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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
Election gimmicks
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY March 31 we shall all have been promised the .11-0 earth—politically. That, at least, is a certainty. Simple souls might well be excused if they chose to be modern Rip Van Winkles until the inevitable ballyhoo of a General Election has passed by.
Transportwise, however, those who are dependent upon this great service industry for their livelihood had better be fully awake. In the next three weeks in particular they should correct mistaken beliefs and policies from whatever source—and there will be many —that will be put forward as to the future role of road transport.
First never let it be forgotten that it is a great industry. More than 2.5m. workers earn their living in the road transport operating and supply industries of the UK. British Railways employ less than 0.3m. Wearing different hats the same ratio applies whether they be electors or trade union members!
So let all political wellwishers for the nation's economy —genuine or not so genuine get out of their electioneering jargon the way-off-beat notion that sound integration of transport can come about only if Headmaster Rail puts Junior Road back into his rightful secondary role.
Only last month the Labour Government spokesman on transport in the House of Lords, Lord Lindgren said: "I want to emphasize again . . . that the roads today carry 89 per cent of all passenger movement and 70 per cent of the total inland movement of goods."
So anyone talking glibly in the next three weeks of a back-to-rail policy as a panacea for our economic malaise is just not with it. It is not even a case of shutting the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted. The stables themselves have been in the process of being dismantled for some time now.
And why? Because of the dark machinations of an anti-rail lobby? What nonsense! It is because of the simplest and most positive of all reasons. The man who pays—the customer—prefers road transport. Freightwise trade and industry know that their present activities, inevitably geared to the fast tempo that modern competition dictates, will quickly come to a halt if vital road transport services are curtailed at some planner's behest.
So why even a token exercise in academic road/rail integration to placate Socialist diehards when every genuine opportunity for such integration has long since been taken by transport user and provider alike.