-ROAD AND RAIL [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—Mr. E. T. Good does much less than justice to the report of Sir Arthur Salter's Road-Rail Conference. Sir Arthur and his eight colleagues were not asked to deal with road accidents or with road noises ; that is the business of Parliament. What they were asked to do was to suggest a fair basis of competition and division of function between rail and road transport for goods. This they have done admirably. Unanimity is some- times attained along the Channel of No -Meaning; in this case there is no evasion of difficulties, but a series of recom- mendations which might go straight into an Act of Parliament. Such a report implies fair-mindedness on both sides of the table, and much diplomatic skill on the part of the neutral chairman.
For years past I have argued, in the Spectator and elsewhere, that the apparent cheapness of road transport is due to the partiality shown by the Ministry of Transport, and to the subsidy which has been given to the road vehicles by the rate- payer. Now, when the heavy vehicles are asked for the first time to make a substantial, though not, I think, an adequate, contribution to the cost of our roads, we shall know how far road transport is cheap. I have always admitted that it is convenient, but convenience is something worth paying for.— I am, Sir, &c., J. E. ALLEN. 2 St. Peter's Terrace, Cambridge.
Previous page
