ROAD AND RAIL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19308, 8 October 1932, Page 12

ROAD AND RAIL

TACKLING THE PROBLEM. The heads of the four big railway systems and four prominent representatives of goods transport by road, under the independent chairmanship of Sir Arthur Salter, have reached unanimous conclusions as to what would be a fair basis of competition and division of function between rail and road transport of goods, says the Manchester “Guardian” under date 17th August. The recommendations of the conference, which was appointed by Mr. Pybus, Minister of Transport, in April last, include:— Mechanically propelled vehicles should pay £60,000,000 a year toward the cost of the roads. Increased taxation for commercial vehicles, particularly of the heaviest types. Regulations under a licensing system regarding the conditions of employment by haulers and prohibition of unsuitable traffic on the roads. Classes of Vehicle. The report points out that there are how about 1,000,000 private motorcars, 627,000 motor-cycles, 364,000 goods motor vehicles, and 87,000 taxi-cabs, motor omnibuses, and coaches in Great Britain. The £60,000,000 to be contributed by the mechanically propelled vehicles is apportioea as follows: Commercial goods vehicles £23,500,000 All other types .. .. £36,500,000 The proposed yield from commercial goods vehicles is £2,500,000 more than at present received by way of licence and petrol duties. This sum, states the report, involves considerable increases in the contributions to be made by certain classes. Apart from this “balancing” taxation, the conference agreed that all motor goods vehicles should be required to have licenses which were conditional upon the observance of proper conditions as to fair wages and conditions for road transport workers, and the maintenance of the vehicles in a satisfactory condition. Heavy Vehicle Charges, The new schedule of licence duties which the conference recommends that commercial goods vehicles should pay shows some drastic increases. To quote showmen’s vehicles, the proposed duties for internal combustion vehicles over five tons unladen weight would be £SB for the solid-tyred variety and £47 for pneumatic tyres. The present rates are £3O and £24. For such vehicles exceeding 9 tons the proposed duties are £9B and £7B for solid and pneumatic tyres respectively, and there is another £l6 if these vehicles are used to draw a trailer. For agricultural vans and lorries, on the other hand, the proposed rates show a slight decrease on those now levied. Vehicles under two tons, for instance, would pay £l3, compared with the existing £2O. After three tons, however, the rate increases, and vehicles exceeding five tons would pay £43 (solid tyres) and £34 (pneumatics) against the present £25 and £2O. In the case of other goods vehicles the rates are raised as follows:—Fourton to five-ton vehicles, £54 and £43 to £9l and £73, solid and pneumatic respectively; five-ton, from £6O and £4B to £135 and £108; nine-ton, from £6O and £4B to £282 and £226. An additional duty of £4O (solid tyres) and £32 (pneumatic) is proposed for each additional ton in excess of ten tons. There is no addition at present. For non-petrol internal combustion engined vehicles the proposed rates are still higher, commencing at £ll4 (solid tyres) and £lO4 (pneumatic) for vehicles exceeding three tons to £3BB and £322 for vehicles exceeding nine tons, with an additional duty of £6O and £54 per ton over ten tons. The present rates a,re £4B and £3B for vehicles over three tons rising to only £6O and £4B at nine tons. Points from the Report. “Certain services of the railways essential in the last century are no longer indispensable, and it would be undesirable to attempt to divert traffic back from the road and deprive trade and industry of the convenience of the new form of transport.” “In its recommendations the conference can only offer an alleviation of one of those principal causes of loss by dealing with any existing unfairness in the incidence of highway costs and inadequacy of the regulations to protect the public and other users of the road against undesirable forms of road traffic by goods vehicles. “More than half the contributions made by the ov/ners of motor vehicles is now in the form of a 3d a gallon petrol duty. Steam, electric, and fuel oil vehicles entirely escape this duty.” This explains the apparent penalising of the non-petrol internal combustion engine as against the petrol engine. The conference agree that it was not in the national interest to encourage further diversion of heavy goods traffic from the railways to the roads, and added: “The fairer incidence of costs which we recommend will tend to make the result more economically sound, but we believe that the best division of function will be obtained mainly through the deliberate effort of those engaged in road and raii transport to co-ordinate their services and give the public the full advantages of complimentary service. The Petrol Tax. Among alternative systems considered by the conference was a proposal U> levy a duty of Is a gallon on petrol.

The conference, however, came to the conclusion that while petrol taxation is an excellent measure for varying use and wear of the roads by different vehicles of the same general weight and description it is a defective measure of varying use and wear by different classes of vehicles. The conference, however, considered the proportion of revenue to be obtained by means of the petrol duty -should remain as high as it is at present.