The cost of transp drl
Page 82
Page 83
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
. . was the main theme at the Institute of Transport Administration's annual conference, and much interesting ground was covered. Sir Campbell Fraser, in particular, was in hard-hitting for Mike Rutherford reports
MANCHESTER provided the venue for this year's Institute of Transport Administration annual conference. An enthusiastic gathering of IOTA members heard speeches from a number of distinguished guest speakers, including the president of the Confederation of British Industry. Dr Vernon Webster of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory presented the first paper. His speech was based on a TRRL Report (no. SR 691) entitled "Changing The Cost of Travel", which he wrote with Dr P. H. Bly for the 1980 World Conference on Transport Research.
Their report investigated the effects of higher fuel prices, fiscal restraints, and the elimination of public transport fares on both a medium-size town and a large city.
The findings suggest that higher fuel prices would encourage public transport use, particularly in large towns, and would reduce overall fuel consumption.
A further indication is that the nationwide decline in bus use would be stemmed by higher fuel prices, though "unrealistically high" prices would be needed to actually reverse the trend.
Free bus travel is another ploy that encourages higher bus patronage, though the report claims that most of these passengers would be those who had driven into town and were walking around.
There would, however, be a modest but appreciable shift from car to bus use in large cities, and higher parking charges would help this trend.
Over the past few decades, says Dr Webster, the real cost of motoring has remained fairly stable while public transport fares have risen (in real terms). That situation is likely to change as oil supplies dwindle, he predicts.
In a somewhat gloomy mood, Eric Tindall, director general of the Road Transport Industry Training Board, opened the next day's proceedings at the conference. Mr Tindall was one of four guest speakers who made a presentation on the subject entitled, "Counting The Cost In Transport".
He said that the unhappy position that we are in now, with more people than jobs, could well be here to stay.
"Some of us believe that this is likely to be with us for at least the next 20 years and that we should perhaps be planning round it instead of attempting to disguise it by political cosmetic measures.
"After all, it is by no means certain that there is anything inherently noble in the idea of work and if there is less of it about, then perhaps we should start to consider how we demolish the Victorian work ethic."
Mr Tindall said that the level of training in the road transport industry has declined drastically since 1979/80. A number of factors have contributed to the de cline, he says.
"Throughout the period of 1979 to 1982 there has been total uncertainty within the industry about the future of industrial training arrangements. Report has followed report, review has succeeded review and several different ministers have made statements. Nonetheless, there is still no decision about the future of the RTITB."
At the same time as this uncertainty, he says, there has been a considerable reduction in training investment in the road transport industry. Compared with the peak year of 1978/79, the income available for investment in training in the industry by the board has declined by 39 per cent (or over £20m a year) in real terms.
Mr Tindall claimed that Government intervention through a multitude of different agencies, most of which are concerned with social rather than industrial needs, endangers all that the ITBs have created over the last 17 years.
"In no industry is this more true than transport and distribution. Ours is an industry which uses a number of distinct managerial, craft and operative skills transferable between a multitude of industrial companies, and one which often in the pre-ITB past has been subject to substantial labour shortages."
There will be an ever more important role for the transport industry in future — from now on the key element in production will be transport, he predicts.
"Now is precisely the time when our industrial training should be encouraged. For either Government or industry to pretend that rising industrial training costs can be met voluntarily at the present time is absurd. We need more investment and more Government aid for real industrial training, not less," he said.
Mr Tindall concluded his speech by saying that the imaginative use of proven managerial techniques in training and elsewhere can produce a new in dustrial revolution.
The speaker that foil wed E Tindall was Dr Ton RidlE managing director ( ailway London Transport. He deliver, a highly informati e pap dealing with several a pects London's transport sy tern.
Dr Ridley said that co sisten of policy is extremely importa for the benefit of the capita transport system. Su cessi, administrations at Co nty H.
with differing policies no rru ter what they are — le d to u certainties for the future of tl system.
It is clear, said Dr Ridley, th the railway business in Lond( needs a much greater amount capital investment than the bi business.
"Not surprising, perhap when one recognises that ti Underground provides, finano and maintains its own 'road' al 'traffic signals': Indeed, I wou argue that, in order to secure ti future, a much greater invel ment in the fabric of the U derground is required."
Dr Ridley examined the cc movements in what he calli the "railway business" over r cent years and said that railw staff costs in London Transpc in 1970 totalled E32.6m. In 191 the figure stood at f181.9r Over the decade, therefore, claimed that these staff cos had increased by more than ! per cent faster than inflation.
The extent to which staff cos have run beyond the rate of ir lation is not a result of increasi in basic rates, but rather oth, "improvements" such as L'o4 don weighting, national ii surance and retirement benefit enhancements for unsoci hours, and other similar perk he said.
Sir Campbell Fraser, the chai man of Dunlop and president' the Confederation of British II dustry, delivered another ente taming speech to the confe ence, and like Dr Ridley was WE received by the delegates.
Any industry, any compan should understand the fund mental need to count costs, said. "The fact is that if you don't Et your costs right you're not :ely to get much else right. feryone should understand it; )t everyone does. But it is an nolute requirement for those us who do understand to try convince the rest. Even if it's for the selfish reason of oking after our own interests."
Sir Campbell talked at length )out the attitude of the Jape
se who, in manufacturing, 3ve got into the habit of asking
very important question — how can I improve on what I rn doing?"
"If you ask that question often nough and thoroughly enough au have a fair chance of nishing up top of the industrial )ague," said Sir Campbell Clearly Japan has done well in lanufaaturing because of its efciency. And the efficiency has uilt on itself, he claimed.
"It may have started with a ,etter pan for boiling rice. Now :'s a better machine for making ,her machines. When the Japeiese were making the better Ian, Britain had almost 16 per ,ent of world trade; now when hey are making the better nachines, we have just over 8.5 )er cent."
Sir Campbell blamed manigers and workers for the situaion that we found ourselves in it the end of the last decade.
"In the later years of the 1970s we acted like idiots. We paid ourelves as if the nation was winling the pools every week. In 1980, average earnings rose by 20 per cent at a time when the actual wealth of the country fell by five per cent.
"But don't blame the workers. Plenty of managers and directors paid themselves just as much on the need to maintain the differential. A betting man wouldn't have given much for our survival."
Sir Campbell's message was, he said, about efficiency. He admitted that it is not a concept that grabs everybody.
"What is required of us is that we work consistently and persistently. Conscientiously, if you like. Sensibly, if that's a better description. But work. Be at work, and not skiving or striking — or having long lunches or long weekends.
"Working steadily, committed to the success of the company that pays us on Friday, working with an understanding that life is competitive, and will continue to be in our lifetime. Work for our families and our own self-respect."
Sir Campbell Fraser told the conference that his generation fought hard to achieve full employment, and that that should be a prime objective of public policy.
"But we all know now that in a competitive world there is no guarantee of full employment. Don't blame Governments for that. You don't need me to tell you that for thirty-five years too many of us, as individuals, came to believe that being at work was one thing; actually working was another. That's not the way people keep themselves in jobs."
The final member of the fourman panel speaking on "Counting the Cost In Transport" was Patrick Brown, as sistant secretary, Department of Transport. Mr Brown spoke to the IOTA conference the morning after David Howell's speech at the Tory Party conference (see page 3).
He asked the IOTA delegates to "appreciate my difficulties" for he was armed with two alternative drafts on the subject of lorry weights. What Mr Brown could definitely confirm was that "the Government is clear in its. own mind that heavier lorries make sense."
It is also clear, he said, that the Government cannot continue to ignore the savings of some £1.5 billion which could result over the next decade from raising the payload of lorries towards those of our major competitors.
"The issue of the heavy lorry is probably the best current example of the need to balance economic, social and environmental pressures in the transport field," said Mr Brown.
His brief but enthusiastically received speech made reference to a variety of subjects. The Government will remain committed to fair competition between road and rail; the proposed transfer of the annual HGV and PSV testing "regime" to the private sector will "not produce significant economies one way or the other"; and the Government's aim is to free as much as possible of the transport industries from unnecessary public sector restraints.