All-round Opposition to the "Report"
Page 44
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Selection from the Many Letters and Official Statements Which We Have Received, Criticizing the Road and Rail Conference Report
Public Denied Advantages of Scientific Progress.
As a concern the business of.which is the building of vehicles for road transport, we read with amazement the recommendations of the Salter Conference. If the proposed taxes be imposed this cannot but result in the strangulation:of the road-transport inausry.
Road transport is now a definite factor in the commercial life of the country, and functions in a manner beneficial to the whole community, as it has definitely cheapened transport costs and provides facilities not given by the railways. We find that some of the taxes are increased up to as much as seven times the existing rates, which would render it impossible for the majority of firms to keep in business, the result being the throwing idle of many thousands of men.
The outstanding feature of the report is, from our point of view, the lack of vision shown in the almost vindictive attack made on the new compression-ignition or oil-engined lorry. Engineers have spent vast sums of money and gone to a great deal of trouble to produce this new type of engine, which opens up a future of cheaper transport, the benefits of which would be felt by the general public. In addition, companies such as our own have spent large sums of money to make their plant capable of producing such vehicles.. Surely it is the height of folly thus to penalize progress.
We consider the findings of this commiaee to be economically unsound and prejudicial to the best interests of the community. For FormNs, firm,
A. E. KYFEMT, General Manager.
Oil-engined Vehicles and the Report.
Although it is most probable, for many sound and commonsense reasons, that the huge increases in the licences for heavy lorries now proposed by the Salter Conference will never be made into law, it is, nevertheless, highly interesting to look into the figures and see how the oil-engined vehicle would fare, as compared with the petrol machine.
For this purpose I have taken the three most popular sizes of lorry in the heavy class, i.e., (1) unladen weight of 4 to 5 tons ; (2) unladen weight of 5 to 6 tons; (3) unladen weight of 6 to 7 tons.
I have assumed that the price of petrol to this class of client is is. Id. per gallon, and that of gas oil 4icl. per gallon. As a matter of fact, gas oil can be bought at a shade -under 4d. per gallon on a contract basis. Also, it is generally agreed that the price of petrol is likely to be raised. Also I have only taken figures of pneumatic-tyred vehicles, and that each machine runs an average of 25,000 miles per year, which is, I think, a fair figure. The results are highly favourable to the oil-enginecl vehicle, the advantage being from 33 per cent. to 42 per cent.
Unladen weight.
Petrol-engined New licence Fuel cost Fuel plus vehicle. proposed. per year. tax.
4-5 tons 134 28 162 5-6 tons 188 21 219
6-7 tons ... ... 214 34 248
Thus the actual clear saving is as follows :—
4-5-ton class, £119 per annum.
5-6-ton class, £114 per annum.
6-7-ton class, £123 per annum.
B26 Representing an advantage of 42 per cent., 34 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively. This means that the advantage in pence per mile is as follows :—L4-5 ton class 1.14d.; 5-6-ton class, 1.094d.; 6-7-ton class, 1.18d.
By employing a four-wheeler of the 4-5-ton class with a trailer, which has a tax of only £16 under the new proposals, and an oil engine, one can carry a load of 8 to 9 tons or even 10 tons for a licence of £150 and a fuel cost of little more than £30 per year's run of 25,000 miles, whereas with a petrol (single unit) vehicle for a similar load, the yearly cost would be over £400, i.e., more than double. W. EL GODDARD, Sole agent in Yorkshire and Lancashire for Gardner heavy oil-engines for road vehicles.
Use of Lighter Vehicles Means More Road Congestion.
I have worked out in the following table the relative overhead costs, which will apply if the Road-Rail Conference Report is adopted on the unladen weight of the lighter lorries (under 2i. tons), the ordinary 4-tonner and the articulated six-wheeler.
I am aware that each of these figures can be juggled with considerably, but, in my opinion, it does not matter how much they are altered, the result must be to make the transport of the light vehicles the cheapest class of transport, no matter what weight is carried. The result will be that the roads will be much more congested and much more dangerous, as the majority of these light vehicles will be driven by youths under 21, which is not allowed in the case of
heavier machines. R. E. BRAITHWAITE, Secretary,
Child and Pullin, Ltd.
Wholehearted Rejection by Mr. Walter Gammons.
Prior-to the issue of the Road-Rail Report, varying views were expressed as to the real objective of the Conference. For example, the R.H.A. memorandum stated that the Conference "was exploring the possibilities of better relationship between road and rail transport for the benefit of the
nation." Doubtless that view was justified by the terms of reference, but my own view, many times expressed, was quite different from that general belief, for obviously the last people even competent to decide what the nation preferred to buy were people necessarily biased by reason of their selling competitive commodities.
Doubtless this Conference has proved an ideal expedient for the Minister of Transport, but, oh! what a tragte farce from the public point of view. It cannot be gainsaid that the inefficiency of our railways has been and still is a byword, for, apart from the books the historian could admittedly write on railway delinquency, we have had sufficient illustration from the railways themselves of frantic reforms during the past five years for posterity to affirm the railways' guilt of practically a century's ignominy. Yet the railway authorities were appointed to adjudicate (ostensibly) in respect to the nation's requirements, and road transport in particular. What a subtle movement throughout! Even the man in the street realizes that it is road transport which has taught the railways "transport." How utterly absurd to appoint railway authorities to reform road transport when the railway structure itself is tottering through inefficiency. I venture to suggest that if Lord Bridgeman were to conduct an inquiry into the railway held, the severe indictment which he has issued about the G.P.O. would appear mild by comparison with what he would pronounce in respect of the railways, and I almost think he would abolish the Ministry of Transport, for I consider it to be nothing more nor less than a Ministry of Railways.
It almost seems to be overlooked that the Conference was called as a direct result of railway demands for further penalties on road transport, and that obviously nothing less could or would satisfy the railways.
I am concerning myself mainly with the principle involved In the absurd proposal to sacrifice road to rail rather than with the effect of the various proposals. To my mind, the report represents a carefully thought-out scheme, which, regarded as a whole, makes a definite advance towards the complete annihilation of road transport. Railway " coordination " means confiscation, plus nationalization.
However staggering the proposals are in respect to taxation, etc., I consider them trifling to those for licensing and regulation and division of function, for it is these which sound the death-knell of road transport. Time and time again I have proved that railway " regulations " mean embargoes; indeed, that is common knowledge!
In support of my contention, I would affirm that, licensing and regulation apart, the exact benefits the railways could get from the scheme would be quite negligible! Admittedly, if the suggested iniquitous taxation were enforced it would have to be met by increased road-carriage rates, which, in theory, would drive the traffic to the rails, but certainly not in practice, any more than previous onslaughts have done. Rates have always proved to be subservient to the many other consilerations.
is it not a fact that the net result of all previous rates and taxation attacks on road transport have proved utterly futile in the railway interests, and have resulted in other industries being taxed? Can we not anticipate similar results? Of course we can ; the railways are simply " kicking against the pricks" ; even they cannot kill science.
Even the report says "the advent of the internal-combustion engine as an economic and social factor of importance is a phenomenon of this century, and the present generation. These new vehicles have transformed the economic and social life of the country. They give facilities of transport never before enjoyed by trade and industry ; they have brought into existence new communities attached to the roads, etc." How splendid! I have preached that same sermon for at least 20 years!
But, unfortunately, evil or seeming evil often accompanies good, and for the great crime of which road transport is guilty we must again refer to "Salter, page 8 and verse.15," which reads: " But while the new facilites have resulted in additional transport and travel, they have also diverted much existing traffic from the railways.'
Therein lies the sin unpardonable, aespite the fact that verse 28 reads: "It must in fairness be admitted that the present situation of the railways is in part due to the fact that for many classes of traffic the motor vehicle is both more convenient and essentially more economical than the railways." In other words, the quality of road transport is indisputable, even by the railways.
I purposely stress these points because, as they appear in the first part of the report, they are apt to be overlooked. Moreover, the R.H.A. and better pens than mine can show how the criminal will be killed piecemeal.
Notone ounce of traffic has been robbed from the rail ways; a high. percentage of roadborne traffic is due to natural evolution, ana the scientist's laboratory, and the remainder because the railways threw it away.
The report is railway intrigue from A to Z, and contains ample material effectively to cripple road transport "for reward." If the public acceptsit, it vrill burn its boats, and will deserve the railway tyranny which will follow as a necessary corollary, and posterity will adjudge it as having been guilty of a reprehensible betrayal of trust. It was indeed comforting to observe the prompt action of the R.H.A. and such stalwarts as Mr. R. Hood Barrs in advancing to the front line of defence.
Warirna GAMMONS, Managing Director. For WALTER GAMMONS, LTD.,
A Criticism of the Unladen Weight Basis.
It is not quite clear why the members of the Salter Conference assume, as they appear to do, that a total 12-ton load carried on the wheels of a vehicle designed by the makers to carry four tons should do less damage to the roads than a vehicle designed to carry six tons, when the laden weight of the latter also is only 12 tons. In the case of the petrol pneumatic-tyred wagon the penalty varies in the proportion of £51 to £108.
It would appear more reasonable, therefore, that all vehicles should be restricted to carry not more than one and one-fifth time the tare on which the owner pays tax.
That is to say that a 2-tonner, tared and licensed as such, would be allowed to carry a maximum load of 2 tons 8 cwt., making a total permissible laden weight of 4 tons 8 cwt. Any owner found having a greater laden weight than that for which he has a licence should, after two convictions, be made to pay the difference between the rates of tax.
The proposals of the Salter Conference encourage the overloading of light vehicles and the use of light vehicles drawing trailers, for which purpose they were never designed. STANLEY PARKES.
Why Did the Road-transport Representatives Agree?
It is astonishing and regrettable to find that the members representing the road-transport industry have utterly failed. to defend its interest and stability. Railways cannot offer the commodities of road transport, with its door-to-door delivery and promptitude. Commerce must be left to select its own requirements regarding transport and its convenience. Its liberties must be left unimpaired.
Railway travelling is uninteresting, clumsy and dilatory, and no improvement has been made to meet the forward move of road transport. In many cities the latter has displaced trams and no inquiry has been held to ascertain why its superiority has succeeded. This report is not one on road adminstration, but is On the competition of transport, which is outside the province of any known law. The report is vicious against the legitimate use of the nation's highways, and it is difficult to reconcile oneself to the action of the representatives of the road-transport industry.
LALONDE BROS. AND PARHAM,
How Electric Vehicles are Affected.
With regard to the recommendations of the Salter Conference, we desire to draw attention to the heavy burden which, it is suggested, the electric-vehicle industry should carry because of the rail-versus-road controversy.
Whatever may be the merits or otherwise of the suggested increased tax on other forms of road transport, the batteryelectric vehicle should be excluded from further taxation, because of two very important factors, namely :--•
(1) Mileage is strictly limited, and the sphere of operation is confined to "home areas," and there is, therefore, no competition with rail transport.
(2) Speed is comparatively slow and acceleration and braking so smooth that road wear and tear is quite negligible.
The combination of these two factors places the electric vehicle in a special category similar to horse-drawn traffic, and the recommended taxation would certainly retard progress in the development of the electric vehicle. Surely the Government realizes that because electricity is obtained with a home-produced fuel, the electric-vehicle industry needs all the encouragement it can give, and not the kind of discouragement which is now proposed. H. Itty, Birmingham Manager, General Vehicle Co., Ltd.
R.H.A. Statement Now Being Prepared.
No time is being lost by this Association in getting down to practical investigations of the report. On Tuesday of last week the special committee appointed by the Council of the Association met and commenced its examination in detail of the recommendations. The committee has allocated certain parts of the report to each of its members and will meet frequently.
A final statement will be prepared for submission to the Connell at an early date, which will be eventually presented to the Minister of Transport, in response to his invitation.
A letter has been forwarded to all trade organizations interested in transport, from which it is hoped some concerted action may eventually be decided upon.
S.M.M. and T. Finds Report Unacceptable.
On behalf of the manufacturers of motor vehicles and accessories and components who were not represented on the Road-Rail Conference, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd., says that it has been officially requested by the Minister of Transport to submit its criticisms by September 30th. An official statement received from Mr. D. C. McLagan, the secietary, records that neither the basis of the report nor its details are acceptable to the membere. The assumptions in certain of the newspapers that failing such discussion the report must be accepted as agreed is, therefore, premature and injurious to the motor industry.
C.M.U.A. Does Not Stand by the Report.
A. special meeting of the National Council of the Commercial Meter Users Association, attended by representative members, was held in London on August 22nd to consider the report and recommendations of the Conference.
The following resolutions were adopted :— (1) The National Council of the Commercial Motor Users Association does not accept Part II of the report of the Conference on Rail and Road Traneport, dealing with the incidence of highway costs, because :— (a) It does not agree with the assumptions upon which this part of the report is based; and
(b) It does not agree that the distribution, over the various classes and types of vehicle, a any annual amount which may prove to be properly payable by motor transport is equitable as shown in the report.
(2) The National Council, whilst supporting the principle that commercial motor vehicles should be maintained in a satisfactory state of mechanical fitness, and that drivers should be in receipt of adeqtrate wages and work under pr6per conditions of service, does not support the special system of licensing and control recommended in Part III of the report.
A. special committee has been appointed to prepare a considered answer dealing with the various assumptions for presentation to an adjourned meeting of the National Council.
The L.G.O. Co.: "The Report Fails."
The view of the Underground Railway group of companies, including the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., is that the report is to be judged by its application to practical issues. For example, the statement reads, in Appendix E there are proposals for the increase of taxation on motorbuses. A Standard 60-seater double-deck London bus now pays in taxation roundly £370 per annum. The Salter report suggests that this should be raised to 1555, an increase of £185 or 50 per cent. Already the amount paid in taxation amounts to 121 per cent, of the gross receipts. If the Salter Conference had its way it would be 20 per cent, or about 12,250,000 per annum, equivalent to the entire earnings of the London buses for 10 weeks, and representing a charge of 3d. per mile, which grossly exaggerates the cost of maintaining and repairing streets and roads for their use.
If the report be examined it is found to be based upon a series of assumptions with regard to the distribution of road costs, for which neither proof nor evidence is given, and then a series of arithmetical exercises, printed at length over 36 pages, which have as little relation to practical facts and experience as the arithmetical exercises of a class of schoolboys.
It -is worth while looking at the arbitrary assumptions upon which the report is founded. In the first place it is assumed that the whole costs of the roads for the future should fall upon motor users, so that if a new road be made the capital cost must be met in full out of the taxation of road motor traffic, yet a new road would only open up country for development. At first the traffic will be light. Those who profit by its construction will be the landowners. They will be able to sell their land. at enhanced prices. The rateable value of the property will multiply. Ordinarily, by rates levied upon this rateable value, the cost of the road would be appropriately borne. The benefit and the burden would run together to some extent.
The effect of the recommendation of the Salter Conference must be that no new roads will be constructed, for why should road traffic initiate a burden upon itself—and presumably it would have a voice in the changed circumstances —when others will secure the gain by increased land values and rateable values?
The truth is the assumptions underlying the report will not bear analysis and with their failure the report fails. The Conference blinded itself to the broader economic issues by seeking to cripple the employment of the larger vehicles upon the roads. The members saw only the narrow problem before them.
"A Report Lacking Authority," says the R.I.A.
The Roads Improvement Association, in a letter over the name of its chairinan, Mr. Rees Jeffreys, says that a final judgment upon the report is not possible until it has been discussed fully in the National Council. In the meantime, it may be pointed out that the Joint Committee of Railevay Managers and representatives of a section of commercial road users has attempted, in Part II of its report, under the title of "Incidence of Highway Costs," to lay down the, principle of highway taxation, to fix the annual sum which is properly to be allocated to Mechanically propelled vehicles, and to distribute it as between the different classes. This was a task for which it was not qualified.
The incidence of highway costs in this country is bound up intimately with local government. The recognized custodians of that knowledge and experience are the Ministry of Health (representing the Central Government), the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations (representing the local authorities), the Roads Improvement Association (representing all classes of road user), the Central Landowners Association (the landowners), and the Associated Chambers of Commerce (the commercial community). These are the bodies which, over the past 40 years, have collected information, interpreted history and practiee, and advised many royal commissions and select and departmental committees on issues affecting highway administration and finance. In more recent years the motor manufacturers have set up a statistical department to collect, study and circulete information as to the reads and their use; and other organizations of motor users are taking increasing interest in road fiance.
On the other hand, the joint committee has omitted to publish information within its competence. The committee lays down as a principle (para. 44) that the cost of the roads should be distributed according to an estimate of the use enjoyed and wear and tear caused by different categories of users. What use is made of the roads by the railway companies, and what is their contribution to their cost? On this issue the report is silent. Why? Obviously the joint committee was better qualified to deal with this question than with the contribution of owners of hackney vehicles and motorcyclists.
Perhaps the reason is that the railway companies are today the most privileged users of. the road. The information in the possession of the Roads Improvement Association shows that, having regard to the expenditure incurred on their behalf, the damage they have done to the roads, and the benefits they receive from them, the railway companies are escaping their just contribution towards highway costs.
This accommodation report of unequally matched competing commercial interests, bath primarily concerned to protect those interests, is clearly one that cannot be accepted as a basis for legislation. The report demands consideration by an informed committee representative of those larger national interests for whose service transport exists,
The A.A. Against Heavy Taxation.
In the opinion of the Automobile Association the report is ambiguous and highly complicated. The Association is opposed to the suggestion that motor taxation should be stabilized at the cost of the roads, now estimated at £60,000,000. The acceptance of this principle would, it says, preclude the possibility of any reduction in motor taxation. The recommendations of the Conference involve a scheme for the revised taxation of all classes of motor vehicle. This iseebvionsly unfair to the interests which were not consulted.