worthless ' owing to its utter confusion of econo mic cannot be
made to pay does not give a prima fa,c'! case, even on the strictest economic grounds, i°` and commercial criteria. In the same place, Sir 11;0, Harrod points out that 'the fact that a branch lin,' have expressed views. Dr. Balogh, on TV, point' misused technical term (e.g. 'marginal revenne'l' Professor Mishan in The Times (April 16) says thc. plan? The proper commentators are surely the Pro' fessional economists. To my knowledge only three out that all the economics in the report was the °du report 'as an economic document . . . is all b°1 Sta,—Which 'experts' have praised the Beeching closure.' You write (Spectator, May 3): 'If Dr. Beeching's proposals are carried out, they will stop a consider- able drain on the resources of the Exchequer.' It ig precisely this sort of monetarianism that bedevils the. whole British approach to planning. If the isolate Welshmen, Devonians and Highlanders become unemployed, what is the gain? If they are forced t° move house, won't the building and congestion costs outweigh the gains? West Germany, with roughly the same population, and area as the UK, has about the same length 0 (nationalised) railways, 50,000 miles, and prOpOSCS a considerable expansion in the next five years. Moral: charge road hauliers the real social costs of 101 congestion, and railways can compete fairly, n.111 provide the uncongested transport services essenna: to economic growth. Emoting about 'modernisation won't help. MICHAEL LIP°
Previous page
