DOOM-LADEN
Page 71
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JANUS
pESSIMISM about transport seems to grow in step with its efficiency. Never have the public had such a good range of choice for moving themselves or their goods, and never have there been so many statements that, while no doubt honestly made and cheerful in intent, come to the perceptive reader laden with doom.
A few days ago the Daily Telegraph propounded the solution of the transport problem in a trenchant article. It put forward, among other things, the "concept which must be slowly and painfully grasped that even if bookkeeping losses are involved in running a modernized transport service with well-paid staff at low fares, they would be far more than offset by the benefits to the whole economy." One might imagine that the reference was to passenger services in the remote highlands of Scotland, but what in fact the writer had particularly in mind was the proposed Victoria tube line.
It would appear from this that a subsidy is required for transport in congested as well as sparsely populated areas, even when the congestion is avoided by running the service underground. Whatever transport is provided between the two extremes would also no doubt be run at a loss for roost of the time.
Subsidy Only Remedy
There may be a few cases, although it is not easy to think of them, where an essential transport service can by no manner of means be made to pay, and where a subsidy is the only remedy. Recourse to this method of propping up an operator should be had only when all else has failed. In general. transport should be regarded in the same way as a commodity. The people using it should pay for it and not expect to have the service free. As the British Transport Commission used to proclaim before the burden of their deficit made them short of breath, a subsidy is an encouragement to inefficient operation. The choice of the customer is the best guide to services to be kept going.
The prospect is gloomy if national funds have to be diverted to transport with no hope of return. In this atmosphere of doom it is not inappropriate that the Valkyries of the Railway Conversion League should come riding the storm. The League have now issued the memorandum they submitted in the summer to the Stedeford group, and they have no hesitation in saying how desperate they consider the situation.
"The problem of road congestion is out of control," say the League, and they hardly bring comfort by adding the opinion that "failure to solve this problem would mean the economic eclipse of Britain within 10 years." At this point of crisis the country's "transport system is breaking down and its economic wellbeing will follow suit unless the crisis is met. There is no hope whatever for the railways as at present constituted. In a few years the great network of the permanent way will have been broken up."
Many of the ultimate decisions on the future of transport will be taken behind the scenes by experts in various fields,
some of them Civil Servants. The indications are that these experts, on the whole, do not think highly of the League, and it must be admitted that some of the statements made by that body, and at times their handling of statistics, are open to criticism. All the same there is a fascination in the skill shown by the League in handling their sweeping proposals for providing the transport facilities that the country needs.
Particularly ingenious is the clinching argument on finance. The League point out that ii500m. was paid by road users in special taxation during 1958 and that this represented more than 20 per cent, on turnover, in spite of which commercial road transport was profitable enough to attract new capital. For the same year British Railways showed "an acknowledged deficit" of £90m. and the League maintain that under normal commercial accounting the figure would have been at least £250m. The conclusion must be that the profitability of road transport exceeds that of the railways by a wide margin. "This being so," comment the League, "a change in use of the permanent way system from railways to motor transport cannot but bring about a substantial improvement in the financial prospects of the system as a whole."
Exactly how the converted railways would fit into the general pattern of transport is still not completely clear. Previous publications by the League have given the impression that the railway tracks would be segregated as they are now and would be reserved for specially constructed vehicles. The present type of road vehicle and the motorist would be excluded. There is a suggestion in the new memorandum that the motorist may have a choice, but, on the other hand, the permanent-way network is still described as "reserved."
The idea of turning railways into roads is not new, although the League have taken it further than anybody else. What most people have imagined as an important advantage of conversion is simply the provision of much needed extra road space. Some segregation might be . thought desirable. Commercial-vehicle operators, especially those on tong-distance services, would almost certainly agree that cars and small delivery vehicles should be banned from the converted roads. On the other hand, the fully laden lorry with one destination would like to enter and leave the road so as to continue to provide a doorto-door service without transhipment. In the same way, the haulier would prefer to have an uninterrupted journey from one depot to another.
Behind the runes
Much trouble has been taken to make this possible even with the present railway system. There are piggyback trailers in the U.S.A., and recently British Road Services have exhibited the Roadrailer, the name of which ade quately describes its function. If the railways become roads, not the least benefit would be the obsolescence of the convertible vehicle. In their apparent wish to continue segregating the former railway track the League seem to be singularly behind the times.
An apt comment on this has recently been made by L'Union Routiere de France in a study on the Channel crossing. They are firmly against• any plan to build a tunnel or bridge for railways only and the idea of using railway flat wagons in order to carry road vehicles they reject as an anomaly—fancy building a railway to carry cars! Whatever kind of link is undertaken, say the French federation, it must match the political and economic importance of the countries affected, and ideally should provide free passage for both road and rail vehicles, as well as telegraph and power cables. It seems almost a pity that this impeccable study in French logic did not go on to envisage what might happen if an exclusively rail project was put in hand and shortly afterwards the British, notorious for their lack of logic, decided to convert their railways into roads,