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 
letters
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
We welcome letters for publication on transport topics. Address them to Commercial Motor, Dorset House, Stamford Street, London SE1.
No BR surplus'
I was sorry to see that Janus in his weekly feature for June 11 accepted as true a state
ment by British Rail that they had achieved a "surplus-. By any sane system of accounting they have done no such thing.
Most of their recent capital expenditure is said to have been "written off" but this is not a concept that an economist can accept. In fact, the responsibility for interest and redemption of this debt has been transferred to the taxpayer. The annual interest on the debt thus transferred in the last decade alone would, at 8 per cent, be some £140 million and this should appear on the debit side of BR's accounts. In addition, there are the subsidies to passenger routes, which often amount to more than the total receipts from the passengers.
BR must be losing money on their railway operations at least as fast as for some years past, the rate was about £180 million a year if one does not credit profits from non-rail operations such as Channel ferries.
It seems to be in almost everyone's interest except that of the taxpayer, to hush up the problem of BR and to pretend that it does not exist. The only rational and logical solution is contained in the Douglass Report, "The Conversion of Railways into Roads", but most people have a mystical belief in the properties of railways, regardless of fact and even if they never use them. To question whether they are necessary is regarded as blasphemy.
It was, therefore, most welcome to see, during the past week. the British Road
Federation coming off the fence and stating publicly what they must long have known, that BR is very expensive and does very little.
ANGUS DALGLEISH, MA. MICE, MInstHE
Chertsey, Surrey.
GLC's motorway plans . . .
We were interested to read Janus (CM June 18) on the GLC's three-ring motorway network. This was a very fair review of the situation but we think that there are several points where the evidence put forward by the GLC and the BR F is very feeble.
No doubt the motorway can accommodate the numbers of buses that Professor Day outlined but as the motorways proposed in London do not go anywhere near the centres of shopping and industry it is manifestly a hypothetical figure. Does he envisage people queueing at the side of a motorway to get on the motorway bus?
The problem that has already emerged with urban motorways is the access to and from the motorway in the rush hours. With M5 and M6 at Walsall traffic queues back onto the motorway to get off onto local roads. One answer, of course, is to build more and more and more urban motorways but unless all roads including those through town centres are motorways, the access problem remains.
The only towns in which this circumstance prevails are custom-built towns such as Curnbernauld and the total character of that town is the opposite of that of an oldestablished city such as London.
The second point, which is not emphasizea, in the GLC's evidence, is that so vast an expenditure as is envisaged for the motorways will mean that there is no money whatsoever for any other road improvements in London. Indeed, the GLC has gone so far as to admit that even the current inadequate road improvement programme would be difficult to maintain while the motorways are being constructed. Thus, goods vehicle operators will find that the existing rush-hour congestion on the roads to factories, shops and warehouses will be as bad as it is at the moment. Probably because the motorways will attract more traffic to the roads of London the congestion on conventional roads will be worse. Overall journey times, even partly using the motorways will be as long as now if not longer.
There are many other reasons why we oppose the GLC's motorway plans but among others we do not believe they will benefit the capital's trade, so ably supported by the road haulage industry.
A. POMEROY,
Chairman, MotorwayAction Group, West Beckenham Residents' Association.
Effects of 0-licensing
As reports increase of the ill effects on the road haulage industry of the small operators who have taken advantage of the provisions for licensing in the Transport Act of 1968, it is right there should be thought on ways of alleviating any long-term damage.
One of the trade associations has been reported as saying that although recognizing current difficulties they were not going to panic. The National Guild of Transport Managers is not going to panic, either, but we do believe that serious consideration must be given to the problem now—not when it is too late!
Short of completely revising the system of issuing licences introduced three years ago(and there is little chance of the Government doing that) there seems little that can be done to control effectively the unethical activities of these "mushroom" operators. While they operate within the conditions of their licences, the law is powerless to impose any restriction.
However, we believe one thingcan be done by the Minister of Transport Industries to improve the situation.
He is currently considering what action, if any, to take on Section 65 of the Act— transport managers' licensing. If he makes the naming of an appropriately qualified transport manager a statutory prerequisite for granting an operator's licence, the undesirables will be removed without much difficulty; and if that qualification should be membership of a professional body (as proposed by the Guild) the behaviour of all types and sizes of transport concerns 'would be improved. because the manager on whom the licence depends would be governed by its professional code.
This, we believe, is a positive approach to a problem which is naturally of immense concern to everyone in the industry. We fervently hope, for all our sakes, that Mr Peyton will follow it by introducing legislation under Section 65 to counter this, and other, difficulties the 1968 Act has brought.
FRANK P. COULT, General Secretary, National Guild of Transport Managers.