The Futility of an Area Scheme
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOR over two years the Omnibus Passengers Protection Association has been pointing out the folly of interfering with the extremely efficient bus and coach services of the North-Eastern area.
The sole excuse ever advanced by the British Transport Commission for its North East Area Scheme has been that the co-ordination of transport in this area, both between neighbouring road operators and between road and rail, is capable of improvement. Our Association has continually pointed out that this allegation was, in fact, a most unfair aspersion on the success with which the Licensing Authority, Mr. S. W. Nelson, has carried out his duty under the Road Traffic Act to ensure that co-ordination was satisfactory.
Strong support for our point of view comes from a wellknown academic source in the shape of a closely reasoned article in "Planning Outlook," the Journal of the School of Town and Country Plann4ng, Durham University. The author of the article is Mr. Alastair M. Milne, lecturer on economics at King's College, Durham. Extracts from his article speak for themselves:—
" It would be difficult to maintain that the present netwak of services cannot be improved but, if twenty years' work by the Licensing Authority has achieved anything at all, it is unlikely that spectacular improvements in services by way of further co-ordination can be obtained.
" Investigation of the problem has suggested that the optimum number of vehicles which can be efficiently maintained and operated by one undertaking varies from 50 to 2,000. . . . The number of passengercarrying vehicles included in the Scheme is approximately 4,500, and these vehicles operate over a wide geographical area.
"There is not, therefore, any great scope for co-ordination between the rail and the road....
"It is doubtful whether the possibility of greater co-ordination between road and rail passenger transport and between the road transport undertakings is sufficient to justify a major reorganization of the passenger road transport industry in the North-East." In other words, as Mr. Milne suggests in his final paragraph, we have yet to be informed of any advantages whatever that could result from the Area Scheme proposed by the British Transport Commission.
R. ERSK1NE-HILL,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2. Organizing Secretary. (For Omnibus Passengers Protection Association.) GROUPS AND THE R.H.A.
WHILST 1 have been for many years a supporter of the IT policy of friendly grouping between hauliers for the exchange of surplus traffic, and probably bulk purchase, I note with some apprehension the latest developments in this direction.
For instance, if the company formed by the directors advertises, it should surely do so in such a way as to attract traffic to shareholder members (e.g. " Utilize Free Hauliers," etc.). To advertise as the Birmingham Group directors have been doing, i.e., as a company trying to attract traffic to itself, cannot help but abstract traffic from its members This seems to me stupid, and, furthermore, it is something the directors promised, at the inaugural meeting in 1943, that they would not do, i.e., compete, as a company, with their own shareholder members and independent hauliers. Then, again, why should the Group members be forced to pay fees to any particular association, e.g., the R.H.A.? I have a letter from Mr. Patrick, of the A.R.O., as it then ,was, in which he states that Birmingham Road Haulage, Ltd. (which is the company forming the group) is a "public company promoted by private individuals," and that the Association "has had nothing to do with the calling of B22 any meeting relating to the company." Why then should the members be now called upon to pay fees to the R.H.A.?
Birmingham, 18. E. J. ANDREWS, A.M.Inst,T.A.
A VALENTINE FOR MR. J. S. WILLS I N Mr. J. S. Wills' article, " What Independence Means in Passenger Transport," published in your issue dated September 22, the following paragraph appeared (at the top of the second column on page 144) with reference to evidence given to the Transport Tribunal when considering the London Area (Interim) Passenger Charges Scheme:— " The essence of this proposed scheme was that fares should be equalized whatever form of transport be used. It is only fair to say that the British Transport Commission was careful to emphasize that such a principle would not necessarily be suitable outside the London area, in the event of its gaining control in the provinces. On the other hand, one of the Commission's principal witnesses did go so far as to say that, in his view, the principle of equalization should be extended to the assimilation of fares from London to Edinburgh, both for a journey by express passenger train on the one hand and for a journey by stage-carriage bus (changing vehicles where appropriate) on the other."
The third sentence in the paragraph
quoted above is incorrect. What happened was that I was asked in effect whether I would advocate equalization of fares for a comfortable express rail journey and a journey by stage-carriage bus between London and Edinburgh, to which I replied: "I would not think it essential to assimilate the fares in both those cases." Unfortunately, as must often happen in reporting quick exchanges between counsel and witness, the shorthand-writer failed to get down the whole answer, which appeared next day in the printed proceedings without the two words in italics! (Question 2852, 10th day.) The correct version, restoring the vital word "not," agreed. of course, by crossexamining counsel and accepted by the Tribunal, appeared in a long list of corrigenda on page 544 at the end of the printed proceedings of the 21st day.
Had I really said what was erroneously printed in the first case I could not, of course, complain of Mr. Wills' comment; indeed, it was restrained. Nor, of course, do I complain of his failure to unearth the subsequent printed correction.
London, S.W.I. A. B. B. VALENTINE.
WHY LONG DELAYS IN RATES AND CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE?
N/OUR contributor "Janus" indeed hit the nail on the 1 head when, in a recent article, he commented on the delay in the production by the British Transport Commission of its rates and charges scheme.
I would like to point out that the Road Haulage Exeeutive has not even yet produced its interim set of Conditions of Carriage promised for early this year.
It is a well-known fact that most of the acquired undertakings now under the Road Haulage Executive had differing sets of conditions of carriage, and some had none at all !' Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise an interim set of conditions, so that the present chaotic state of affairs can be avoided.
Most of the acquired undertakings comprise our old friends who, in their pre-nationalization days, were active and virile in their own and the road haulage industry's interests. It seems that the heavy hand of bureaucracy has clamped down upon them so that they are now fettered into a state of semi-activity.
When will the R.H.E. deal with this sorely needed matter?
Great Tarpots, Essex. R. B. BRITTAIN.