry's 'social costs'
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by CM reporter A BALANCE has to be struck between what the economists and politicians call the "social costs" of the lorry and its benefits, according to Mr Ken Hatcher, chairman of the Road Haulage Association.
Speaking at the annual luncheon of the East Midland Area in Nottingham last week, he accepted that there are too many occasions when heavy goods traffic caused annoyance. "It is not part of our philosophy to add to the sum of human misery," he said.
But the RHA believe that, taken as a whole, the standard of living and the quality of life are advanced by road transport. It would be only if and when some of the drastic measures proposed for dealing with traffic were put into effect that the public—who took the benefits for granted —would notice the difference.
There would then be a national campaign under the slogan : "Bring back t h e lorry."
"These social costs and benefits cannot be precisely expressed in financial terms," said Mr Hatcher. "But I am confident that the benefits far outweigh the costs and, unless I hear to the contrary, I am prepared to believe this opinion is shared by Dr Gilbert who after all is the Minister for Transport and not against it."
Much could be done by fairly modest road improvements as well as by the ultimately essential new road construction, said the RHA chairman. Road hauliers would be ready to help towards environ mental improvements t o vehicles and by the choice of routes to take them away from population centres. But more Government help and effort was essential.
When lain Sherrill, CM's editor, toasted The Association, he won aplause when he told the hauliers that they could not win after a budget imposing 74p on a gallon of diesel.
The extra fuel cost would amount to a penny per mile on running costs and, though this would be passed on to customers, it would be three months before the haulier was paid. A 15-vehicle fleet doing 4,000 miles a month would provide a £645 a month subsidy to the Exchequer.