Reasonable I Choice for Transport Users
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM OUR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
A BALANCED transport system with .1-1 proper priorities for investment, and a reasonable freedom of choice for the user.
That is the guts of the transport policy being speedily put together by the Conservative Party in time for the General Election.
Already, elaborate defences have been laid to justify Dr. Beeching's plans for vigorous pruning of the railways. Their losses, say the Conservatives, might well have topped £300 million a year by 1970 if nothing had been done.
They say it is nonsense to suggest, as Labour does, that profits from Staterestricted road haulage would make a big contribution to the railways' present losses.
Labour's "economic division of traffic between road and rail" means, they add, that industrialists and passengers would be forced to use rail instead of road, in spite of the fact that they often find this cheaper, faster and more reliable.
Since transport accounts for 10 per cent of total marketing costs, Socialist integration could be nationally ruinous is the Tory battle-cry.
" Both Labour and Liberals want penalties and restrictions on road transport in a futile attempt to stem the rising flood of vehicles, and at the same time they want to preserve an outdated railways systern. This is making the worst of both worlds.
"No part of the transport system can work in isolation—it must be fitted into a closely related whole, "But this is something very different from Socialist integration. Successful co-ordination is, in the words of Mr. Marples, when the reasonable needs of the consumer (including cost) can be satisfactorily met by one or more of the several parts of the system, on a competitive basic and without extravagant use of national resources