MR. CHURCHILL AND THE RAILWAYS [To the Editor of the
SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—May I be allowed to comment on Mr. K. M. Ashe's letter in your issue of February 20th ? As I see the case, it is this. The railways are public servants, limited in their divi- dends and under innumerable State imposed obligations. They pay 100 per cent. of the cost of their roads and their fares and rates must be framed to cover this. Commercial motor owners, on the other hand, to whom the modern expen- sive highway is as essential as rails to a locomotive, are allowed to ply for profit, taking such trarlz as they may choose to carry and paying in respect to ..Ich highways only 27 per cent. of the cost. The residue is found by the general body of ratepayers, among whom railways are large contributors. Surely there is no exaggeration in the statement that railways are thus as ratepayers subsidizing their competitors. If their action were voluntary it would certainly deserve to be described
is " quixotic." -
The fact that railways, at exceedingly low rates, carry the material to make the roads is really not relevant. If the 2'r per cent. contributed by road users could be increased to a reasonable proportion the grievance of the railways would be removed. In the United States road users are rightly boasting that they now contribute in motor licences, dre., 50 per cent. of the cost of the roads as a whole. In certain States their contributions reach 75 per cent. —I am, Sir, &c., Black Barn, Wokingham, Berks. B. F. Isms.
Previous page
