Here it comes again!
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Road transport in the firing line
by Brian Cottee
AT LEAST the grouse season has an end as well as a beginning. Road transport, it seems, is fair (or unfair) game the year round.
Just when hauliers have been congratulating themselves that the environmental brigade seems to have gone quiet, apparently shamed into silence by the nation's understandable preoccupation with economic values, The Conservation Society has launched a new attack. And an attack with some unpleasant attitudes, some faulty statistics—and a very clear objective. The final clarion call of its new leaflet, printed large above a drawing of a cataclysmic world In which trucks, trailers and diminutive cars fill the skyline of a townscape dominated by roads, reads:
Action now!
We do not have much time. A fuel shortage may force decisions soon—even North Sea Oil will only last about fifteen years. We must act now ! Please get your MPs support for a real transfer of funds from road and air transport to public transport ; to the railways ; and to the waterways.
The leaflet is just one manifestation of a new campaign which the Society unveiled at its conference some two weeks ago under the title of "Conservation for Survival," •its stated aim being to persuade Government that our industrialised society needs a new direction. To judge from its publications, this new direction would be entirely on iron track or inland waterway.
The Society's president is Lord Avebury, its vice-presidents include Sir John Betjeman, Professor Fred Hoyle, Sir Julian Huxley, Professors Mead and Pickering, J. B. Priestley, Sir Peter Scott and Dame Joan Vickers.
A group of distinguished citizens, leading an army of dedicated volunteers, and committed to the protection of values which most Of us would defend, can command a hearing at many levels of society.
Fortunately for road transport—and the national econ omy — their proposals are largely untenable, and recognised by authority to be so. But they should be countered: the industry has surely learned the lesson of underestimating the power of the environmental brigade, and losing by silent default.
In recent speeches, MPs of both main parties have accepted the dominant role of road transport and the passing of the rail era. But this is still a very pcilitical issue, capable of being swayed by irrational appeals. Hauliers, managers, drivers and staffs whose livelihood is in road transport, and who are proud of the vital service it gives the nation, should answer every attack with a cool, clear statement of the true situation.
Let's take a look at the new Conservation Society leaflet in those terms.
It opens with a heading "Roads to Ruin" printed in bold red capitals above a drawing of St Paul's being savaged by motorways which have surrounded the cathedral and are now being pushed through its dome. Inside the leaflet we read:
Roads destroy
We cannot continue road-building without ruinous damage to our cities, towns and places of natural beauty.
Not true! Road building can certainly be continued without damage to cities, towns and places of natural beauty. M6 through the Lune Valley is an example of effective road landscaping to meet environmental needs. It is rack of new roads to take through-traffic away from town centres that causes damage.
Roads jam
It is impossible to satisfy the demand for road space. Today's new ring road or motorway is tomorrow's traffic jam.
Roads consume
Increased traffic means increased fuel consumption. We may run short of energy before the end of this century—we will certainly run short of petrol.
If new roads are not built it will be jam today and tomorrow. The inference that building roads generates new traffic is true only
to a tiny extent, as studies have shown. Most traffic on new roads comes from the inadequate old roads.
Congestion is the biggest waster of fuel; lack of adequate roads— and especially by-passes--is the main breeder of congestion. Intensive work is proceeding on the design and development of more economical vehicles, and studies into alternative fuels.
Who wants more roads?
Britain's transport system is dominated by groups and individuals who believe that only by building more roads can we solve our transport problems. This Roads Lobby includes : British Industry; The Roads Campaign; the AA and RAC ; The British Roads Federation ; the highway engineers in the Department of the Environment ; The Road Haulage Association ; the lorry drivers' unions ; Local Authorities ; and politicians.
Some of these people make money out of roads and road transport—all see their careers, power and prestige enhanced by massive road construction. It is said that they are only responding to the demands of society, yet only about half of the households in the country have a car at their disposal. Most people depend on public transport, yet an overwhelming proportion of transport expenditure goes on roads to subsidise the minority.
Transport and travel are not the fruit of whim. Goods must be moved in the most flexible and efficient way, people need to travel for business and for recreation. "Public transport" includes buses and coaches.
Who pays for roads ?
The Roads Lobby claims to pay £2,000 million in taxes each year. They claim that this covers road construction costs.
Taxation is general, we do not earmark funds for specific purposes—should excise tax on beer go to build more pubs ?
The cost of roads to the community each year is at least £3,000 million. The Roads Lobby's figures are simplistic. They ignore the many hidden subsidies paid by you, the taxpayer and ratepayer. These include • tax concessions on company cars • the costs of accidents, congestion and delays to public transport • the environmental costs of noise and air pollution • the costs of the destruction of existing transport systems
• the loss of production from land under roads.
In 1975/6 road users will in fact pay £2,923m in taxes whereas spending on road construction will total only about £740m. Even if one adds in all road lighting, maintenance, administration and policing, the total is not more than about £1,300m.
Where does our freight go ?
Britain sends 74% of its freight— more than any other major country —by road, adding enormously to traffic jams, pollution and serious accidents. Only 23% of Germany's freight travels by road.
Figures wrong again. In the UK last year 79 per cent of freight ton-miles and 91 per cent of the tonnage were undertaken by road transport. This reflects the continuing choice of industry in operating economically and efficiently. The figures for road freight in Germany are in fact 44 per cent of ton-mileage and 78 per cent of tonnage. Germany's road freight growth over the past five years has been 24 per cent, compared with 8 per cent in Britain.
As for "adding enormously to traffic jams," there are only 95,000 " heavies " on British roads, and only 1.7m goods vehicles altogether, including light vans— but there are 13im cars.
The leaflet ends with appeals to switch to rail, to develop waterways, and other familiar pipedreams. Plus, of course, that "Action now !" battle-cry to support a real transfer of public funds to rail and water. But over C2,000ni has already been poured out in railway subsidies, and demand for the services is declining. Our most effective waterways are the seas—Britain's coastal vessels already carry nearly as much as the railways. Canals and rivers have tiny potential and would require vast investment. Traditionally canal-minded European countries are already moving freight from water to road year by year.
If only these campaigners could be convinced that the building of new roads—especially by-passes— offers the best chance of protecting what they value, road transport might find them useful allies.