Transport Co-ordination:
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Outspoken Views .A Rgsurne of the Two Papers on the Subject of the Co-ordination of Transport,Read Before the Annual Conference of the Industrial Transport Association OPENED at Glasgow on Monday last, the annual conference of the Industrial Transport Association was of particular interest, in that the two papers read dealt with the same subject, namely, " The Co-ordination of Transport." The first paper, presented on Monday last, was read by Mr. Frederick Smith, head of the transport executive, Unilever, Ltd., whilst the second paper, delivered on Tuesday, was prepared by the Scottish branch of the Association, Many members took part in a full discussion on the subject, and the results of the debate were edited by Mr. J. Cairns, J.P., chairman, and read as a paper by Mr. G. S. Vickary, transport manager of Wm. younger and Co., Ltd.
Mr. Smith, the author of tne first paper, opens his remarks with the query as to why it was deemed necessary to make provision in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, for coordination. We are living, he said, under a competitive system. There is no suggestion, for example, of co-ordinating tailors' establishments or retail shopkeepers. Competition is allowed to flourish freely, and those who live in growing industrial towns must be amazed at the apparent waste of effort caused by the multiplication of establishments. Save in the ranks of the political party which professes itself to be opposed to private enterprises, there appears to be no effort to co-ordinate the activities of the trader.
What is the Suggested Co-ordination?
What is it, then, about the transport industry which has caused it always to be in the arena of political controversy? The answer lies in the fact that the industry has, for the past hundred years, been more or less monopolistic. Pressure from various quarters for the co-ordination of the several methods of transport has, in the author's view, been due to attempts to preserve or restore this monopoly. Stripped of all hypocrisy, co-ordination is really sought in the interests of the railways alone.
Mr. Smith reviews the situation as regards coastwise transport, and he opines that the railways do not appear to have been unduly concerned about such competition, nor have they made attempts to co-ordinate coastal chartered shipping with their own services. With road competition, however, we find a totally different story; perhaps the most important feature of this competition has been that, for the first time, traders have been able to make themselves largely independent of railways or other public carriers. There axe few traders who cannot afford to run a motor vehicle, thus gaining for themselves advantages, not only in cost, but in service.
Who Should Tackle Long-distance Traffic?
After tracing briefly the history of the road-transport industry's threat to the railways, the author comes to the conclusion that railway activities on the goods side should be limited to the haulage of bulk loads at high speeds between important centres. The concentration upon and distribution from these centres should be performed by motor vehicles. Had the railways tackled the problem in this way they would have had nothing to fear from unrestricted road competition. They have, however, shown little inclination to deal with the problem on these lines The author expresses the firm conviction that the present situation in which goods services by road are gradually being reduced, by processes of attrition, is basically wrong. From the point of view of the user of transport, the main concern, of course, is that there should be preserved a reasonable amount of competition. The position of the user is safeguarded in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, but there are already indications of serious consideration being given to the application of some form of restriction upon the C licensee.
ii36 It is argued that since the advent of road transport, the conditions governing a railway monopoly no longer apply. The statutory obligations and regulations affecting the commercial relations of the railways with the public should, therefore, have been modified, if not removed altogether. Regulations which have their roots in monopoly are no longer necessary or desirable when that monopoly has been broken.
Co-ordination Must Now Receive Attention.
Mr. Smith refers at length to the memorandum issued by the Association for submission to the Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris last year, and he suggests that this memorandum still represents the general views of members upon the subject under discussion. At the time it was issued, however, the document was of a more or less academic nature, but the recent activities of the Transport Advisory Council have now made the question one of active politics.
There can be no question that the Council has a formidable task in the co-ordination of the public carrying services. Whether it will solve it upon lines which will ensure the parallel development of road, rail and water transport, or whether it will follow the general lines of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, building upon the assumption that true co-ordination means the elimination of one form of transport, remains to be seen.
A series of compromises cannot prove satisfactory, and it is essential, if co-ordination is to be achieved, that there must be a definite planning of the transport system of the country. This planning must be built up on modern lines and organized in such a way as to place service to the public as the first consideration.
The author concludes that, in his view, the proper planning of transport can only be attained by a National Transport Board, entirely above and independent of any particular form of transport. This body should be a permanent administrative body, the sole interest of which should be the organization of the national transport services as a whole, and the user of transport should be entitled to be heard equally with the providers of transport.
The Views of the LT,A. Scottish Branch.
As previously mentioned, the second paper on the same subject was the combined effort of members of the Scottish branch of the Association. The paper is the result of a debate, and since it is made up of the views of various individuals it was decided that the speakers should remain anonymous. The paper was read on Tuesday last by Mr. G. S. Vickary. The views of the Scottish branch were edited by Mr. J. Cairns, the chairman, and he deals with the subject in the form of three short papers, followed by a summary of the debate and his own conclusions.
The first speaker, it appears, was not a transport administrator, but a legal expert in traffic law. He said that it is interesting and important to consider the co-ordination achieved in connection with passenger transport. Prior to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, there was almost a state of chaos in the road passenger transport industry, and coordination has certainly shown good results in preventing the dangerous and wasteful competition of the past. Difficulties in regard to co-ordination of goods services are many, but it 18 obvious that the speed and flexibility of the commercial vehicle compels its retention as a transport unit.
Recent Acts of Parliament have produced improvements in respect of hours of driving, conditions of vehicles, fixing of wages, etc., and progress is being made locally throughout the country with a view to adjusting rates. The last
is, perhaps, the most difficult of all the many problems. On the subject of railway rates, the speaker suggested that an open 'subsidy .would be of value to the railway companies. He asked whether it would be possible to fix a radius within which all goods must move by road, and outside of which all goods must move by rail. He also went a step farther, and asked whether it would be possible to decide that certain classes of goods should go by road or by rail, regardless of distance.
His personal feeling was that the ordinary man in the street has an uneasy feeling that we are drifting into an ambitious socialistic state where everything is carried out by the Government. There is a tendency, he suggested, for the legislator to go too fast and there is, in consequence, a great danger of co-ordination being pushed too hard, so that the benefits attached to efficient road transport are likely to be lost.
The second speaker in the debate put forward the railway point of view. It cannot be denied, he said, that the railways, run on an efficient basis, are essential to industrial well-being. At the same time, he recognized that road transport is also an essential feature of any national transport undertaking. He submitted that the ideal scheme of co-ordination was to dovetail the two methods of transport so that each performs the function which it is best fitted to undertake.
The Railways Step Towards Desired Goal.
The amalgamation of the railways into four group companies was a step towards co-ordination. It abolished unnecessary competition, but it cannot be said that it proved detrimental to public interest. Co-ordination of road and rail is merely another step in this direction. There is no good reason for the assumption that such a step would in any way injure industrial concerns or trade generally.
Co-ordination must of necessity, be a gradual process, said the speaker, and eventually it must lead to the reservation of long-distance and bulk transport to the rail, and short-distance transport and distribution from railheads to the road.
The third speaker was a director of the transport department of a manufacturer. He opened his remarks by quoting a well-known barrister's definition of co-ordination: "If you and I hold different views, I tie you up by argument
or give you a knock on the head, and thus force you to agree with my views,—that is co-ordination; but, if you succeed in giving me the treatment and compel me to act as you think, that is unfair pressure." If, said the speaker, he could be assured that the co-ordination aimed at was to be of the type that would bring out the best of both road and rail services, he would be in favour of the scheme.
He could not lose sight of the idea, however, that it is more likely to prove a form of coercion which will be an advantage to the railway companies and not to the haulier or trader. Few, if any, of the larger road-transport contractors are operating at a loss, and a perusal of the annual. reports of many companies shows that they can pay a, small dividend. Hence, it must be concluded that, generally speaking, the rates by road are fair, and that the bulk of road hauliers are maintaining regular conditions, hours and wages. The speaker claimed that traders utilize road transport for the reason that they find it to be both expeditious and efficient.
Free Choice of Transport Essential.
The time has come, he concluded, when traders must show that they will not be coerced into an agreement which will restrict the free and unshackled choice of transport. There is a place for both road and rail, and the users of transport must be the judges as to which method suits their needs for any particular work
Summing up the debate, Mr. Cairns said that there can be no question that the general opinion was that road transport should be given sufficient time to adapt itself to new legislation and new conditions. The industry is -daily achieving a stronger position, and it should not be stampeded. The views of the Scottish branch were definite as to the resentment felt against the agitation being worked up against C-licence holders_ If the transport industry is to be made the experimental industry for a gradual change to socialistic economics, then the Government should be frank about it, The co-ordination of transport under Government regulation and supervision may be found necessary, but it must be approached very cautiously. The public interest must be safeguarded, and it must be quite clear that it is in the interests of traders and citizens and not merely of any one section of transport, however powerful and important it may be.