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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
CO ORDINATION NOT SUBORDINATION 1.0.1. CONGRESS TOLD
Page 124
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TEN years ago the country was divided into two camps of coordination in transport, said Sir Reginald Wilson, deputy chairman and managing director of the Transport Holding Company, at the opening session of the Institute of Transport Congress in Harrogate on Wednesday. There was then a camp that believed in integration and the camp that believed in all-out
• competition. The public mind had moved a little in the direction of coordination since that time and away from • either of the two extremes. Probably, however, the greatest current factor was that of congestion. All were coming to the idea that coordination had to be accepted.
• There was a great deal of danger of flabbiness of thinking regarding co-ordination. The car was, so to speak, a sacred cow that was in danger of becoming a stalking horse. They did not want to think in terms of a blueprint for transport; if the problems of co-ordination were approached in those terms the whole conception was liableto be destroyed. Co-ordination meant bring parts into proper relationship and did not mean subordination of one section. It did imply that there was a general policy, a scheme which had to be set by some authority outside transport,
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Change must not become impossible and they must keep as much freedom as practicable for the operator and freedom of choice for the customer. This meant that the customer would influence the situation to a considerable degree. Transport represented 15 per cent of all -ordinary life. The change in transport was one of the chief agencies in that change which affected our living. Arrangements that were sensible today would not be sensible in a few years' time, so where there was regulation there must also be flexibility and free action.
At present there were five compelling reasons for co-ordination, said Sir Reginald. The first was to establish regular public services. Then there was the need to improve the structure of the industry where necessary and to lessen unhealthy competition or monopoly. They must avoid too much waste on new capital invested; they must improve cooperation in matters like time-tables, documentation and through transits; and they needed to deal with congestion.
The first reason was the strongest and so imperative that some protection was required. The last was much overplayed,. especially against the heavy lorry which represented less than 4 per cent of the total vehicle population. Today's world had to live with the private car. Chasing commercial vehicles off the road would not help.
a50 There was no scientific basis for coordination as dictator of the most economic use of transport. The decisive factor was that of customers' freedom. The corollary of allowing freedom to operators and customers was that the parties should be asked to pay the true cost and not some figure affected by subsidy, cross-subsidization or other distortion.
If there was a lack of responsibility among operators in fixing rates great damage could be done. Controlled ratefixing was difficult in British circum stances, but they should think about the matter of minimum charges.
They had to think of "general handicapping" such as track cost i and the fuel tax. Generally the subsidization was not very desirable but there were times when it was required. Things that were developing needed help but it was dangerous to assist things that were grown up.
Mr. G. Fernyhough, operating manager, London Transport Country Buses and Coaches, challenged the suggestion by Sir Reginald that co-ordination would not cure congestion. He wondered whether the American principle of park and ride would not have to be adopted here to cure congestion in city centres. And what, he asked, about rural bus services which are socially desirable but economically unjustifiable?
SirReginald said he did not agree with direct subsidies. He added: "It seems curious to me where you say you want to subsidize something when you have already taxed it into an uneconomic position." On restricting private motorists in city centres he commented "Park and drive has been a dismal failure in Boston. I think ". What was necessary was for the various forms of transport operating in an area to get together toprovide a co-ordinated service.
Mr. H. D. Bates, divisional superintendent (West), London Transport Central Buses, felt that while the heavy lorry was maybe only 4 per cent of the vehicle population it was the cause of much more than 4 per cent of congestion. Sir Reginald replied that he did not think the lorry was the cause of 4 per cent of the congestion—it was a marginal point.
THE PORTS OF GREAT BRITAIN The overall organization of the country's ports was discussed in detail in a paper presented to the conference yesterday (Thursday) by Viscount Rochdale. The matter, he said, fell under two quite simple headings. The first related to size: in other words, to the area over which a single port authority should exer cise control of port activities. Should there be the many independent medium and small ports as now, he asked, or should convenient groups of them ne merged into some really large authorities?
The 'second point concerned the freedom that any port authority, Whether large or small, should have to run its own .show without irritating statutory restrictions. Many • authorities were ,by no meani masters in their own homes.
In the past ports would come into existence to meet some Particular local need, which happened to be too far away. from any existing port that could otherwise provide the required service. .But "too far away" was no more than a relative term; it must depend on the inland facilities available for collection of goods for export, or for distribution of imports, and at the time that many ports were first started the only available form of inland transport was the horse.
THE FUTURE
Vital .facts for future development were:
(1) The high . cost of : building and operating modern ships, making their rapid turn-round in port more than ever important. .
(2) The striking operating economies to be achieved with really large bulk carriers.
(3) The consequent need for expensive specialized plant ashore for handling these commodities in bulk with adequate speed.
(4) The potential development of container traffic and large container ships.
(5) The need to handle really heavy unit loads of 100, 200 and perhaps 300 tons.
One had only to consider these and other factors to realize that some imaginative rethinking on a grand scale was urgently called • for, said Viscount Rochdale, with particular attention to first-class road and rail access inland.
What sanction was there to keep large port authorities honest so far as their charges went? In the first place he suggested that modern inland transport, road and rail, was so good . that there would be plenty of opportunity for interport competition. There was keen competition in certain traffics between Bristol and London, between South Wales and Liverpool, and again between the Forth and Clyde. Viscount Rochdale said he would prefer to take a more sanguine view of the sense of responsibility of the major port managements and believe that this would not prove to be a danger.
Statutory• port authorities were tightly controlled by their statutes, which sometimes involved subsequent difficulties that were hard to explain to the world at -large. For instance, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had no power to provide parking places for vehicles and to make charges for their use It took some 18 months and quite considerable cost for the board to be allowed to acquire this pcnVer,