National Aspects of Transport
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Precis of a Most Controversial Paper Read at the Institute of Transport Conference at Southampton by Mr. G. F. Bilbrough Or'NF the two papers read at the Institute of Transport ./Congress at Southampton only that by Mr. G. F. Bilbrough on "National Aspects of Transport S' comes within our scope. This paper is highly controversial and many of those concerned in the road transport industry
may disagree with the conclusions at which the author arrives. It begins by referring to the conclusions reached by him in a previous paptr read before the Institute in 1936. These were :— (1) That transport is essentially a public utility, (2) That its rates policy has until recently implemented the principle of classification.
(3) That the solution of a properly adjusted policy lies in the creation of a National Transport Board.
(4) That road boards—area and central—are essential to ensure adequate regulation and uniform standards.
(5) That such road boards should weld the competitive activities of road and rail, community interest being ensured by allocation of capital invested and gradual pooling of plant.
The author considers that these call for no modification; on the contrary, the proposals of the railways envisage a new policy of classification capable of greater flexibility.
The Transport Advisory Council recommends the establishment of area rates committees, and a liaison between road and rail has come into existence. Rudimentary forms of a national policy are emerging, therefore, out of impulses generated by economic distress.
Multiplication of transport facilities does not bring proportionate increase in traffic carried so much as the ability to reduce charges. Improvement must therefore be made by eliminating uneconomic competitive and useless facilities. Such a pruning may necessitate the closing of branch lines or goods stations; the abandonment of certain canals, or the extended regulation of, and limitation of entry into road transport. It may involve the allocation of traffic to specific carriers or its concentration on particular routes.
• Valuable Work by the T.A.C. • The T.A.C. has done valuable work in giving expert advice to the Minister over a wide range of problems, but it is substantially different from the body contemplated. Its recommendations may prove best fitted for a period of interregnum, but any further advance into co-ordination calls for an independent body—whether called an advisory council or a national board—which will enquire into the subject with complete detachment and outline proposals for the more economic use of available facilities.
The more indispensable a public service the less are its prospects of securing generous recognition. The most vital pillars in an economic edifice are:—
(1) Agriculture (including fisheries); (2) Transport services: (3) The basic trades of coal and iron. For years these have hovered on or below the poverty line. Transport, with agriculture, is still in the doldrums, the only projected amelioration taking the guise of subsidies and marketing boards. One can find no evidence that transport is battening upon the trade and industry of the country.
The principle of rates and classification is vital to transport economics and basic to industrial prosperity. This policy had been current coin in every branch of carrying service until the emergence of road transport. Those who deprecate the principle are probably confounding the shadow with the substance. Classification is the total result of all negotiations between carriers and users to evolve a rates structure which would encourage a greater flow of traffic or avoid a decline in the spate.
• Road Interests as Equal Partners •
The road interests would take their appropriate place a; equal partners when they are in a position to enforce a reasonable classification. The usual objection against such a policy is the fear of a rapid increase in vehicles operated under C licences. It is a fear to which the author does not subscribe. It should be the business of a national system to provide adequate services wherever required and to extend equal treatment to all. The trade and well-being of the country are bound not in the accumulation of competitive efforts in densely populated areas but in the distribution of goods and persons everywhere. The relative costs of this work must necessarily differ in the areas, but this is a consideration which an ideal service should average out.
The application of the railways is tantamount to acknowledging the difficulties in adjusting a road policy to traditional practice. It may ultimately transpire that the roadrail agreement is the most significant factor which has emerged, mainly, because of the attitude of mind the rapprochement indicates.
Recognition of a community of interest amongst carrying organizations and determination to foster it are essential to any successful approach to co-ordination.
The road-rail agreement extends the possibilities of organization by the creation of a Central Consultative Committee. Valuable as this really is, it is doubtful whether substantial appeasement will ensue. Rate fixing will reveal major issues in abeyance. There will he no reduction of duplication and wasteful effort.
Those who imagine a widespread revision of rates are doomed to disappointment. The negotiators will find little common ground for fixing mutual schedules, owing to the peculiar bases upon which railway rates have been built, i.e., conveyance, two terminals, and two cartages.
Now an opportunity is afforded for reputable operators and the railways to pool their road services in the promotion of a national undertaking to give 'general facilities to all parts of the country under a system of through rates.
The possibility of enforcing road schedules upon thousands of untouched small units is too remote for consideration.