Heavy lorries and the environment
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Like so many from the environmental lobby, Mr. B. M. Feilden (CM, November 10) argues from a standpoint of emotion and hearsay rather than fact. For example, he complains about physical damage to buildings — which he immediately attributes in total and without proof to the heavy lorry.
Similarly, he says, with no backing for his statement, that by-passes cannot be justified on an economic basis. The facts — reduced distribution cost, reduced accident rate to vehicles, people, and buildings, reduced congestion, etc — all point, in fact, to a major saving.
In any case it might perhaps be as well not to stick to a purely economic cost/bendfit analysis. Such an analysis would be bound to favour the demolition of many of the buildings that both he and the transport men (who happen also to be ordinary members of the community) want to see preserved.
J. M. GUTTRIDGE, Public Relations Officer, Freight Transport Association.