1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
JANUS
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WRITES
They also serve who only stand and wait'
FOR the moment the threat of parking charges for commercial vehicles engaged in loading or unloading in the street is no more than a small cloud on the horizon. Past experience should warn operators that the early stages of a threat are no reliable indication of its ultimate size. The sequence which begins with modest official depreciation and assurances that a proposed measure should be regarded as exceptional too often ends with the bluff decision to turn the exception into the rule. The time for resistance is at the outset, Parking meters for private cars have had their share of criticism, but they have proved their function as a rough means of rationing kerb space where there is not enough to go round. They discourage the all-day parker or commuter; they help the roving driver seeking somewhere to leave his car for a short time; and they do not interfere with the right of the commercial operator lo load or unload essential traffic. Each of these three elements must be included in any parking scheme if it is to make sense, let alone be successful.
ONLY TWO PROPOSALS
So far only two proposals have been made for meter charges on commercial vehicles. Representatives of road transport associations have been discussing with the Ministry of Transport the intention of the City of London to make the owners of lorries pay if they have to wait to load or unload in Upper Thames Street. Reference has been made at the same time to the Bristol Traffic Committee, who took the matter a stage further a short time ago by actually deciding to charge a fee, but subsequently agreed to wait for six months as a result of protests from operators and from the trade unions.
The Bristol concession requires the consent of the Minister of Transport. If he refuses to sanction the scheme _unless charges for commercial vehicles form part of it and are to be levied from the beginning, operators are likely to regard his action as tantamount to a declaration of war. If the two districts concerned are a guide, the Minister's determination to make the lorry pay has particular relevance to port areas in the middle of towns, where vehicles with business at wharves, warehouses and docks add to an already serious congestion. To this extent there must be considerable sympathy for the Minister, whom even his enemies cannot accuse of relishing restriction for its own sake, His error lies in imposing the penalty on the wrong people. The turnround problem in the ports is notoriously intractable, but it is rarely the fault of vehicle operators, who have in fact been pleading strongly for some time that the many interests concerned should get together and work out a solution.
LESS THAN FAIR
The Minister can hardly be expected to take up a collection from the shippers, the ship owners, the port authorities, the dockers, the forwarding agencies, the warehousemen, the customs authorities and the many other people among whom it is generally supposed that the blame for dock delays should be distributed. He is being less than fair when he seeks to extract fees from commercial operators who already stand to lose most from the long waiting periods which have brought the Minister's unfavourable attention down upon them.
The haulier is entitled to feel particularly aggrieved. His vehicle is his sole means of livelihood. When it is at a standstill he is earning nothing. His rates are bound to include an element representing the time spent at terminals. When the time is unreasonably prolonged he must make an extra charge. This may be direct in the form of demurrage or may be spread over his tariff so that he can balance the rough with the smooth. The customer is not always willing to pay this kind of surcharge, especially when he may not be directly responsible for the delay.
HAULIER TO PAY TWICE?
In such circumstances the haulier, who has done as much as he can by exhortation and publicity to speed up turnround, finds he has to meet unaided what is in• effect an addition to his costs. He will now have to pay twice over if the proposals for parking fees are accepted. Where the customer accepts the cost, he in turn is making a double payment for no tangible return. If the vehicle is his own he is in very much the same position, although unlike the haulier he does not depend upon it for his living. The general public, at this stage far removed from the dispute, will ultimately feel its effect when waiting charges take their place with other incidental costs in determining prices in the -shops.
The Rochdale report contained the suggestion that hauliers should charge demurrage when their vehicles were kept waiting too long at the docks. The intention was to hit the real culprits in the pocket and goad them into speeding up vehicle turnround. It may be said to go directly against the spirit of the Rochdale report when operators are expected to pay a demurrage charge instead of receiving one. No doubt the local authorities are just as powerless as vehicle operators to deal with many of the complexities of the docks problem, but it is their duty among other things to provide adequate approach roads and adequate space for the vehicles which have to wait. They have no right to expect an operator to pay twice for their failure to carry out their obligations.
LORRY IS ESSENTIAL
Parking fees for lorries seem to be equally contrary to the spirit of the Buchanan report, which stressed the importance of giving essential traffic priority and keeping the other sort of traffic out. The sensible solution to the problem on the Thames and on the Avon would be to reserve the disputed thoroughfares for commercial vehicles. It is difficult to understand what business private cars have parking in Upper Thames Street unless they are fugitives from a parking scheme somewhere else, in which case there• should be no compunction about refusing them entry. The waiting lorry may seem idle, but it is none the less essential for that. They also serve who only stand and wait.