ROAD estates RAIL [To the Editor of the SPECTAT011.1 Sts,--As
there is so much discussion at the present about the problems of road and rail traffic I venture to suggest to you, Sir, that the country might be prepared to support a bold and comprehensive policy earried out on businesslike lines. Why could not the Ministry of Transport and the Road Fund form the basis of a corporation on some such lines as the Port of London Authority or the Electricity Commissioners 1' It would have transferred to it all the classified roads and railway tracks in the country and would issue to the owners, namely, the local councils and railway companies, shares in exchange. For revenue it would receive a licence duty on all road and rail traffic, and for further capital expenditure it could issue shares to the public on its bon security alone.
There Would be many difficulties to be removed before such a scheme as this could. be put into effect, but its advan- tages would be lasting, particularly to the four chief interests involVed, namely, the nation, the ratepayers, the railway companies and the motor owners. The nation would benefit by knowing that its roads and railways were being maintained and developed 011 a sound, businesslike and comprehensive basis. Further, it would be able to have a check on the cost and signify assent or otherwise for the policy pursued by its support of the issues of capital. The ratepayers would, benefit by having the liability of the upkeep of main roads- taken from them and also by receiving interest 011 the capital.already sunk, They would benefit in the future by being relieved of the burden of such schemes as the London North Orbital Road which, as Lord Salisbury has pointed out, is a burden on the Hertfordshire ratepayers for the benefit of London. • Schemes that had a direct local benefit, like the new Mersey tunnel, could be carried out with the help• of a grant from the local council. The railway companies would benefit by having the liability of maintaining their tracks removed and by receiving a certain amotmt of interest on the huge capital they have sunk in them. They would have, of 'Course, to pay the licence duty, but in every other way they.woutd be free to run their services as they thought best, and they would have the satisfaction of knoWing that road traffic was not being subsidized at the expense of the ratepayers. Motor owners would benefit by having the roads maintained in a good state of repair and developed and improVed on a large comprehensive plan to satisfy their requirements. They also would have the satisfaction of knowing that the licence duty was not being used to relieve the taxpayer. There would be the further general advantage that the scheme requires no large expenditure of money to put-into effect and no imposing of restrictions on individual liberty and private enterprise.—I am, Sir, &e..
Previous page
