RAILWAYS AND ROADS [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]
SIR,—Professor Plant's second article makes his plan clearer. The railway rates are to continue to be controlled and the road-haulier's rates to be free ; restrictive licensing of road- hauliers is to be ended ; there are still to be fees for them and other car-owners ; all such fees are to be spent on new and unproved roads ; when competition by the road-hauliers is well established everywhere the restrictions upon railway rates may be withdrawn ; ability to start a new service by road will be a sufficient protection against undue preference in rates by road-hauliers, but it will not be sufficientagainst the railways, whose rates in the transition period must be controlled.
This plan is likely to commend itself to many of the well- to-do'. They 'will approve' The expenditure of all fees upon new and improved roads, so that theY can arrive more quickly at work or play and contribUte nothing in respect of their cars to the expenses of the civil and military services. The shaking down of plaster, the inability to hang pictures on the walls of cottages, the constant danger to children—these will not disturb them. Though they will use the lesser roads, they will see no reason why any part of the fees should go towards main- taining such undignified tracks. Nothing but a curbed and banked speedway will be worthy of an appropriatiOn from that source-. Their combination with the road-hauliers, who are equally contemptuous of humble lives and properties, is formidable.
It is expected by Professor Plant that under this competition, unrestricted on the road, though restricted on the railways, rates will be " reduced towards the level of cost of carriage." The railway costs of carriage include (besides interest or dividend upon a large capital expenditure) the maintenance of their tracks, with life-saving arrangements of gates and fences, and the establishment of signallers. The road-hauliers start with little capital expenditure (centuries of public expendi- ture have prepared their tracks ); they are to share the cost of new and improved roads with the owners of cars of other kinds ; they are to pay nothing for old and unimproved roads though they will use and spoil them ; the police are to do their signalling and, with the help of private charity and municipal facilities, attend to their killed and wounded. From this system an " enormous benefit to industry " is expected. It is a sanguine and unsupported expectation. Damage to life and property is more clearly in the prospect. The attitude of the scheme towards the users of the roads (other than car-drivers) and towards the dwellers alongside the roads is the same as the attitude towards the railways. It will " not kill but will not strive officiously to keep alive."
Like Professor Plant I do not believe in co-ordination. Like him, also, I do not favour restrictive licensing. It may have been desirable to prevent congestion in certain places, but it was not wanted everywhere. I suggest an alternative policy of freedom ; that road policy be revised ; that vehicles be restricted in size and weight and be periodically inspected with reference to size, weight and safety ; that fees be raised ; that the attempt to run fast trains for goods and passengers on open roads be abandoned ; that hours of work and rates of wages be effectively controlled on the roads, with remembrance that an owner-worker may be a blackleg on the road, as well as in a shop or factory. Approximately equal conditions being established, with due regard to public safety, let road and rail compete. Each will have its advantages.—Yours faithfully,
Cade House, Heathfidd, Sussex. F. C. GATES.
Previous page
