AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

jj 'Are we afraid to plunge

24th March 1994, Page 50
24th March 1994
Page 50
Page 50, 24th March 1994 — jj 'Are we afraid to plunge
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?

ourselves into a black hole beneath the waves?'

6 MORI-poll commissioned by my

company, "Channel Tunnel: Sink or Swim?" revealed that just weeks before its scheduled opening date 64% of transport operators know "just a little" or "nothing at all" about what is arguably the greatest transport infrastructure achievement any of us will see in our lifetimes.

You have to ask why? Is it simply down to lack of information or are the ferries so good no one needs to care? Could it be the "island race" attitude surfacing or is it just that we are afraid to plunge ourselves into a black hole beneath the waves?

I suspect there is more to it than all this. We need to look back to the time when, I believe, most of us effectively lost interest in the project—the day when it was announced it would be rail only. If the tunnel had promised to bridge the gap by offering a road crossing—with or without rail—then I suggest every transport operator in the land would be holding his breath, waiting for the tape to be cut. I don't propose to start a debate as to the feasibility of driving a roadway beneath the English Channel, but it's time for us to face the reality of what rail can achieve. A prime example is the 44 tonnes road/rail debate Last year I said the proposals for combined transport were the sop that would satisfy nobody. I have seen nothing to change my mind. Can we really expect to see a revolution in the way freight is moved because of this single piece of new legislation? Do we seriously believe people will commit to a rail network widely perceived to be in its death throes?

Nobody doubts we need to find a better solution for our roads. More investment in new highways alone will not provide the answer unless the problems of private cars and public transport are tackled: it is not the trucks that clog up the highways, it is the wholly inefficient, single-occupancy use of motor cars that is responsible.

Much of that is down to the lack of faith in the railways. On a recent peak-time rail journey from London to Stoke-on-Trent, only four people got off the three-quarter empty train in Stoke. But how many were in their cars making the same journey at the some time? While the train offers a better service than the car by being faster and less stressful, plus offering the opportunity to work en route, it is simply not perceived in this way by the public at large. Why not attempt to change attitudes and really try to bring the elements of road and rail together in a way that might just work? Let the railways concentrate on what they do well—moving people. Create a network we can believe in—and do not dilute the argument by bringing freight into the argument. Unlike cargo, human beings are self loading and capable of distributing themselves from the railway station. The vast majority of goods—and industry— require the flexibility that only trucks can supply. Anyone who argues otherwise is just fooling themselves. Let the railways be encouraged to improve passenger service. Supplement that with an efficient public transport system in urban areas and we would have the springboard from where we could realistically set about reducing the congestion caused by too many cars on the roads. The way would then be clear for trucks to do what they do best.

But if we continue to hide from the facts, there will be yet more Channel Tunnels— mammoth feats in danger of evolving into white elephants.

Tags

Locations: London, Stoke-on-Trent

comments powered by Disqus