AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

left-wing document that JANUS . . . may be described WRITES

19th April 1963, Page 71
19th April 1963
Page 71
Page 71, 19th April 1963 — left-wing document that JANUS . . . may be described WRITES
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?

as courageous'

WHAT may seem almost a desperate attempt to get away from the charmed circle of Labour Party thinking on transport is to be found in a paper that takes up the greater part of one issue of Socialist Commentary. Under the title "Transport is everyone's problem ", the paper sums up discussions lasting over a year between a group of mostly anonymous "experts ". The foreword is careful to point out that they were not all in full agreement with the document, and that almost everyone had certain reservations.

It is tempting, therefore, to describe the paper as a monument to collective irresponsibility. But in fact here is a left-wing document reaching conclusions that in the context may be described as courageous. For example, • following a somewhat stealthy approach to the point, it dares to enunciate as a "fundamental principle" that transport is a "consumer good ", and not itself a social service, as is education or the health service. Most people could have reached this conclusion for themselves, but it is still a landmark in a socialist publication.

The effect is somewhat obscured by the added comment that, because transport is by definition a consumer good, it should be sold at a price which as nearly as possible represents the true cost of production. Transport is not a tangible product, as everyone knows, and what it produces in the way of available space has to be used at once or no longer has any value. This point is appreciated later in the paper, for it introduces the concept of "social surplus planning ", with the assistance of which it is considered theoretically possible to balance the social profit and loss of any new transport project, whether it is the building of a new road or the closure of a railway line, and to decide whether the advantages outweigh the cost.

More is likely to be heard of this concept in the future. From the attempt that the paper makes to apply it over a wide field, it is possible to say that it helps with many problems, more especially with those where passenger traffic is the most concerned. Indeed, the document as a whole seems more at home with passenger than with goods transport, and points to some markedly different conclusions according to whether the cargo is human or inanimate.

THE TRADER'S RIGHT

The rise in private motoring is illustrated by the expenditure on it of up to 6.2 per cent of the national consumption in 1960, as compared with 3-2 per cent in 1938:"Any political party that tries to ignore this striking fact will do so at its peril ", says the paper, evidently regarding as beyond cavil the right of the individual to own his own car. There is a good deal more hesitation about conceding the same right to the trader who wishes to carry his own goods.

The paper gives no definite lead on this point, but surprisingly goes considerably further in a note on road haulage. The situation which led to the introduction of the licensing system has now passed away, says the paper, with the granting of their commercial freedom to the rail. ways. Congestion caused by heavy vehicles, poor main

tenance standards and long hours of work has not been checked by licensing. Taxation on a vehicle-mile basis is needed to ease the congestion, and the other evils can be met only by more stringent enforcement of regulations. Licensing can therefore be abolished.

It is apparently not even contemplated by the authors of the paper that there should be no licensing for passenger vehicles. It might also be interesting to canvass the opinions of British Road Services and of the railways on the abolition of licensing. The paper makes it clear that there would be no unfair advantages, and that any new taxes would apply equally to nationalized transport as to operators under free enterprise.

No doubt is entertained of the outcome. "We think that a considerable natural advantage should rest with the nationalized British Road Services ", says the paper. Like the railways, they would be able to offer a frequent, regular, reliable service and a great variety of specialized facilities. If small hauliers wanted to compete with these advantages, "if they find they can still cut rates, if some of them go bankrupt in the process ", it was not the business of society 'to object, so long as the large organization had freedom to charge the rate, according to cost, for those loads which it could carry most economically.

NO RENATIONALIZATION ?

The inevitable consequence of this opinion, honestly held, should be that there is no point in renationaliz.ation. This in fact is agreed in the paper. The principle of social surplus planning is evidently far-reaching when followed to its logical conclusion. The social factors, important in guiding the development of the transport industry within its environment, seem, however, not to extend to the industry itself. The prospect of widespread bankruptcy among hauliers is something that can be regarded with equanimity. One can only wonder whether the same attitude would be adopted, for example, towards the railway workers who may lose their jobs followingthe implementation of the Beeching policy, which the paper accepts in essence.

Another unpalatable fact that logical argument reluctantly wrings from the authors of the paper is that fierce competition between the railways and the roads for lucrative freight traffic makes sense in terms of social surplus planning. This truth is acknowledged to be "unfortunate ". The determination not to shirk it makes the document all the more impressive as an appraisal without bias of the road-rail situation.

The main proposals in the paper are sensible, even if not universally acceptable. The establishment is suggested of a Roads Board with a constitution similar to the British Railways Board. Both bodies should be responsible to a new Ministry of Regional Planning and Development. A grid of motorways would be built as part of the radical replanning of the country's cities. The existing main roads would form a secondary network, sealed off from the reconstructed central and local shopping areas which they would enclose.


comments powered by Disqus